toldailytopic: Do you support the Personhood movement?

[elohiym]

Just off the top of my head? They could rule that it conflicts with the federal laws they use to establish a Right to Privacy and that the federal laws trumps the state ones.

Federal law now recognizes that a fetus is person. One person's privacy does not trump another person's right to life.

They could rule that by granting citizenship at birth, federal law establishes that as the time when personhood begins which thereby trumps any attempt on the part of the state to establish personhood at a different time.

Your sentence is not coherent. Please rephrase it.

 

[WandererInFog]

Personhood is a powerful movement because it not only fights battles at the local and federal level but more importantly it works on the hearts of the people by properly framing the debate in a way that's tough to argue with (i.e., all living humans are people that deserve rights).

To what extent though do you see the movement being willing to build a big enough coalition to actually pass these amendments? Are they looking to only persuade conservative, Evangelical Christians or are they looking to build a group of people who agree on this single issue, regardless of their positions or beliefs on other issues?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

What makes you think he doesn't consider them?

He might. There is a movement underway that advocates human rights for anthropoid apes.

 

[Sozo again]

He might. There is a movement underway that advocates human rights for anthropoid apes.

I suspect Charlton Heston is rolling over in his grave.

 

[WandererInFog]

Federal law now recognizes that a fetus is person. One person's privacy does not trump another person's right to life.

It does if the court says it does. Again, not logically or rationally or in actual reality, but in a practical legal sesne. But your premise is flawed, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act did not come close to explicitly recognize the fetus as person and specifically allowed for abortion.

In fact, it's arguable that under the manner in which Title 18, Section 1841(c)1 as created by the bill is written, that even should the personhood of the fetus be established, that you would still be unable to prosecute abortions:

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—

(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;​

Your sentence is not coherent. Please rephrase it.

The reasoning would go like this: The Federal Government grants citizenship at the time of birth. Citizenship is a recognition of personhood. Ergo, the federal government defines personhood as beginning at birth. As the federal government has defined personhood as beginning at birth, no state has the authority to define it otherwise.

Again this doesn't mean this good reasoning. That doesn't matter. At the present time when Judicial review is viewed as being the the final word on any matter they could write an opinion stating: "Chewbacca is not from Endor, therefore the law is unconstitutional", and that would be that. I am of course somewhat exaggerating there as an opinion which was blatantly arbitrary would cause an uproar, but so long as it's cloaked with enough big legal sounding words, people will simply accept a SCOTUS ruling as the final, ultimate determination of a law's constitutionality.

 

[The Berean]

He might. There is a movement underway that advocates human rights for anthropoid apes.

Yes, The Great Ape Project is a silly idea. :chuckle: One of their supporters in Richard Dawkins. 'Nough said.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

To what extent though do you see the movement being willing to build a big enough coalition to actually pass these amendments? Are they looking to only persuade conservative, Evangelical Christians or are they looking to build a group of people who agree on this single issue, regardless of their positions or beliefs on other issues?

Either, both, all of the above! Thousands of people are being murdered everyday because current law doesn't consider them a person and therefore doesn't protect their rights.

I find it hard to believe any true pro lifer could oppose something that acknowledges foundational rights.

After all...
While you might have another pro life strategy you focus on, why reject such a foundational truth? Why not fight the battle on several fronts, and why not and start at the very foundation? (i.e., personhood)

Personhood: all living humans are people.

It's so simple.... how can any pro lifer reject that? :idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

This is nothing but a blatant attempt to deny women reproductive freedom

Sort of circular, since you'd have to define that freedom by the right to have an abortion.

make abortion illegal , and turn women into baby-making machines

Really? So there aren't any condoms or pills where you come from...Interesting. And by interesting I mean, of course, nonsense.

whether or not they have the means to support a child or not , or whether a pregnancy would threaten their health or lives .

No one is forced to care for a child if they can't. As to the latter point, it is both the rare exception and worth discussing (legally, in terms of self defense) as a part of the larger issue, but should not wag the dog.

To define personhood from conception is stupid.

To make unsubstantiated claims as though they were self evident is absurd. Where, along the chain of your being, from your present self to the embryonic, can you objectively establish the ending of right? It would be some trick if you could manage it.

And there is absolutely no way to enforce a personhood law anyway. Those who think this will be good for America are pathetically deluded.

Colorful insult, but precious little reason so far.

Passing dangerous , unjust , unenforcable and counterproductive laws like this is WRONG .

Shouting out conclusions without making the case for them is POINTLESS. lain:

It's a recipe for catastrophe for poor women and their families in America .

A potential (and non mandatory) hardship (caring for the child after birth) is a catastrophe, but taking life is a right?

If we are going to do something about the abortion problem we must do much more to support poor pregnant women financially so that they will be far less likely to seek and obtain abortions,

Are you under the impression that most abortions or even a significant number of them are about money? :nono:

And we must encourage all sexually active people , married or single , to use contraceptives and condoms to prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible .

Finally something reasonable. We can agree on that point at any rate.

Just look at poor countries around the world where abortion is illegal. Abortion is rampant there , and far more take place every year than in countries which allow reproductive choice .

So, assuming you can cite studies that back this, the assumption is that somehow the law against abortions would drive people to have them? :squint:

This foolish and dangerous personhood movement must be stopped at all costs .

Rather, foolish and dangerously underthought positions which imperil the lives of millions of unborn children must be fought at every turn.

Oh, and if you haven't guessed by now, I support the movement's efforts. :e4e:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Interesting. And by interesting I mean, of course, nonsense.

:rotfl: **spits drinks all over computer screen** :rotfl:

 

[The Horn]

No , not all women who have abortions are poor , but most who do are not well-to-do . And if abortion becomes illegal again in America, women who can afford it will have no problem flying off to Europe, Canada or elsewhere for safe, legal abortions, while poor women will be forced to back alley abortionists or to try to do it themselves, and die or be seriously harmed in the attempt . So anti-abortion laws would not be fair.
And how would the government stop well-off women from going abroad for abortions ? Put up blockades at every airport and border and examine every woman of childbearing age for pregnancy ? Are you kidding ?
Or stop poor women from attempting self-induced abortions ?
Put up surveillance camers in every home and arrest them if they tried to ? Come on . Is this at all realistic ?
You conservatives are always calling for "freedom" and demanding that we get the "government off our backs ".
But this scenario sounds more like Orwell's 1984 to me.
With freedom like this, who needs tyranny ?
Making abortion illegal has never worked , and never will .
You cannot stop women from seeking and obtaining abortions.
They will find a way whether abortion is illegal or not.
That's why people who demand that the government "end abortion now " are deluding themselves.
In order to try to enforce laws against abortion , the US government would have to have thousands and thousands of government anti-abortion enforcers scouring every corner of the country 24/7. It would mean constant intrusion on people's privacy and would turn America into a police state.
Is this what America was meant to be? Before Roe v Wade the law was never enforced anyway , and abortions were still very common, and this would still have been true even if that decision had not been made .
And those who are both opposed to abortion and want to make contraceptives illegal are imbeciles ! If the government did this it would only INCREASE the number of abortions and create a black market in contraceptives .
Take Brazil ; it's the world's largest Catholic nation , and abortion is officially illegal there . But every year , more abortions happen in this nation than in the US ! The government doesn't even pretend to enforce the law . It can't !
Trying to stop abortion by making it illegal is like going to the seashore and trying to stop the tide with teaspoons .
When will anti-choicers learn ?

 

[Rusha]

No , not all women who have abortions are poor , but most who do are not well-to-do . And if abortion becomes illegal again in America, women who can afford it will have no problem flying off to Europe, Canada or elsewhere for safe, legal abortions, while poor women will be forced to back alley abortionists or to try to do it themselves, and die or be seriously harmed in the attempt . So anti-abortion laws would not be fair.

So your argument comes down to wealthy women having the means to leave the country and hire the hit man that will knock off their unborn child and that poor women (who have to commit the act themselves) might actually hurt themselves?

Wow ... great logic. :down:

And how would the government stop well-off women from going abroad for abortions ? Put up blockades at every airport and border and examine every woman of childbearing age for pregnancy ? Are you kidding ?
Or stop poor women from attempting self-induced abortions ?
Put up surveillance camers in every home and arrest them if they tried to ? Come on . Is this at all realistic ?
You conservatives are always calling for "freedom" and demanding that we get the "government off our backs ".
But this scenario sounds more like Orwell's 1984 to me.
With freedom like this, who needs tyranny ?
Making abortion illegal has never worked , and never will .
You cannot stop women from seeking and obtaining abortions.
They will find a way whether abortion is illegal or not.

So what are you ranting about then? Regardless of whether or not it is made illegal, they will find a way anyways. MY preference is to make it as much of a hardship and as physically dangerous as possible.

IF women did not have abortion as an out, no doubt they would either take more precautions or accept the fact that they are responsible for bringing a newly born person into the world.

That's why people who demand that the government "end abortion now " are deluding themselves.
In order to try to enforce laws against abortion , the US government would have to have thousands and thousands of government anti-abortion enforcers scouring every corner of the country 24/7. It would mean constant intrusion on people's privacy and would turn America into a police state.

:yawn: The only women that would be negatively affected by this are those who are anti-child/pro-abortion. Why should it matter if they feel intruded upon?

Is this what America was meant to be? Before Roe v Wade the law was never enforced anyway , and abortions were still very common, and this would still have been true even if that decision had not been made .

Freedom should never equate to giving parents the legals means to intentionally kill their children ... EOS.

 

[mmstroud]

I haven't had a chance to check out all the various links (pre-Thanksgiving festivities and all that...). Is the Personhood Movement a proposed amendment to the Constitution?

 

[GuySmiley]

I support personhood! But I do see it has a polarizing effect among 'pro-lifers'. Personhood really sheds light on the issue. The unborn is either a person, or not. Personhood therefore destroys arguments in favor of regulating abortions. You can't pass a law forcing parental notification before an abortion, if the unborn is a person. I think people have been trained to see laws like that as a victory for pro-lifers. Personhood really ruins that for them.

I also support getting pro-life judges on the supreme court. But I am not deluded enough to think republicans will do that.

 

[mmstroud]

What does the Personhood Movement actually do? It looks like it's a state movement. Yes?

We need something that takes the issue of abortion out of the hands of the Supreme Court. The makeup of the Court changes, or at least has the possibility of doing so, with every new administration. It seems to me that if the issue remains in the purview of the Supreme Court, there will not be a resolution to the issue.

Does the Personhood Movement accomplish anything like Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act ?

I find it repulsive that personhood even needs to be established. The issue of personhood has only ever been used as a justification to deny human rights.

Having said that, I support anything that protects the unborn. I do believe there are ways that are better than others.

 

[Punisher1984]

So by your standard you believe that anyone who is in a coma is no longer a person and does not deserve protection under the law.

That's a very perverted position to hold.

Most people in comas are brain dead - once the brain quits there's little (if any) chance that the patient will wake up. If I ever go into a coma (one not medically-induced), I would very much prefer that some one just put a bullet in the head of the corpse that once was my body and end what little life is still left in it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Most people in comas are brain dead - once the brain quits there's little (if any) chance that the patient will wake up. If I ever go into a coma (one not medically-induced), I would very much prefer that some one just put a bullet in the head of the corpse that once was my body and end what little life is still left in it.

Dude.... you are a complete moron.

People come out of coma's everyday. Being in a coma does mean you are not a person.

Based on your posts one might conclude that you are brain dead.

 

[Punisher1984]

An animal does.

People are animals - your point?

Do you consider them to be persons?

I should have been more clear with point #1 - by self-aware I meant sentience, which is a trait only humans, higher functioning primates and some whales possess (but I suppose one *could* argue that these animals are also persons by that criteria - I know of no serious movement to do so, but it certainly would be interesting).

 

[Punisher1984]

People come out of coma's everyday.

False - most coma patients don't come out of it, and of the few that do many die shortly afterwards. And like I said, the majority of coma patients are brain dead: the brain is the organ that's responsible for producing the traits of sentience - without the brain, there is no person.

 

[Sozo again]

without the brain, there is no person.

You just disqualified yourself.

 

[Punisher1984]

You just disqualified yourself.

Nice ad hominem - now, would you care to address the substance of my post?