Political Discussions
Personhood USA
Posted by Agit8r • 7/07/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: divinci, leonardo divinci's 'image of a fetus in the uterus', personhood usa
I was just viewing the Personhood USA website...
www.personhoodusa.com/node/1
They say:
'if personhood could be established for the pre-born, the arguments in Roe would collapse. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in the majority opinion for Roe v. Wade in 1973, “The appellee and certain amici [pro-lifers] argue that the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”
During Blackmun’s time, the “well-known facts of fetal development” were a far cry from what is known today. Ultrasonography and DNA testing were yet to be invented. In 1973, most held that “life” began at “quickening,” or when a woman first feels movement of the baby in the womb at 18 to 24 weeks. Some even held to the “Recapitulation Theory,” the scientifically debunked notion that the human baby underwent his entire evolutionary cycle in the womb, being first a simple one-celled creature, then later a fish, then later a mammal, then finally a human, which of course now seems absurd.'
yet I can't help thinking that this description of pre-sonogram understanding of fetal developement is rather simplified and exagerated...
www.drawingsofleonardo.org/images/fetus.jpg
Are they talking out their @$$es on this, or do they really think that what they are saying is true?
User Comments
-
I don't know, but that could cause a whole host of problems in other areas of life. If personhood can be granted to a non viable life form (regardless of "what if's")then would a miscarriage be concern and call for an investigation? Would a terminally ill patient's family be able to make the terrible call of "pulling the plug"?
Would the termination of an ectopic pregnancy be considered a justifiable homicide, or just a homicide? How about twins where one is not viable? Fetuses that will either die in the womb or shortly thereafter due to complications in utero?
If a fetus is a person with personhood status, would the pregnant mother be required to log what she ingests and is exposed to on a regular basis? Would there be regulations placed on pregnant women on what they can and cannot do while pregnant? Would homebirthing and the use of midwives still be permitted, or would that now be considered child endangerment?
A fetus is non viable up to a certain point in the pregnancy, and even at the earliest viable date it's a real crap shoot that the baby will survive outside the womb. This group is talking out of it's ass.
If more of the pro-life groups focused on LIVING humans and things like education, prevention, counseling, and programs to help pregnant women then the abortion debate wouldn't be necessary.-
And what about the embryos? How will we assure that all have an equal opportunity to attach? What about pregnancies that we don't know about? How will we make sure that the proper conditions are present in every possible case?
The restrictions that are placed on late-term abortions are in place because the necessary medical knowledge was there in 1973. In fact, as that second link points out, it may well have been known at the turn of the 16th century!
These are either low information activists, or they are trying to appeal to low information voters... hmm, I wonder which? o_0 -
Both, perhaps?
It's one of those hot button election issues where the loudest proponent with the goriest/saddest/most heart wrenching details gets the most attention. Like potty-mouthed children, if you fail to reward the behavior with attention, it eventually goes away.
-
-
Wow. When you pick a deep topic, you don't mess around Agit8r. But I must say it is food for thought.
I am pro life, so I am against abortion in most cases, save for medical reasons, brutal rape, etc... But this is a very interesting approach.-
I am PERSONNALLY against the practice of abortion. But from a political standpoint, further restrictions raise hazards in the realm of individual soveriegnty.
-
-
They tried that here in Colorado. Thank god we have enough sane people here that it was easily defeated.-
Why? You are against pro life, I take it? You favor abortion?
-
I favor the right of a woman to choose and less government intrusions into our personal lives.
-
So in everything else you want bigger, more intrusive government, but in this, when a life is at stake, you want the government out? That is pretty hypocritical, if you ask me.
-
I think that "you want bigger, more intrusive government" is a bit of a miscaracterization. Many "big government" types have condemned domestic spying and other intrusive acts.
I also wonder why the term "pro life" is used in discussing of abortion, but never in discussing worker safety, highway safety, product safety, air and water polution, infant mortality, war..... -
That is pretty hypocritical, if you ask me.
Nobody asked you. You think with emotions rather than logic. -
I also wonder why the term "pro life" is used in discussing of abortion, but never in discussing worker safety, highway safety, product safety, air and water polution, infant mortality, war.....
Good point. Right-wingers are only concerned with human life when it's still in the womb. -
Antics - most of us here realize that while the government exists and will exist, we will have to deal with it in some way.
And that way should be to make sure that it concerns itself with the welfare of PEOPLE and it ensures the freedom of PEOPLE - not religions, not corporations, not governments. PEOPLE.
In other words, the government can intrude on non human entities all it wants, so long as it leaves people and their lives and their individual decisions alone. -
He's just repeating right-wing talking points. I don't think anyone is "pro-abortion." Nobody wants to have an abortion, but sometimes it's necessary.
-
@Anok
Kinda sounds like a redefinition of legally protected "personhood" is indeed necessary... though not the sort 'Personhood USA' has in mind -
Aint that the truth
-
Anok, who protects the unborn baby? Look at your child, would you consider that Punky was any less a life or a person when you were pregnant?
sati...You ARE pro-abortion, then. Because your statement "Nobody wants to have an abortion, but sometimes it's necessary." is false.
"In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:
71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other"
Abortion has become a kind of retroactive birth control. I am against it in all cases other than brutal rape, or in medical concerns for the mother and/or child.
@Agi8r...I am not against using the term pro-life when talking about other issues where human life is concerned. But sati has constantly called for more government in nearly every topic that he puts his two cents in on. More regulation, more government involvement are his mantras. So what I said is not out of line. -
But sati has constantly called for more government in nearly every topic that he puts his two cents in on.
No, freedom of choice is less government. -
"worker safety, highway safety, product safety, air and water polution, infant mortality" all tend to involve some level of government intervention. Whether such is justifiable or not is a separate debate (and one worth having), but these are all issues in which universally recognized human life may be extinguished if intervention is not present.
-
"But sati has constantly called for more government in nearly every topic that he puts his two cents in on.
No, freedom of choice is less government."
Hmmm, let's see what you have to say about big government and more regulation. The following are all sati quotes:
"The media industry was deregulated, I believe in 1995, and that was a huge mistake."
"Radical deregulation has proven to be disastrous to our economy..."
"As far as the bailouts, this is a dark time in history, and it's the result of deregulation run amuck."
"But that's not really where the problem originated. It was in the deregulation that occured during the late 90s that did us in."
"With a government run student loan system, they'll need to exclude high risk applicants who might otherwise get a loan from private companies because the government takes on the risk."
"I assume you're talking about the debt we're accumulating. The only way to pay down the debt is by increasing taxes..."
"Republican deregulation along with enormous deficits has nearly destroyed our great nation."
"First of all, deregulation caused the current mess (see the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, and other deregulation during the 1980s that resulted in the S&L crisis)."
No, you don't want more government and more regulation sati. Not at all... -
We need less gov't intrusion into our personal lives and better regulation to keep our economy stable, protect our environment, keep business competition fair, assure safe working conditions, provide a level playing field for all, and to protect us from those who hold differing beliefs.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
~T. Jefferson
-
-
Why only grant personhood as far back as the womb? What about the millions of sperm that are living as I orgasm? The next time I have an orgasm I should call 911 and the police to "come" save the lives of these precious beings that only need an egg to survive. Maybe some of the devout pro-life types might come personally and rescue them. I believe the safest way to transport them is by carrying them in your mouth as it's warm and safe.-
There's no need to be crass. People have the right to believe what is in accordance with their conscience. The important thing is an equal and reciprocal respect for the laws of the land.
-
Hapless - are you Catholic?
"Every sperm is sacred" Sorry, just reminded me of Monty Python there.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
