Personhood and Abortion

Post Reply New Topic

When someone convinces me it's their right to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their bodies maybe I'll start thinking along pro-life lines.

Until then, the only ground they have to stand on tends to be phony religions and scare tactics.

Yawn.

Something I was curious about before this law was defeated in Mississippi was whether I, a California citizen with an IUD in my uterus, could legally travel into a state where such a law was in effect. Could the police fine me and/or force me into a clinic and have it removed against my will? Could they charge me with zygoticide? Or would I get a pass as a California citizen?

Well, honestly, the reality would be it wouldn't really affect anyone like that. I mean, you still have to show probable cause and such to even try to prosecute or at least fine someone on a misdemeanor.

Remember, the law itself only defines what would be recognized as a person. The issue of birth control would not be touched by that law, but recognizing a person at fertilization would begin the debate on what would be acceptable. It is unlikely that all birth control would be banned, but also possible that Plan B would never be allowed. BTW, Plan B is unavailable in Mississippi.

The thing about Mississippi is that emergency contraceptives are non-existent and abortion so inaccessible that the law here is a mere formality.

As for as zygoticide goes, the thing you have to consider is the state has the burden of proof. How are they going to prove it? Are you bragging about killing a baby on your Facebook and showing YouTube videos of yourself taking a pill and starting a period to get rid of the baby? It's not unknown that these things can happen spontaneously, so are the cops going to pick you up for involuntary manslaughter/accidental death/negligent homicide for having a miscarriage you didn't even know about? The laws aren't enforceable as such and would have no effect unless it could be shown that a person knew she was pregnant and took steps to terminate it.

So, If I'm walking down the street in Mississippi with a friend, and I mention that I used my emergency stash of 'Plan B' the night before (which many women have not only for themselves, but also for their friends, because one cannot count on finding a non-fundie pharmacist on a Friday night) just as a cop walks out of a doorway beside us, could he arrest me, as a California citizen, for using a medical product that I bought in California, on my own body? What if they counterfactually decide that IUDs do 'cause abortions,' and I just mention that I have an IUD?

Or should I just hide the 'shameful' fact that I'm on effective birth control, and never trouble the fragile ears of any Mississipean ears with the truth?

I think IUDs would be gone. Whether Plan B or IUDs from out of state would be prosecuted in state.... who knows. They might implement a 'don't ask, don't tell" on birth control so as to avoid people in the state discussing or hearing about IUD or plan B. lol. The same law could kill two birds by preventing family planning education.

But crazy state legislators can pass any laws they like. At some point a court will review it.

Actually, no. Women lose their unfertilized ovums once every 4 - 6 weeks: it's called having a period. And men lose sperm (most of which dies) once they ejaculate, either out into the open air or into a woman's body. So no, it's not alive the way a fertilised ovum is. I suppose that such a view would make the rest of your views follow naturally, but your initial premise is incorrect.

The truth of the matter is that it is neccessary to grant the child in the womb full human status. This is why states in the US pass legislation that gives the child in the womb legal protection - since the child is among the weakest and least powerful members of society, it needs this. And because we are so antinomian these days, we see so many people wanting to be "individuals", and "doing what they want to do". It's good to see that Oklahoma is trying to set limits on libertarians and the pro-choice lobby, and having regard for the children in its state.

One of the mysteries that science has no answer to is, why is the foetus not rejected as foreign tissue, when that is clearly what it is? It's not the same as the women herself. It is a living person from the moment of conception: because there's nowhere else that the life can start. Small and weak it may be, but no-one has any right to stop anyone fulfilling their own potential. This is what makes all abortions wrong.



What makes most people angry about these cases is that the women has to live with the visible evidence of that awful event growing up in front of them, and I can see the pain involved. But it is still the case that rape is an act of violence, which has its roots in the perpetrator subduing their victim - it has nothing whatever to do with sexuality, only power. Such a violation of a human person could have only one thing worse: to perpetuate that violence by a second act of violence which is what an abortion is. Have people seen the Youtube videos showing what abortions actually are? They're barbaric.

So if the person raped is a child, and the perpetrator is the child's father, does it help the child to get over this ordeal by performing a procedure which has a 5 - 10% chance of stopping her from having children? With her innocence shattered, her capacity to bear children in a loving relationship taken away. Will performing an abortion help? I very much doubt it, but I know that the vast majority of the people who visit this website are probably going to get angry with me for holding these views. Whatever.

Easy, there. Don't forget that the US Constitution also applies to Mississippi. You have freedom from self-incrimination. Besides...if you are using birth control, exactly how is that anyone's business? And don't forget that the law was written to legally define personhood, not to ban birth control. In the interest of protecting the unborn the range of options would be limited somewhat. However, that still leaves several options open. I'm not sure why the IUD would really be such a concern. The ones I'm aware of have a hormonal component in addition to the ordinary principles of IUD use. If you're seriously going to bring charges against someone for killing a zygote, exactly how do you go about proving that a crime has been committed in the first place? Even counterfactually I don't know why it would be a problem. Assault rifles are used to kill people, but the mere possession of one doesn't mean a crime has been committed. Even if you walk right up to a cop and say you used plan B, that doesn't mean you killed a baby. It's entirely possible you weren't ovulating when you used it. Even an outright confession really wouldn't be solid evidence of a crime since you have no proof a crime was actually committed. You might at worst be written a citation for being annoying.

Like I said, to my knowledge Plan B isn't available here. I know someone who tried to get it who was told that it wasn't an approved drug in this state, and that was as of 12 years ago, give or take. As far as I know there's nothing they can do if you obtain it legally elsewhere. I would think that would fall under normal regulations for any prescription drug. You obtained it as a resident of another state for your own personal use, so as long as you aren't giving it away or selling on the black market I figure you should be fine. The flip side would be if you were, say, 6 weeks along, knew for a fact you were pregnant, it was documented that you were pregnant, well known that you were pregnant, and you started bragging about taking an abortion pill.

The law never passed, so the point is moot anyway.

Not sure what you mean by sensitive ears in Mississippi. I live in a pretty rough neighborhood, so my ears are well-adjusted to just about any verbal assault you can dish out.

If it makes you feel any better, you're not the only one they'll be angry with. The only thing I take issue with here is the problem of rape. But otherwise we are largely in agreement.

If capability to lose it is your main determinator of personhood, then that's so bad. Abortion itself would show that, under your logic, the fetus is not a person as the host can get rid of it just as easily as ovums.


Sorry, but "proof by US law" will not work here
What's wrong with people being individual and doing what they want to do if it harms no one else? It almost sounds like liberty.



lol, really?



Hell no.

This is what happens the moment of conception:



It is alive, but so are bacteria and they look so much alike... It is brainless, it has no differentiated extremities. Not even a shape. You cannot with a straight face tell me that such thing is a person deserving equal human rights as the host.

It would be a lack of respect for human life to say that such a thing has more rights than a woman who is clearly a person.


A sperm has potential to become a zygote. Should we make ejaculation illegal?



So what, just because people would get angry at your comment it doesn't mean your comment is right. Making people angry with comments is remarkably easy; But from the looks of it, making a compelling argument is not.

I doubt you are a rape victim so your belief that an abortion wouldn't help is quite unfounded and silly. And who cares anyway? Maybe it would help , maybe it wouldn't. But it is not your body. It is not your decision to make whether it would help or not. It is the pregnant woman's decision to make whether she will abort the fetus or not. And although it is pretty brutal and stupid and basically a second rape to find legislators that think it is ok to force the woman to dedicate 9 months of her life and lose 50% of her future by converting a rapist's fetus into a child. I do not think rape is a reason to justify abortion, because no reason is needed to justify it. I think abortion should be legal 100% of the time, regardless of whether the woman was raped or not.

Many blastocysts fail to implant in the lining of the uterus. In other cases, the blastocyst is rejected by the uterus, or isn't properly supplied with nutrients, or fails to develop for other reasons. The result is always the same: The blastocyst is flushed out and dies, just as the sperm in your example.

This happens a lot more often than people are aware of. If all these embryos were persons, many women would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Probably even the majority of women who are trying to conceive a child. The same would apply to women who have a miscarriage at a later stage of pregnancy (which happens in 10-25% of all cases). Nature aborts far more embryos and fetuses than humans intentionally do. If you believe in a god who is against abortion, you might want to ask yourself why he performs so many of them.



Even if my premise was incorrect, it wouldn't change my opinion. At the risk of repeating myself, we simply cannot deny a woman her right to self-determination, reduce her to a walking incubator, and force her to go through pregnancy and birth against her will. If something grows inside your body, you have the right to have it removed. Even at a stage where that something already has a rudimentary nervous system.



It is always good to educate yourself about a topic before you form an opinion. Here is a helpful link that explains this supposed mystery, along with the fact that some embryos and fetuses are rejected:
http://www.rbej.com/content/1/1/121

I can see why you want it to remain a mystery though. You probably think that something magical happens during conception, something that equips a fertilized ovum with a tiny soul. That has always been the problem with this debate. One side argues scientific facts and women's rights, whereas the other side argues from a position of faith, the rights of an imaginary soul, and, more often than not, scientific ignorance.

Angry, no.

Laughing hysterically at you, oh yes.

Laugh if you like.

Get angry if you must.

It's only your own time that you're wasting.

I don't consider free entertainment wasted time, myself. That's why I accept Chick Tracts when they get handed to me - they're always good for a laugh.

Followed, of course, by a fifth of vodka and a four-hour crying jag revolving around the fact that he is A. still alive and B. still convincing people to hand that garbage out. But the laugh is still good.

'life' is generally defined on metabolic terms; both ova and spermatozoa are capable of homeostasis within their normal environments for some period of time, so they are neither dead nor inanimate. Also, upwards of half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant and are spontaneously ejected from the woman's system, so by your description they wouldn't be 'alive' either.


'Need'? Why? What horrible thing is happening that granting personhood to zygotes will solve?


We're not entirely sure, but it probably has to do with the fact that women experience autoimmune diseases at a rate significantly higher than men do, and also with the fact that the zef's blood supply never comes into direct contact with the woman's unless something goes wrong (they interface at the placenta, but do not mix).


As has already been explained, life has been around for billions of years; as for personhood, I'm curious about your criteria for what makes a 'person.'


Rape is not entirely one or the other. In many animal species, rape is the way omega males perpetuate their genes when they cannot compete with better individuals on the regular field of selection; it's difficult to rule out that some of the same might not be occurring in some human rapes. In addition, forcing a woman to bear her rapist's offspring, regardless of the motivation, perpetuates the abuse, control, and violence that he initiated. As I have mentioned before, I personally would fry my liver with pennyroyal tea before I gave birth to an rapist's child. Watch the movie 'alien' if you want to get a visceral idea of how women feel about rape and rapist's offspring.


Most surgery is. One can always tell when they're doing a hip replacement in surgery because it sounds like a construction zone.


Your numbers are incorrect.


It would help if it were me. Personally I am fortunate to live in an area where I could obtain Plan B, or baring that, a medical abortion; I can absolutely imagine feeling a great deal of pleasure in flushing that blood down the toilet.


Angry? no. Exasperated? Yes. You sound incredibly naiive.

Do you know, I'm friendly with three different women who have had abortions - I know them all very well - and they all say they wish it had not happened. It has never affected the friendship I have with any of them.

The point I'm making to Mr CatLord is that there are two distinct ways that a sperm is alive when it is on its own, and when it has fertilised an ovum. You can talk about zygotes all you like, but life (personhood) begins at the first collision of sperm and ovum. Sperm on its own is just a type of protein, this isn't the case with a sperm that's part of a fertilised ovum. This is a basic point which you two are labouring over, probably because you realise the basic facts show the way to a conclusion you're trying to avoid.




Why? Because they're our weakest citizens, Ms LKL, and they deserve protection because they didn't ask to be born, if they could speak they would ask to live!! !! ! The protection of the womb is there because nature recognises that weakness, whether you feel like acknowledging it or not. Tell me, what right do you have to interfere with the potential of another human? That's what is in the womb.




I appreciate your frankness in saying that this is an area that science has no ready answer - rather than the guy who wants to laugh at me while I'm making a serious point. The actual state of the scientific knowledge is that the female immune system lowers in order to accept the sperm into the reproductive system - the body knows what's happening. But as for the precise interaction, in other words, the genetic code of the sperm, why doesn't the body attack THAT - the same way as it would if it was found by the white blood cells in any other area of the body, there is no answer at this point. What I would like to assert, based on the evidence, is the question 'Why do people have kids?" can be answered medically by saying it's neccessary for a state of completeness. I'm not trying to be patronising to the people without children, or to those who freely choose not to have kids, but this medical evidence suggests that the womb / reproductive system is there to be used. It's a question of fine tuning.




I'm not talking about general life on planet earth that has been around for billions of years - I mean the individual life of each person. That starts from the moment of conception. That photo up above is actually a human person, Ms LKL - it needs to be protected.


Rape is not entirely one or the other. In many animal species, rape is the way omega males perpetuate their genes when they cannot compete with better individuals on the regular field of selection; it's difficult to rule out that some of the same might not be occurring in some human rapes. In addition, forcing a woman to bear her rapist's offspring, regardless of the motivation, perpetuates the abuse, control, and violence that he initiated. As I have mentioned before, I personally would fry my liver with pennyroyal tea before I gave birth to an rapist's child. Watch the movie 'alien' if you want to get a visceral idea of how women feel about rape and rapist's offspring.

What!? Oh please, Ms LKL, do not try to peddle this garbage (italics) in a serious discussion! There are no useful comparisons to the animal kingdom because we are sentient human beings - we know that we know, and we understand ourselves as 'knowers'. The animals don't. "There is no difference between being raped and being run over by a lorry, except that afterwards, men ask you if you enjoyed it" (Missoula rape poem) - well not this man. I'm as passionate about equal rights as anyone. And the trouble with having a man / woman divide over this one is that honest, sincere respectful men need to co-operate with women to ensure that this poisonous behaviour is eradicated from our society - it doesn't help to emphasise the fact that we don't understand completely. And of course it's possible for MEN to be raped, too. But eradicating rape from society starts off with a respect for life, and I'm sorry if sound naiive at this point, but can you not empathise with the child in the womb? Can you accept that, in the end, it's not the fault of the child?
So you mention: Abuse - the child in the womb who is not to blame is killed
Control - the women's rights are seen as greater than the child's (theyre not)
Violence - committed on the child in the womb. Next paragraph.
What occurs in abortion perpetuates the negative things that happen in rape, not remove them.
But I'll present the choice of two: you can have the abortion if you agree that you can't have any more children. That is the risk that every woman takes if she chooses to have an abortion.



Get real! When the instrument of abortion is introduced to the womb, the child reacts in TERROR when it sees it. Because the cervix isn't completely dilated, the limbs and the trunk need to be torn away, and while this is occurring, the child is screaming, even if the procedure occurs in the first trimester. And the skull is crushed because there's no other way for the head to come out. If it was compulsory to tell each woman this at the time of the abortion, I'd say there'd be less abortions. But the people who run the clinics don't want to, because the profits go down. And around New York, abortions account for 42% of all pregnancies. African Americans (Obama's race) abort 60% of the children they conceive. So, I guess that the next Obama may not occur for many years, because of these facts. Another WASP in the White House. Is this naiive enough for you, Ms LKL?



US - UK? I dispute that, but even if they are, the curse of childbirth denied is a grave matter. There are very few rapist's children conceived, because if the woman speaks about it straight away, a powerful dose of contraceptives (I'm not sure if Plan B is the same as RU486 in the UK) can be administered to ensure that that conclusion is avoided.




I may not know you very well, Ms LKL, but surveys do not come to the same conclusion as you. In Europe, the thoughts, feelings, and actions of a women who has had a pregnancy terminated is recognised as a distinct medical condition - similar to PTSD. It is reaching near epidemic levels. Conditions range from suicidal feelings, to a distrust of all males, an incredible amount of low self-esteem, etc. Here's a link: http://www.afterabortion.com/faq.html




Yep. I understand what I sound like. But if it's true that what you've written above has actually happened to you, then I wouldn't mind wagering that you would prefer the innocence to the experience. But to write, and act in an open and childlike way is what keeps people open to new ideas, new experiences, to be flexible thinkers. Don't blame me for your lost innocence - it's not my fault.

Glad to hear that.

I'm a biologist, darling. I definitely understand life, genetics, and the process of fertilization better than you, because by describing sperm as "protein," you are displaying a colossal level of ignorance that makes all of the conclusions you derive thereafter suspect. In addition, it is your opinion, not fact, that personhood begins "at the first collision of sperm and ovum," (a statement which, by the way, displays your ignorance again), not fact and certainly not unavoidable.


They're not citizens until they're born. They would say nothing even if they had the physical capacity to do so, because they do not have the mental capacity to do so. The uterus, in its current form, exists because we are placental mammals rather than egg layers. As for who I am, I am an ACTUAL human being and not a POTENTIAL one.


because the immune system responds to foreign proteins, not to DNA. Not that the woman's body ever has direct contact with said DNA anyway.

If the man's WBC's got into the woman's system, the problem would be rather the opposite: they would attack her body. It's why blood transfusions are LRC (leuko-reduced packed red blood cells). The fact that you do not know something does not necessarily mean that no-one knows it; you were correct in stating that we don't understand the totality of the immune reaction to a zef, but you are incorrect about the depth of our ignorance.


Organisms reproduce because the organisms that didn't reproduce died out. It's really as simple as that. The uterus evolved to carry roughly a pregnancy every other year from ~12 to death, usually at less than 40 years of age; the fact that it evolved to do so does not mean that modern women have any obligation whatsoever to submit to that evolutionary history.

I, personally, have a somewhat more Buddhist view of my individuality and a biological view of life; I disagree with you wrt. the personhood of a zygote. Again, I ask: how do you define personhood?

Which part do you think was garbage? I seriously meant all of it.


I agree whole-heartedly that humans have a responsibility for their actions in a way that animals do not, but the point remains that rape can sometimes be a reproductive strategy and sex is one area of human behavior where we are extremely driven by instinct. In fact, it is arguable that we are even selected to some level for the ability to turn off critical thought during sex and the lead-up to it.


Absolutely, and it is as horrible for men as it is for women (and, shout-out to the feminist activists who were instrumental in finally getting the FBI to change its definition of rake so that male rape is recognized by law enforcement) - with the exception that men will never be parasitized by a rapist's offspring afterward.


1)Rape has nothing to do with 'respect for life.'
2)No, I cannot 'empathize' with a rapist's offspring, especially when it has been implanted in me against my will.
3)It's not a rabid dog's fault that it's rabid, either, but I'm still going to shoot it.

abortion removes the last physical vestige of subjugation and control from the woman's body. It allows her to move on both physically and mentally.


evidence, please (from actual medical, peer-reviewed sources, not anti-choice propaganda sites)?
Frankly, I'd take the abortion even if it meant a 100% chance of never having a child. I have a lovely niece, and I could simply be a more doting auntie for her.


Ahh, yes, another victim of the 'silent scream' propaganda movie.
You do know that it's propaganda, right?
Like you know that the vast, vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, when the zef doesn't even have the capacity to see, much less react comprehendingly? When it's the size of someone's thumb, or smaller? Yes? You do know that, right?



fee for an abortion: $500. Fee for labor and delivery: $2000-$5000. Lots of financially stupid OB-GYNs out there, I guess.


Just as likely that we're aborting the next KKK grand dragon, eh? Or the next drug dealer, the next failed novelist... you might as well argue the Catholic line - which I have personally heard in church, btw - that it is every person's responsibility forebear to use birth control, to pop out as many mini-me's as possible, because we're limiting human potential otherwise.


A few points: dispute it all you want. I've seen actual, medical numbers about the risks of abortion as compared to childbirth, and you are simply wrong. It's true that pregnancy as a result of rape is rare, but it's not as rare as the anti-choicers generally make it out to be.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248
Plan B is entirely different from RU-486, but it can be difficult to obtain on evenings and weekends; the longer the delay in taking it, the less effective it is. After 3 days, one might as well not waste one's money; if one reports to a Catholic hospital, they may demand that you take a blood test to check the hormone levels and see if you've already ovulated before they give you a drug to start your period... a test which, incidentally, takes several days to come back unless the hospital has an unusually well-equipped laboratory.


Surveys of whom? Self-selected anti-choicers? Women who had to abort wanted fetuses late in their pregnancies due to medical issues? Women who were pressured into abortions by their families and/or partners?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/12/ ... UE20081204
quote: No high-quality study done to date can document that having an abortion causes psychological distress, or a "post-abortion syndrome," and efforts to show it does occur appear to be politically motivated, U.S. researchers said on Thursday.


Even if abortion did disproportionately make women sad or unhappy later, that is NO excuse to remove a woman's personal agency as an adult human being. Adult humans have the right to make choices about what they will do with their own bodies. They can even refuse lifesaving medical care, and unless they're declared insane or otherwise incompetent, they cannot be treated by medical staff without charges of assault and battery.


Do the words "would...if" have any meaning to you? The future conditional tense of English? Try re-reading what I wrote earlier, eh?


You don't have anything to do with my innocence, or lack therof; however, you would try to take away my personal agency as an adult human being if you could, and that makes you a fair target.

final point: why do you pepper your response with 'Ms.LKL' over and over? Once was sufficient for me to know whom you were addressing, and the title is unnecessary in the context of an internet argument (unless you are using the title as a subtle reinforcement of the sexist idea that I am female, and therefore to be taken less seriously)? I am genuinely curious, given your stated egalitarian proclivities.

Last edited by LKL on 13 Mar 2012, 2:24 am, edited 1 time in total.