Issues other than abortion

[Vonsalza]

I once read about a case in Virginia about 10 years ago where a woman gave birth and then smothered her unwanted newborn child with a pillow. The judge acquitted her of infanticide, saying that what she did was no different from a late-term abortion because the umbilical cord was still attached.

So it seems that defining personhood starting at birth is not at all clear cut. Does the child have to be detached from the woman to be considered a “person” even when it is living and breathing outside of the womb?

That’s the inherent problem with drawing necessary lines.

Someone inevitably pushes them.

Tragic story.

 

[Elf01]

Tragic story.

Why - or why more tragic than an abortion? You state

I think that given all the shades of grey and all the concerns, the best time to consider a developing homo sapien as a Person Deserving Full Protection of the Law is birth.

BIRTH. The act of being wholly brought into the world. The whole body must be detached from that of the mother, in order to make the birth complete. 5 C. & P. 329; S. C. 24 E. C. L. R. 344 6 C. & P. 349; S. C. 25 E. C. L. R. 433.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/birth

By that definition I don’t think that child was born.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Tragic story.

Why - or why more tragic than an abortion? You state

They’re both tragic…

By that definition I don’t think that child was born.

No, it wasn’t per the laws of Virginia.

She got as close to the line as you can get, to the disgust of all involved - I assure you.

 

[Elf01]

She got as close to the line as you can get, to the disgust of all involved - I assure you.

I really don’t know why it would disgust you. After all it was her body, and the baby was still attached. Or are you admitting that a woman does not have a complete right to bodily autonomy?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

She got as close to the line as you can get, to the disgust of all involved - I assure you.

I really don’t know why it would disgust you. After all it was her body, and the baby was still attached. Or are you admitting that a woman does not have a complete right to bodily autonomy?

No, she indubitably does have the right of full control over her body.

That doesn’t mean it’s not a tragedy. Any abortion is. I posted that 700 posts ago when I chimed in and several times in the interim.

 

[Elf01]

No, she indubitably does have the right of full control over her body.

Yeah, we’re getting somewhere.

Just to add, with the change to the law in New York and (I believe) being considered in other states this type of situation will become more common.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

No, she indubitably does have the right of full control over her body.

Yeah, we’re getting somewhere.

Just to add, with the change to the law in New York and (I believe) being considered in other states this type of situation will become more common.

No it won’t. Not appreciably.

Late term abortion has always been rare since records were being kept. It’s rare in countries that have no abortion restrictions.

Most women who have one do it within weeks of detecting they’re pregnant.

 

[Elf01]

Late term abortion has always been rare since records were being kept. It’s rare in countries that have no abortion restrictions.

What percentage of abortions are too low to be relevant in your opinion?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Late term abortion has always been rare since records were being kept. It’s rare in countries that have no abortion restrictions.

What percentage of abortions are too low to be relevant in your opinion?

As I find that question kinda meaningless, I’ll just cite that abortions in the US that occur after 21 weeks seems to be 1.3%

 

[Sbee0]

Interesting to see a major shift in the USA on abortion views in just the last month alone (Marist poll)

Jan 2019: 55% pro choice, 38% pro life
Feb 2019: 47% pro choice, 47% pro life.

Jan 2019: 65% say abortion should be limited to the first 3 months of pregnancy
Feb 2019: 80%

Jan 2019: 28% of Americans under 45 are pro life
Feb 2019: 47%

Could be an anomaly I guess but it’s the same polling company who I’m sure used the same methods to take each sample in each month so it does look legit. If so, I wonder what caused this shift in such a short period of time?

 

[Sbee0]

Miscarriages contained unique DNA, yet most don’t consider those events to be the death of a person.

Miscarriage =/= a deliberate abortion.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Miscarriages contained unique DNA, yet most don’t consider those events to be the death of a person.

Miscarriage =/= a deliberate abortion.

You’re right.

The point there was that neither involve the death of what greater society considers a “person”.

 

[JimG]

Biologically, we know that the woman and unborn child are distinct human beings.

Personhood is not a biological concept; it is a legal or philosophical concept. My own view is that every human being is endowed with the aspect of personhood; it will be expressed in increasingly obvious ways during development.

Professor Singer of Princeton has already proposed that legal personhood not be bestowed automatically on newborns, but rather be delayed for several months, giving new parents a chance to change their mind about having and raising a child.

It is of course entirely arbitrary. We could declare human beings to be persons at age 5 or age 12. Whether we allow them to be killed at age 12 or at 6 months post birth or before birth, we are still talking about killing a human individual.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Vonsalza:

Miscarriages contained unique DNA, yet most don’t consider those events to be the death of a person.

Miscarriage =/= a deliberate abortion.

You’re right.

The point there was that neither involve the death of what greater society considers a “person”.

And that’s the problem with using a philosophical concept of “personhood” as a marker to determine whether the unborn has the right to life like a born person. It can’t be done, at least not objectively.

Thinking otherwise leads to such things our country is much better off without, such as the Three-Fifths clause in our Constitution. Technically, that too defined who a person was under our law as is being done now in this debate.

There is no way to objectively make this determination and therefore the best way to solve it is to say yes, even the unborn is a human person right from the very beginning, at conception.

 

[Vonsalza]

Biologically, we know that the woman and unborn child are distinct human beings.

That’s not what’s under debate.

When is a fetus enough of a “person” where its right to life overrides the bodily autonomy of the mother?

The answer is “birth”.

Personhood is not a biological concept; it is a legal or philosophical concept. My own view is that every human being is endowed with the aspect of personhood; it will be expressed in increasingly obvious ways during development.

Amen, Jim. What were trying to solve is a conflict between the very real personhood of the mother against the supposed personhood of the fetus.

Professor Singer of Princeton has already proposed that legal personhood not be bestowed automatically on newborns, but rather be delayed for several months, giving new parents a chance to change their mind about having and raising a child.

Sure. There’s always all kinds of crazy in the world.

 

[Elf01]

When is a fetus enough of a “person” where its right to life overrides the bodily autonomy of the mother?

The answer is “birth”.

Out of interest are you OK with partial birth abortion or sex selective abortion (a woman may not want to give up her body because the baby is a girl/a boy)?

 

[Vonsalza]

And that’s the problem with using a philosophical concept of “personhood” as a marker to determine whether the unborn has the right to life like a born person. It can’t be done, at least not objectively.

I think you’re exactly right!

As such, we let the mother choose.

Thinking otherwise leads to such things our country is much better off without, such as the Three-Fifths clause in our Constitution. Technically, that too defined who a person was under our law as is being done now in this debate.

The main difference being that slaves were people who were capable of autonomy and self-determination. Not so for a fetus. So when it conflicts with the will of the mother, the mother gets to choose.

There is no way to objectively make this determination and therefore the best way to solve it is to say yes, even the unborn is a human person right from the very beginning, at conception.

No, because that literally enslaves women.

The best choice in the face of uncertainty is to let the woman choose because we know she’s a person.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

When is a fetus enough of a “person” where its right to life overrides the bodily autonomy of the mother?

The answer is “birth”.

Out of interest are you OK with partial birth abortion or sex selective abortion (a woman may not want to give up her body because the baby is a girl/a boy)?

I’m ok with a woman’s right to choose until the baby is born.

Now, if you want to have a conversation about when birth occurs, exactly, I’m all for it.

 

[YourNameHere]

I created this original thread to ask for people to discuss something other than abortion. Other issues.
So, naturally, the disucssion evolved into another thread about abortion.
Nearly 1,000 posts later, please someone at the CAF forum controls, put this tread to rest. Lock it up. You have my permission.
Thanks!!!

 

[JimG]

Sure. There’s always all kinds of crazy in the world.

Well, Singer is professor of the Bioethics Dept. at Princeton and he thinks that personhood should be bestowed several months after birth. His view is only marginally different from yours.