(October 17, 2014 at 8:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 17, 2014 at 5:43 pm)Brian37 Wrote: If you don't know when personhoood happens then SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Enlighten me then. When does personhood happen? Otherwise reveal yourself as the hypocritical asshole you appear to be.

You certainly don't know, as demonstrated by your 'proof' of 'basic biology' for the start of life.

(October 17, 2014 at 8:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 17, 2014 at 5:43 pm)Brian37 Wrote: If you don't know when personhoood happens then SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Enlighten me then. When does personhood happen? Otherwise reveal yourself as the hypocritical asshole you appear to be.

Actually, personhood happens when the law says it does. Historically, that is at birth.
However, with modern scientific knowledge of embryology and with modern medical practice, a good argument can be made for
personhood occurring when the fetus becomes viable outside the womb either with or without medical intervention.
This is typically around 7 1/2 months, and is certainly no earlier than the development of the brain and nervous system.

(October 17, 2014 at 9:14 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(October 17, 2014 at 8:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Enlighten me then. When does personhood happen? Otherwise reveal yourself as the hypocritical asshole you appear to be.

You certainly don't know, as demonstrated by your 'proof' of 'basic biology' for the start of life.

No one was saying that a sperm is a complete person. I am saying that sperm is alive.

It still amounts to the pro lifers sticking their fucking noses in where it does not belong.

(October 17, 2014 at 9:35 pm)Chas Wrote: Actually, personhood happens when the law says it does. Historically, that is at birth.

-and even then, we often don't have the full reach of legal personhood. Even after a child is born it takes many years before that limited personhood becomes meaningful (IE, before they or an advocate can refer to their legal personhood to invoke a full range of rights). Even after that milestone is reached (the transition from minor to adult) those rights based in or conferred by legal personhood are still not absolute. They are as conditional as they had ever been - as evidenced by the fact that we can and do remove the property of persons, imprison persons, execute persons, etc. Similarly, we cannot always side with two persons simultaneously in a conflict of rights/interests even when those provisions of personhood -do- apply, though we may very well side with neither.

Just as added info...and as a way of fleshing out why "because unborn children are people" doesn't work as an argument against abortion. They aren't, and even if they were, so what? You'll need more. For example, if we did decide to classify unborn children as having legal personhood, we would still need to address why their legal personhood should be given deference over the mothers legal personhood and all rights and protections that it confers her. At the very best, I could imagine a compelling argument for regulation might be made (most states have trigger laws on late terms, at present, afaik), but not prohibition.

@Chas
I think that even if we referred to when the child were able to be extracted from the womb we'd still have to deal with the nasty bit of sentencing a woman to at least 7 and a half months of pregnancy. It would be an exception, for sure, because we generally don't charge one "person" with a crime for failing or refusing to put their own life and limb down in service of ensuring the life of another "person". I'd say that if the state wanted to force (or attempt to force) her to carry, they'd have to compensate - at the least. If we just set a bar against late terms some sort of compensation would still be in order. She shouldn't have to foot the bill for delivery and childcare, for example - and obviously we'd have to be willing to absorb alot more wards of the state...and properly fund those programs as well. Otherwise we're saying something like: "We're going to force you to accept the risk and deliver this child, lay the bill on you, then neglect the child that we forced you to have in the first place." The puppy mill approach to reproductive policy...lol. I know that's not what you're proposing, I'm just thinking out loud. Something tells me that the pro-life crowd would just let it rest at sentencing a woman to pregnancy and motherhood. The irony here is thick, because that would seem alot, to me, like impregnating a girl and then washing your hands "hey, whatever the consequences of the load I just blew are- they're all on you sweetheart. I did what I came to do".

Once again, there is no debate here, there are simply bleeding heart morons who want to push a utopia that will never exist.

Pro choice advocates DO NOT go door to door and say "FUCK so you can get pregnant just to have an abortion and throw a party over it"

You outlaw it and you will simply make things worse on girls and women and hurt society economically as well.

The best thing and only reasonable thing we can do is regulate it and keep it safe.

SO PLEASE PRO BIRTHERS SHUT THE FUCK UP AND MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS.

(October 18, 2014 at 7:41 am)Brian37 Wrote: Once again, there is no debate here...

Obviously others who are engaged in actual discussion disagree. Why not just let them hash it out civilly if you believe there is no debate? Posting random outbursts of rage serves no purpose and doesn't advances the discussion in any way.

(October 18, 2014 at 7:59 am)Dolorian Wrote:

(October 18, 2014 at 7:41 am)Brian37 Wrote: Once again, there is no debate here...

Obviously others who are engaged in actual discussion disagree. Why not just let them hash it out civilly if you believe there is no debate? Posting random outbursts of rage serves no purpose and doesn't advances the discussion in any way.

Lets not confuse issues here.

One is opinion and the other is fact.

Outlawing abortion will hurt society. To argue otherwise is bullshit. The only reasonable thing that can be done to REDUCE it is to have an educated society with livable wages, and to make the environment safe when it is done.

The morality police are idiots.

(October 18, 2014 at 7:33 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(October 17, 2014 at 9:35 pm)Chas Wrote: Actually, personhood happens when the law says it does. Historically, that is at birth.

-and even then, we often don't have the full reach of legal personhood. Even after a child is born it takes many years before that limited personhood becomes meaningful (IE, before they or an advocate can refer to their legal personhood to invoke a full range of rights). Even after that milestone is reached (the transition from minor to adult) those rights based in or conferred by legal personhood are still not absolute. They are as conditional as they had ever been - as evidenced by the fact that we can and do remove the property of persons, imprison persons, execute persons, etc. Similarly, we cannot always side with two persons simultaneously in a conflict of rights/interests even when those provisions of personhood -do- apply, though we may very well side with neither.

Just as added info...and as a way of fleshing out why "because unborn children are people" doesn't work as an argument against abortion. They aren't, and even if they were, so what? You'll need more. For example, if we did decide to classify unborn children as having legal personhood, we would still need to address why their legal personhood should be given deference over the mothers legal personhood and all rights and protections that it confers her. At the very best, I could imagine a compelling argument for regulation might be made (most states have trigger laws on late terms, at present, afaik), but not prohibition.

@Chas
I think that even if we referred to when the child were able to be extracted from the womb we'd still have to deal with the nasty bit of sentencing a woman to at least 7 and a half months of pregnancy. It would be an exception, for sure, because we generally don't charge one "person" with a crime for failing or refusing to put their own life and limb down in service of ensuring the life of another "person". I'd say that if the state wanted to force (or attempt to force) her to carry, they'd have to compensate - at the least. If we just set a bar against late terms some sort of compensation would still be in order. She shouldn't have to foot the bill for delivery and childcare, for example - and obviously we'd have to be willing to absorb alot more wards of the state...and properly fund those programs as well. Otherwise we're saying something like: "We're going to force you to accept the risk and deliver this child, lay the bill on you, then neglect the child that we forced you to have in the first place." The puppy mill approach to reproductive policy...lol. I know that's not what you're proposing, I'm just thinking out loud. Something tells me that the pro-life crowd would just let it rest at sentencing a woman to pregnancy and motherhood. The irony here is thick, because that would seem alot, to me, like impregnating a girl and then washing your hands "hey, whatever the consequences of the load I just blew are- they're all on you sweetheart. I did what I came to do".

I don't quite understand why that paragraph is addressed to me.

Sentencing? Compensation? I have no idea why you think I have even discussed those.

I am pro-choice, but it seems there comes a point when the fetus can be considered a person and that complicates things.

The only arguments I have made are that the question of personhood is key and that we should have a rational basis for making a legal definition for it. I have proposed possible answers.

Only insomuch as it's a continuance from where you left off at personhood, and the further complications that may arise even if personhood were extended. As I said in the post, I know you didn't propose any of that.

Sometimes it seems like the side arguing for personhood thinks that if they accomplish that one little bit the rest will fall into line. I was merely elaborating upon all of the hurdles the pro-life side will have to clear -even if- the personhood bit were granted, and perhaps -especially- if they chose the route of personhood in argument. The last bit, after @Chas was more directly in line with your comment. I agree that an argument for personhood might be made, and this this complicates things. I think it complicates things in many ways for a pro-life argument that may not immediately jump out -in addition- to how it might complicate a pro-choice argument.

(I can have this convo with you, or some dickhead looking to sentence a woman to carry to term....I'm sure you understand why I'd rather have it with you...lol)

The other issue these pro birth idiots don't think about if personhood is determined by fertilization, then anchor zygotes would constitute citizenship. Cant deport a legal citizen.