Controversy on Personhood
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11610) 11 years ago
Folks are gathering signatures for a state constitutional amendment that would declare a person a person at the instant of conception. This brings up several questions that the supporters don't seem to have an answer to. Does anyone here?

For starters, how do you determine personhood? Do you require every woman of childbearing age to submit to monthly pregnancy tests so the government can decide when she stops being one person and becomes two?

Once it is determined that a pregnant woman is two people, do you require her to behave for the welfare of the smaller person over her own welfare? There are cases where a pregnancy will kill the mother. Is she required to continue her pregnancy even if it were to be fatal to her?

What if you have a pregnant smoker? Will the law require her to quit smoking? What if she engages in physical activity that might harm the secondary person? Do you forbid pregnant women to ride horses?

Do you investigate miscarriages as murders? Since it is estimated that there are 130 conceptions for every 100 live births, this could cost quite a bit of money.

If a miscarriage is murder, do you forbid women with a history of miscarriages from getting pregnant? I have a friend who was born after her mother had seven previous miscarriages. Do you stop women after a certain number because she is killing too many people or do you let her continue to kill people in an attempt to have a live birth?

If you are a person at conception, do you get a Social Security number immediately, to be voided in the case of miscarriage?

I'm assuming that abortion will be illegal, which is the whole point of the law, but what about some forms of birth control? Birth control pills prevent ovulation but some folks say they prevent fertilized eggs from implanting. So do you ban any form of birth control that might on rare occasions prevent implantation of a person? If you increase the number of unwanted and unplanned pregnancies, what do you do with those unwanted persons?

As you might guess, I think this whole "personhood at conception" is ridiculous but I'd like to know how supporters would solve these complex issues.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5100) 11 years ago
Pinocchio wrote:
At our local crisis pregnancy center, 90% of abortion-minded women change their mind once they are given a sonogram and see their child.



Riiiiiiiiight.


And 11 teenagers died in Gilette too, right?
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3741) 11 years ago
Bob, stop it. You're making me laugh my ass off. Quit. Please.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11610) 11 years ago
Kyle, you didn't answer my questions. Did you mean that no, a smoker/drinker/horseback rider whatever would be allowed to continue their behavior since we don't require mothers to give up smoking/drinking/horseback riding? Heavens knows the world is full of lousy mothers.

I am serious about wondering about the consequences of miscarriage. Yes, spontaneous abortion is natural and induced abortion is unnatural but that still doesn't answer the question. If a person is a person from the moment of conception, is there a point where those natural processes need to be supervised to prevent further loss of life? Would every spontaneous abortion be investigated for possible criminal charges?

Are you sure a woman would be allowed to have an induced abortion to save life? The common practice used to be that if only the mother or the child could be saved during a delivery, the mother would be allowed to die. If you were Catholic, that was the only legitimate decision. If that fetus becomes a person, can you guarantee that the mother would take precedence? I suspect the people behind the initiative would disagree.

If a woman gets an induced abortion out of desperation (since back alley abortions have always existed and will always exist), would she be charged with murder? Would she receive the sort of sentence normally handed down for murder, even if she aborted her child because she had six she couldn't take care of already?

Would the "person" a woman is carrying take precedence over the woman? That is the crux of the matter. Now, as a man, you will never have to worry about it and, as I am well past any children, I won't either, but I would worry that a young woman could be told that while she is a person, if it comes down to it, the other person counts more.

How is that decision made? Who is the most important person?

I don't like abortion. In a perfect world, it would not exist. There wouldn't be unplanned pregnancies or rape or incest or fetuses that are so defective they can't survive, but there are and we need to decide how much punishment is appropriate for women who put themselves and their lives over that of that other person.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1912) 11 years ago
What's your business, Jeff, so I can be sure to avoid it the next time I'm in Kalispell. I'd also like to tip off my friends and relatives who live in the area.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3741) 11 years ago
Amorette, I did.

The answers are here:

http://milescity.com/foru...992#137351

But since you seem to want me to spell it out for you, here you go. 8 questions. 8 answers.

1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
4. I'm going to reject this question.
5. I am also going to reject this one.
6. Same
7. each couple has the right and the duty prayerfully and responsibly to control conception according to their circumstances
8. Adoption

but I would worry that a young woman could be told that while she is a person, if it comes down to it, the other person counts more.


By the same token, why does that life inside her count less?

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (4/8/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9071) 11 years ago
Because it's:

a) INSIDE her.
b) Incapable of surviving OUTSIDE of her.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3741) 11 years ago
If that's the case Bridgier, then why are there restrictions on abortions in the 3rd trimester?

If we go by your "Being inside doesn't count." reasoning why place restrictions at all?
Top
Posted by polar bear (+505) 11 years ago
Third trimester abortions carry more risk to the mother and so they must be used with a bit more caution.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9071) 11 years ago
I had forgotten how pedantic you are on this issue. So, again, for full consistency, I would expect that you would also be against in-vitro or other forms of fertility assistance that create, and then destroy, embryos.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4459) 11 years ago
Bridgier, it seems to me your team of "First Breath brings rights" has a lot more 'splainin to do than people who believe all embryos deserve protection.

After all, the only coherent standard I've heard anyone on your side communicate is that the baby is meaningless tissue right up to the point where that first gasp of air enters lungs. To me that's a far more grotesque standard than anything you've stuck to your opposition.

What you guys excel at is asking silly questions and then ridiculing the silly answers you practically begged for.

So I'll throw my very simple question again, as I did in the last of these threads.

Where do you draw the line? When should abortion be illegal? 8 weeks? 12? 22? 52?

If you won't answer, you have no room to say anything.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4951) 11 years ago
52??
Top
Posted by Smiley (+843) 11 years ago
Does anyone here eat at pizza hut and like marinara sauce instead of pizza sauce??

Honest Question.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4459) 11 years ago
Ok, first answer! Howdy draws the line somewhere around the end of the 4th trimester.

Or was that yet another sarcastic non-answer answer?

It's ok, that's all I really expected.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1912) 11 years ago
To answer your question, Rick: end of the first trimester. However. At ANY point during a pregnancy, the decision to terminate should be between the woman and her physician with NO government involvement.

I assume you're an "at conception the embryo has full rights" sort of person so.........would you ban the pill? Would you ban the morning after pill?

In the event abortion is banned, what do you propose to be the punishment to anyone having an abortion, or providing an abortion?
Would you mind if the government become involved in your wife's or daughter's reproductive health?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4459) 11 years ago
To answer your question, Rick: end of the first trimester. However. At ANY point during a pregnancy, the decision to terminate should be between the woman and her physician with NO government involvement.


So you'd be ok with a law that forbade doctors from performing second trimester abortions? (after 12 weeks)

Is this the team consensus?

Would you mind if the government become involved in your wife's or daughter's reproductive health?


It's cute that you think this is the only time your Government would ever make a decision about what kind of medical procedures you can and can't have.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (4/8/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9071) 11 years ago
Rick, in this you are being more mendacious then usual.

My point is that applying a "bright-line" standard of personhood at conception to an already complex situation may appear relatively clear-cut from a distance, but it creates some very murky ethical questions when you begin to discuss particulars, particulars that have been brought up twice by Amorette and rejected out of hand by Kyle, and dismissed as "silly" by you.

And I'm not sure when we picked "teams", but I don't think I've ever said anything about "first breath" or anything else.

Abortion destroys a human fetus that may or may not be viable - to pretend otherwise is silly. To pretend that fetus is a legal citizen however, is equally silly.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16722) 11 years ago
Bob Netherton II wrote:
However. At ANY point during a pregnancy, the decision to terminate should be between the woman and her physician with NO government involvement.


To which Rick Kuchynka wrote:
So you'd be ok with a law that forbade doctors from performing second trimester abortions? (after 12 weeks)


With reading comprehension like that is it any wonder Ricky is so confused about so many things?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4459) 11 years ago
So are you arguing, David, that it is unconstitutional for the federal or state governments to ban any form of medical procedure or treatment?

After all, these things should only be between me and my provider.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4459) 11 years ago
Bridgier, I'm sorry, but you give many of these questions more credibility than they deserve.

For starters, how do you determine personhood? Do you require every woman of childbearing age to submit to monthly pregnancy tests so the government can decide when she stops being one person and becomes two?


The idea that a medical procedure can't be banned without a new Uterine-SS patrolling the streets flies in the face of what already happens in this country every day.

Murder is illegal. Do we have people sweeping house to house verifying monthly whether you've murdered anyone in your home?

I wonder why, every time we have this argument, it's so hard to find the tuna hiding among all the red herring.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16722) 11 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9071) 11 years ago
I don't even know why I'm bothering to try.

If you want to ban the medical procedure, be honest and say you want to ban the procedure. If you want to create a huge mess, give every zygote and blastospore habeous corpus rights and a SSN.

If you want to continue to be a retard, well, I can't help you.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1666) 11 years ago
I especially like this little nugget of wisdom from PersonhoodUSA, the group behind the push for personhood legislation in Montana:

We are Personhood USA and our goal is simple: Together, we will glorify Jesus and then stop the dehumanizing of and destruction of preborn people.

Montana is one of the few states that, based on the Constitution of the state, allows for a Constitutional Amendment to be passed by the people. Which means every person who respects life MUST do their part to stop the injustice.


So, it's really about glorifying Jesus first, and THEN they are concerned with the "preborn" people. Got to have priorities I guess.

Stone, my uterus is shaking. I feel that slippery slope of which you speak.
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+594) 11 years ago
You cant reason with the Christian Taliban.....
Top
Posted by Smiley (+843) 11 years ago
I hope when I die people glorify me 2000+ years later. I'll have someone write a book hundreds of years later about my miracles!
Top
supporter
Posted by Bill Freese (+475) 11 years ago
OK. So this thread is about personhood, abortion, gay rights and the historicity of Jesus. Let's throw in gun control, too.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14882) 11 years ago
It is more of a blanket than a thread.
Top
supporter
Posted by Cory Cutting (+1280) 11 years ago
And its about sororities!!!
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6173) 11 years ago
It's definitely uteri.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1912) 11 years ago
Once and for all, Rickenhawk. How would you enforce the ban on birth control(including abortion) that would surely follow the "declaration of personhood"? Let's see some details. I'm sure you have this all worked out.
Top
Posted by Jeezie (+17) 11 years ago
Wow this town has changed. Used to seem so moral, and ethical, or was I just being fooled, trying to behave and set a good example while being so closely monitored by that small town friendliness? That was all pretend? What a bunch of hypocrites and worse. Anything goes, now. In public, and people are proud of it? Thanks John for linking me up to this site, this portal into the minds of my neighbors.
Kinda scary, I had no idea.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3741) 11 years ago
I had forgotten how pedantic you are on this issue. So, again, for full consistency, I would expect that you would also be against in-vitro or other forms of fertility assistance that create, and then destroy, embryos.


Once again you're comparing apples to a Lincoln Towncar Bridgier. There's no correlation between creating a life via fertilization and ripping a child out of the uterus. Yes, during in vitro fertilization some of the embryos are lost but to try and compare that to vaccuming out a childs brains and scraping out the rest of the body is a reach at best.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (4/10/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9071) 11 years ago
Dead's dead Kyle. If personhood begins at conception, then you've just killed n people to produce another.

As an aside, can you make any arguments that aren't appeals from emotion?
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3741) 11 years ago
Dead's dead Kyle. If personhood begins at conception, then you've just killed n people to produce another.

As an aside, can you make any arguments that aren't appeals from emotion?


Again Bridgier, quit trying to equate abortion with a completely unrelated subject. Abortion is not a natural process. A miscarriage is. The process of in vitro fertilization is no different than a normal pregnancy, it's just how the woman gets pregnant that's changed.

Equating losing a fetus during this to abortion is comparing apples to a Mac truck.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9071) 11 years ago
The process of in vitro fertilization is no different than a normal pregnancy,


I don't think you understand the in-vitro process, nor the premise of this thread.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (4/10/2010)]
Top
Posted by polar bear (+505) 11 years ago
In vitro involves fertilizing eggs (conception?) that will never be implanted (abortion?).
Top
Posted by Christen LeBlanc Ramsey (+279) 11 years ago
Abortion is not a natural process. A miscarriage is. The process of in vitro fertilization is no different than a normal pregnancy, it's just how the woman gets pregnant that's changed.


if you can't get pregnant by fornication, anything else is unnatural.
Top
Posted by Jeezie (+17) 11 years ago
I know some of the best names in town are on the "have had an abortion" list. Gosh, their on lots of lists! Church rosters, Scout leaders, business owners, school faculty,
Wow, I know a lot of people in this town. I never heard ANYBODY claim to be PROUD of some things mentioned as topics and subtopics of this forum, though. I'm glad I don't know everybody in this town. I've had some fun the last couple days reading what all is rat holed away in this site. Some of it is great, some of it makes me sick. I wonder how much of it is believeable, maybe none that is anonymously authored?
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11610) 11 years ago
So, when major political issues arise that will affect lives, if those issues are the tiniest bit "icky," we are to ignore them? I'm sorry if your delicate sensibilities were offended but I care about the future and therefore, I discuss issues affecting it.
Top
Posted by Jeezie (+17) 11 years ago
It's just the problem with being old fashioned. I've been victimized for being trusting. I've been ridiculed for having an attitude. I'm getting too old to want to go through more of that but still want to know more than ever what's going on.
I trust what I read here more when theres a name on it. Had I known this before I wouldn't have signed up using my old CB handle. Never had any other nickname to go by. I'm proud of my name, and reputation.
For the record, I never had any involvement in any abortion. Never even considered becoming queer and do want some kind of gun control but not anything the gov't has implemented or threatened thus far. Can I still have an opinon or shall I rent a big U=haul?
I don't know you Amorette but you seem to think things through better than most. You obviously care. Others are must making trouble.

[This message has been edited by Jeezie (4/11/2010)]
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+594) 11 years ago
I see no reason to 'look down' on a woman that has had an abortion. Dont care if they belong to a church, club, or what their status is. It is Their decision, not mine. My personal beliefs should not enter into it. Personal Freedom is about as 'old fashioned' as you can get!
Top
Posted by Meghann Smyrl (+21) 11 years ago
Calling an embryo a person is akin to calling an egg a chicken. A zygote has a long journey to becoming a healthy child. Miscarriage is a very natural, common occurrence- and historically women have been helping that process along even without the approval of law. I prefer having a legal option than an illegal one. I won't always approve of a mother's reason for exercising that choice, but it is the nature of the United States to support freedom of that choice.

It is my belief that the welfare of the mother should take precedence over the welfare of an unborn child. Though, some mothers would choose differently. That is the beauty of choice. Personally, I am a fan of educated, responsible decisions- but in reality, the path to pregnancy can often be void of those qualities. However, it is the mother (parents/guardians) that makes choices for their progeny when they lack the capacity or experience.

We're asking where everyone should draw the line. I agree, we shouldn't dehumanize a child to be- because they are life; they are a wonderful, rewarding, enriching experience. We should be careful to consider a zygote as what it is- the potential to be a person.

When do we consider a child to be a person? Is it as soon as the egg is fertilized, holding all the genetic material to be a human? Is it as soon as the embryo has blood? Is it as soon as the fetus has all the distinguishing physical parts of a human? As soon as it is born? At a specific point of physical or mental development?

I do not find it practical by law to consider an unborn child a person, as the life is so fragile and subject to unforeseen complications. I also agree that a child shouldn't be aborted in the third trimester unless in the most dire of circumstances- not only for the health of the mother, but also because the child's development is so near complete- its ability to survive outside the womb, its development of its senses and awareness.

The argument of personhood at conceivement is: ill-conceived. They're hoping to strike at the matter of stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, and abortion, at the very least.

I believe zygotes should always be handled with respect and abortion should always be done with the heaviest of hearts, but I do not think it wise to discontinue any of these practices.
Top
Posted by polar bear (+505) 11 years ago
Well said, Meghann.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3741) 11 years ago
Hmmm, I'd be willing to wager that there's roughly 40 million people since 1971 who'd disagree with you Meghann.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9071) 11 years ago
This is what makes it impossible to actually discuss this topic with you Kyle - people raise actual salient points that require discernment and thought, and you either dismiss them out of hand as "irrelevant" or respond with a flippant non-sequitor.

Engage the debate, or be quiet.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16722) 11 years ago
I think Kyle went to the school of Rick.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9071) 11 years ago
Rick's shiftier though - his logical fallacy-fu is much more diverse.
Top
Posted by Steve Allison (+977) 11 years ago
The original purpose of this thread was not should or should not abortion be legal? It was that this bass-ackwords way for trying to make it illegal has the potential of creating a huge pile of other problems that one way or another would have to be dealt with. One can say these thing would never come up but we all know someone or heard stories of someone who used legal loopholes for personal agendas or vengeance. Creating a law that starts with loopholes a truck could drive through is a real bad idea no matter what your goal is in the first place.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4459) 11 years ago
Once and for all, Rickenhawk. How would you enforce the ban on birth control(including abortion) that would surely follow the "declaration of personhood"? Let's see some details. I'm sure you have this all worked out.


Not sure I'd really lump abortion in as 'birth control'

But, yep, Bob, you've pinned us down. Next up we'll ban the pill. And since the pill basically works by mimicking pregnancy, we're going to ban pregnancy too.

Our plan is foolproof!
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1912) 11 years ago
They don't call you the Rickenhawk for nothing.
Top