Personhood USA and the Bills they want to pass

[JustMel]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This talks about how five states have already passed laws giving the fetus the same rights as anyone else from the moment of fertilization or conception. There is a move to do this across the country.

This is so unbelievably wrong especially in the case where the mother was forced to undergo a c-section and both her and the child died. It is not a Dr., State Attorney or any governement's right to tell a woman how she should give birth or if she should continue a pregnancy. I can not understand how in this country we have people who are actually falling for this "movement" and don't realize they are taking away a woman's right to decide how to give birth. No it's not up to the government or the insurance company.

This is NOT an abortion debate and I'd like to keep this away from that area. This about a bill being passed that gives the fetus the same or more rights than the woman carrying the fetus. Choosing to prosecute a mother of twins because one was stillborn and she chose not to have a c-section earlier is preposterous. There is no way to tell when the child died inutero. Can they conclusively prove that her choosing to try and let nature take it's course caused the child to die? Can they prove there were two heartbeats two weeks prior and not just one?

I can understand in the case of a mother who is pregnant and abusing alcohol or drugs someone stepping in because that endangers the mother's health as well but I can't see it in delivery options.

[Visum]

I believe the issue is "when does human life begin".

[JustMel]

That's been the issue for decades. I don't think it's one the sides will ever agree on. Even as a mother I don't believe it begins until the fetus could survive outside the womb as far as individual rights are concerned.

But I also only advocate abortion as a choice up to 12-14 weeks.

[PunkinA]

I see the issue as "Why do you assume we as humans deserve rights?"

I can understand acting in accord as if we did have these supposed rights, but I don't see evidence that they actually exist. So you want to imagine rights for women, and that guy wants to imagine rights for fetuses. I don't very much want to extend the fantasy so far as to give additional rights to doctors or lawyers or whoever. My point is let's stop with the fantasy of rights altogether.

The real argument, or battle comes down to values. What really occurs is that one group values their extended belief that they have some control in their own life. These people value choice, and dislike laws that inhibit choices.

Another group values babies. They enjoy the thought of human organisms progressing as long as possible through life's journey. They dislike the thought of one human organism taking action to cause another human organsim to die. The preference of this group will be to use means of force (or law) to protect each human organism from death at the hands of another.

Notice that the preceding two paragraphs have no articulation of rights. When we take the metaphysical concept of rights out of the dialogue, we can begin to discuss strategies that maximize both sets of values. As long as we use language of rights, we are constrained by a thinking that someone else is also wrong, which essentially devolves into a sort of trench warfare.

[Visum]

Notice that the preceding two paragraphs have no articulation of rights. When we take the metaphysical concept of rights out of the dialogue, we can begin to discuss strategies that maximize both sets of values. As long as we use language of rights, we are constrained by a thinking that someone else is also wrong, which essentially devolves into a sort of trench warfare.

The majority of US citizens value human life and believe that that life has basic rights. It comes back to when does human life begin.

Regarding a human life begins when it can sustain itself after birth, is a little short sighted. This is too arbitrary and subjective that it is about impossible to regulate. One of many issues would be, what is the difference of a child still in the womb that needs nutrients from the mother and a born child that still needs human care and nursing? They will both die without care.

[PunkinA]

Just because the majority of US citizens believe in an idea does not make it correct. Strict adherence to what is already assumed will hinder our ability to see what is actually occurring.

I will not entertain your ad populum argument to promote your faulty agenda. The rights do not actually exist in and of themselves. Debating about when these non-existent rights begin is a worthless endeavor.

[schwartzie]

The majority of US citizens value human life and believe that that life has basic rights. It comes back to when does human life begin. Regarding a human life begins when it can sustain itself after birth, is a little short sighted. This is too arbitrary and subjective that it is about impossible to regulate. It is not short-sighted. It is difficult to execute/implement. A possible solution is to err on one side or the other. Do you err on the side favoring the woman or the fetus in crafting a more easily implemented rule that approximates the above (e.g. no abortion after 25 weeks is fairly easily implemented.)


One of many issues would be, what is the difference of a child still in the womb that needs nutrients from the mother and a born child that still needs human care and nursing? They will both die without care.

The difference is that in one circumstance, you do not make a woman the prisoner of the state in the effort to keep the fetus/baby alive; in the other you do.

Why should we prefer that the state seize the body of the woman and forceably regulate her, her behavior, her eating, sleeping, movement, breathing .... If the state forces her to forego or engage in particular physiological functions to preserve the integrity of the fetus, the state is engaging in an extraordinary police action--one far more extensive than any imprisonments currently used to manage ordinary prison populations. If you draw the line such that the woman's body must be regulated by the state to sustain a fetus, you would need to be prepared to create and fund an incredibly intrusive police machine to enforce it.

For example, if this was the rule, that the woman and dependent fetus are equal in their civil standing, we'd probably agree that then the woman could not separate her body from the fetus' body by ingesting substances or engaging in activity known to cause abortions.

How about lesser harms; how do we address that? For example, could she do things like ingest heroin or strychnine, or cease eating? Hm... probably not; the state would need to make her not ingest bad things and to instead ingest nutrients --so the state would need to seize her body and force feed her so she could manufacture fetal nutrients.

How about more ambiguous harms--could she exercise a lot and eat only a little--with some probability that the fetus would not survive the behavior? Could she drink coffee? What if the fetus was severely allergic to coffee? Should her body be restrained if she engages in known reckless endangerment--riding a motorcycle or bicycle without a helmet, living with a wife-beater (who usually step up the severity of abuse when the wife becomes pregnant, and often strike the woman's abdomen, as part of taking the opportunity to exploit her vulnerability...[weird but true]). Should pregnant women be prohibited from walking at night in a known dangerous part of town? Where does the state draw the line in seizure of the woman's body for use of the fetus? How will you pay for restraining all these citizens?

The notion that the state may take possession of all these women in order to control their bodies for the benefit of a third person--the dependent fetuses -- is abhorrent to anyone valuing human independence and freedom. I strongly disagree that it is appropriate to pass unenforceable laws that require the state to erect some huge regulatory/police agency to manage pregnant women. Proposals along these lines strike me as the product of idealist claptrap.

Surely there are more useful things we can do to help one another, at a time when increasing numbers of pregnant women and their existing children live on the streets, are homeless and undernourished, in an economy that is staggering, and in which jobless rates are rising? sheesh....

[NZPixie]

My god the USA is crazy! That is just absolutly mental. How on earth can anyone justify such barbaric practices? I am actually literally sickened by this. I am very pro-choice, but how can anyone justify enforcing major surgery on women who WANT TO HAVE THEIR BABIES?! This is not at all about abortion. This is about the right to chose how and where you will give birth, as much as that can be decided.

[Visum]

Just because the majority of US citizens believe in an idea does not make it correct. Strict adherence to what is already assumed will hinder our ability to see what is actually occurring.
I will not entertain your ad populum argument to promote your faulty agenda. The rights do not actually exist in and of themselves. Debating about when these non-existent rights begin is a worthless endeavor.
I was appealing to our democratic system rather than using an ad populum argument. It still comes back to when does life begin. Until we as a people agree on this, the issue will continue. Or do you believe that we should flip a coin to determine if US citizens have rights?
It is not short-sighted. It is difficult to execute/implement. A possible solution is to err on one side or the other. Do you err on the side favoring the woman or the fetus in crafting a more easily implemented rule that approximates the above (e.g. no abortion after 25 weeks is fairly easily implemented.)
I think the story is tragic and maybe short-sighted is the wrong use of words. I am not trying to support Personhood USA or making a case for this situation.
However, the question of when life begins still remains. What about 25 1/3 weeks? Time seems so subjective and too arbitrary. I think about pushing a rock down a hill. How do we determine it has movement? After 25 weeks do we determine that it is now moving because it has generated quantifiable velocity, or inertia? Would a different rock on a different hill attain the same velocity after 25 weeks? Do you see what I am saying?
I am not advocating a c-section and forced birth, or even holding a woman hostage. I do believe this issue is much more complex and deserves much more discussion and attention than some of us desire.

[PunkinA]

I was appealing to our democratic system rather than using an ad populum argument. It still comes back to when does life begin. Until we as a people agree on this, the issue will continue. Or do you believe that we should flip a coin to determine if US citizens have rights?


An appeal to the democratic system is an ad poplulum appeal. It assumes that the concept of rights should be governed by what the majority thinks. The argument is flawed. It either assumes that the masses will choose the objectively correct decision, or that the objectively correct decision is defined by what the majority thinks. Both approaches are very flawed. The problem is that there are no objectively defined rights that inhere to the individual. I am not advocating a coin flip. I would prefer to address the problem without using stilted language.

Let's begin by saying no objective system of rights exists in nature. Rights develop out of the laws that a society adopts. In practicality the laws define the rights. If we assume a concept of rights before the laws are in place, we are placing the cart before the horse. Where we choose to define our laws is arbitrary. If I choose to enact a law that promotes the livelihood of all embryos, only then the rights apply to the unborn. On the other hand If I choose to enact a law that protects access to abortions, I am defining rights for the woman to choose. Without the laws the rights do not occur. Either way the laws develop out of the will of the individuals in a society, not from nature. The laws are as arbitary the values of the individuals in a society. As a biproduct, the rights are also arbitrarily determined by the values. It's all arbitrary.

Again, only once we have come to the conclusion that neither set of values deserves primacy in a legal system can we begin to develop laws and approaches that maximize gains for both sets of values. Otherwise we are perpetually stuck in a situation where we are pre-emtively attempting to ban the other guy. Trench warfare.

[Visum]

Let's begin by saying no objective system of rights exists in nature. Rights develop out of the laws that a society adopts. In practicality the laws define the rights. If we assume a concept of rights before the laws are in place, we are placing the cart before the horse. Where we choose to define our laws is arbitrary. If I choose to enact a law that promotes the livelihood of all embryos, only then the rights apply to the unborn. On the other hand If I choose to enact a law that protects access to abortions, I am defining rights for the woman to choose. Without the laws the rights do not occur. Either way the laws develop out of the will of the individuals in a society, not from nature. The laws are as arbitary the values of the individuals in a society. As a biproduct, the rights are also arbitrarily determined by the values. It's all arbitrary.

Again, only once we have come to the conclusion that neither set of values deserves primacy in a legal system can we begin to develop laws and approaches that maximize gains for both sets of values. Otherwise we are perpetually stuck in a situation where we are pre-emtively attempting to ban the other guy. Trench warfare.
I believe we are on the same page about how the rights have been determined and I believe I understand your ad populum argument. You thought I was arguing that the rights are correct because we say they are? I am sorry for my miscommunication as I was not trying to argue whether rights are correct or wrong but rather pointing to the issue of when life starts. Whether a right is correct or wrong is definitely an issue, but how do you take subjectivity out. I do not appeal to the masses to determine what I feel is correct or right, but I will still abide by those laws. What do you suggest we do to get around this? I know where and how I define human rights, but until you and I agree we are at an impasse? Even to agree no objective system of rights exists in nature is still relative and in a democratic system would require the populous to agree. :huh:

[maxpot46]

The problem is that there are no objectively defined rights that inhere to the individual.Do you own yourself? If the law says that you are a slave to another man, is this legitimate?

[ClydeB]

I am pro choice on the subject. I figure if a woman wants to abort her fetus. Its her decision. Unless I am the donor of the starter genetic code. Then I want a say in that particular case.

This doesn't mean I like the idea. Quite the opposite. But I am not going to impose my standards on someone else. And I expect the same in return. A futile expectation I suspect, but one nevertheless. Besides, in a way it's natural selection at work.

[PunkinA]

Do you own yourself? If the law says that you are a slave to another man, is this legitimate?

I do not own myself. I am at the whim of my environment. I do not determine my conditions. I need food, water, shelter and so on to survive. If all food derives from the land, and all land is owned by men around me, I am dependent on the whim of those controllers for my survival. I do not own my destiny, and instead my actions are determined by another. I'll admit that this is an extreme case. Unfortunately, it is also the actual case.

If the law entails the words "you are a slave to no man" but enforces the system which causes me to rely on the whim of another man, the law's legitimacy is comprimised.

I do not own myself. I cannot choose to live by my own will alone. I am enslaved by natural law. I cannot escape it. I cannot deny my physical nature. When law by force grants another man an ability to control the environment, an environment which I cannot deny, the new limits imposed by this other man, also limit my freedom.

Perhaps I am overstating here. Maybe you have definitions of the words "own" and "self" that describe a situation that I would agree to. Most common uses of these words though fail to support that idea.

[floramacivor]

I am very pro-choice, but how can anyone justify enforcing major surgery on women who WANT TO HAVE THEIR BABIES?! This is not at all about abortion. This is about the right to chose how and where you will give birth, as much as that can be decided.

I agree - this sounds like it's beyond the right of the fetus not to be aborted.

[JustMel]

I knew a woman who called men "sperm donors". Course there was some personal baggage to that POV. But it does kind of put the lie to the patriarchal society belief.

Thus the reason behind the old saying: "Mama's babies and daddy's maybes"

My oldest daughter has a daddy but she also has a sperm donor. That was his contribution to her being here---his sperm. He never paid child support, he saw her one time. He knew I was pregnant, he said he wanted a vote in the decision making, he said he wanted to be a part of her life. He did none of those things. I still never said anything about him negatively in front of her. She had me hunt him down when she was 14 and she asked him all her questions and held him responsible for not exercising the visitation rights given him by the court order. I never bothered to make him pay the child support the court ordered either.





JustMel added to this post, 1 minutes and 48 seconds later...

I agree - this sounds like it's beyond the right of the fetus not to be aborted.

Well beyond. This whole movement makes me think of a place where women are kept simply for procreation and treated as if we have nothing else to offer.

[Visum]

Sorry to hear that JustMel, I grew up in a similar situation. My biological father didn't want me, but glad my mother did.

[Writermom]

An appeal to the democratic system is an ad poplulum appeal. It assumes that the concept of rights should be governed by what the majority thinks.

Witness what happened in California in the last election. A majority of people voting to deny rights to a minority group doesn't make it right or constitutional. If you had put a initiative on the ballot in Mississippi/Alabama/Georgia in 1958 to desegregate schools, what do you think the results would have been?

[maxpot46]

I do not own myself. I am at the whim of my environment. I do not determine my conditions. I need food, water, shelter and so on to survive. If all food derives from the land, and all land is owned by men around me, I am dependent on the whim of those controllers for my survival. I do not own my destiny, and instead my actions are determined by another. You are talking about self-sufficiency, not ownership. Let us define terms. To "own" means the state or fact of having exclusive rights and control over property. When it comes to the specific property of your own body, there are only 3 possible scenarios -- 1) you own yourself; 2) you share ownership of yourself with some else (or others); 3) you are owned by someone else (or others). Now, IMO introspection reveals that option 1 is true because it resonates with the fact that my fingers wiggle only when I want them to and not when anyone else does. It is obvious that only I have primary and direct control over my body -- others can only influence my actions indirectly. With this definition in mind, I ask again, do you own yourself?

Also, what do you think is the source of laws? You seem to think they are natural events, instead of tools used as means to ends.

[PunkinA]

You are talking about self-sufficiency, not ownership. Let us define terms. To "own" means the state or fact of having exclusive rights and control over property.

First I am suspicious that your definition of own by using the word property, creates a circular definition. Property is defined by ownership, and ownership is defined by property. You have to assume an understanding of one before you can express the other, and I contend that at their roots the words are not understandable. But to temporarily table my concern, I can still answer your question to some degree.

When it comes to the specific claims about my body, another perspective exists which you did not state, which is that nobody, not even myself, owns my body. On the largest scale no willful force can claim main governance of my body. Unthinking physical laws determine most of my existence. I cannot will to deny these laws.

Secondly, if we consider testimony of prisoners and slaves, they will attest that independent of their will, their bodies can be made to conform to physical positions. Your fingers can be restrained from movement. Being human does not ensure ownership of one's facilities.

Also I have a health condition, which does not always ensure that my body's actions coordinate with my desired responses, I cannot claim to have control over my physical makeup.

The fourth option is that nobody has exclusive control over my body. To me this is the most applicable explanation.

To answer your final question, Yes. Societal laws occur as a result of social interactions. I also believe that individuals can craft laws to promote personally desired outcomes. I find it relevant to consider that for most individuals, the laws in place were not put in place by the people they effect. For the most part we are all born into our environment, both its natural and societal laws.

[maxpot46]

First I am suspicious that your definition of own by using the word property, creates a circular definition. Property is defined by ownership, and ownership is defined by property. You have to assume an understanding of one before you can express the other, and I contend that at their roots the words are not understandable.I actually just copy/pasted that definition from a web dictionary, but taking a second look at it I see your point. I think that substituting the words "good" or "object" for "property" would probably be more accurate in this case.When it comes to the specific claims about my body, another perspective exists which you did not state, which is that nobody, not even myself, owns my body. On the largest scale no willful force can claim main governance of my body. Unthinking physical laws determine most of my existence. I cannot will to deny these laws.Again, you talk of power and not ownership. To say "no one owns you" is to say "no one has direct and immediate control over your body"... but you do. By the definition of ownership, the fact that you, and no one else, have direct and immediate control over your body makes you the unique owner of it. The point is not the effectiveness of your decisions regarding your body, or the forces you must struggle with as a consequence of your decisions; what matters is that you decide.Secondly, if we consider testimony of prisoners and slaves, they will attest that independent of their will, their bodies can be made to conform to physical positions. Your fingers can be restrained from movement. Being human does not ensure ownership of one's facilities.Only indirectly, i.e. by others using direct control of their bodies to indirectly influence yours. Your control of your body is immediate; theirs is once removed.

Your views seem summed by the maxim might makes right, and are able to hold this view because you believe there are no inherent rights of man arising from human nature itself. This is the view of tyrants, and I think this view is challenged by the self-evident proposition of self-ownership. If I own myself, then others are limited by that fact -- i.e. I have a right which they cannot legitimately violate (and vice-versa, when applied universally as all general laws must be). They can, of course, overpower my ability to exercise that right, but that is an indirect violation of my direct bodily control. IOW, self-ownership precedes laws (and in fact is the point of laws, to protect the rights arising from self-ownership).

[acyckowski]

This about a bill being passed that gives the fetus the same or more rights than the woman carrying the fetus. Choosing to prosecute a mother of twins because one was stillborn and she chose not to have a c-section earlier is preposterous. There is no way to tell when the child died inutero. Can they conclusively prove that her choosing to try and let nature take it's course caused the child to die? Can they prove there were two heartbeats two weeks prior and not just one?

I can understand in the case of a mother who is pregnant and abusing alcohol or drugs someone stepping in because that endangers the mother's health as well but I can't see it in delivery options.

Specifically, the criminal charges result from a prosecutor who's either a crusader or has too much time on his hands.

The basic idea is that one person's choice to accept risk against the learned opinion of "scientific experts" is subordinate to a vaguely defined and uncertain threat to others. This kind of hubris--and the legal backing of it--are nothing new in the medical profession: how many states disallow midwives? Why can't a Registered Nurse open a practice to treat everyday maladies?

BTW, it's the same logic used to ban smoking in restaurants or in public. Call it the natural consequence of creeping nanny-ism. Government knows best.

[PunkinA]

I am still troubled by your definition of own. Let's continue to look at it.

To "own" means the state or fact of having exclusive rights and control over property.

Your version of own, does not describe an objective state at all. First I encounter a circularity in your ontology, where you earlier describe rights as a product of ownership, and later describe ownership as a function of rights. Which comes first? I deny one, and thereby deny the other.

Now you have already conceded the flimsiness of the term word property in this definition, but substituting "good" or "object" only sets up a new set of objections. To define a "good" will always imply some subjective judgement. It is entirely possible that you and I will never agree on what constitutes a "good." The definition does not progress the argument.

As far as "control" goes, it is evident that you and I understand the word differently. I gave several examples which I felt addressed the issue of "control" whereas you seem to think a different set of ideas come into play. I am not saying either of us is wrong, only that we are arguing from different terms. I suppose I could also ask you to define "control".

Now Might is Right? My statements directly deny this claim. They admit no rights, and no legitimacy. Might is Right only serves to justify a different order of behavior. Again you have inferred the contradiction of what I would assert.

I would also disagree in your assumption about the point of laws. Lawmakers do not always develop their prescriptions based on similar ideals. Common law partially developed out of a common idea of property, but in its inception, Common Law did not apply to all men, but only to property owners. The only conclusion to be drawn of common law is that laws based on property will be based on property. I see no novelty or extended value in this claim.

[Josephine1012]

Ok, it looks like we all picked our favorites subject and got off track, let's recap the OP
Personhood laws are about restricting mothers right to informed medical decisions.
The decisions that courts pass are not always what's best for the mother or child involved, they are simply the current fad

(allow me interject my personal favorite and slightly irrelevant subject. The medical school education in this country is in a deplorable state. People are not taught to think, they are taught to memorize. We train our doctors in the same way we train our lawyers to rely on precedents. Not to consider each case individually).

Whether you believe life starts in conception or at birth, the rights of the fetus still does not outweigh the rights of the mother. Fetus is not super-human, and when the baby is born it's just a baby, hence it can't possibly have more rights than a fully grown adult. If we go with the view that life starts at conception. I still fail to see how the rights of one human trump the rights of another human. It appears that these laws most certainly treat rights of fetus over the right of women, or at least attempt to, since they don't always make the best decision for the fetus involved. Interestingly, politically speaking, only one of the two is a citizen and a tax payer (hint: not the fetus). The law implies that it has a better grasp of what's best for the child and for you, it assumes custody over your child, if your methods don't coincide with the most popular methods/views at the moment. Atkins' diet anyone? (that was huge for a while you know) I also remember the time when diet coke was THE way to the healthy life style.

If you pay attention to the video a lot of pro-life people strongly oppose this bill as well, since it isn't always the safest thing for the child either.

Now, let's put this into perspective. This is a first step to a very ugly reality, in a country that builds everything on precedents, it opens doors to some really scary possibilities. There can be various applications of this for the "public good", we can be putting down some patients with infectious deceases (even if they are not terminal in all cases) in order to save the majority from getting infected. We can also force some fad procedure on everybody. If I remember correctly for a while there everyone had the choice to remove their appendix. What if it wasn't a choice? And what if it wasn't appendix and get circumsized? Anyone scared yet? People, try and exercise a little bit imagination here, don't get so bogged down with the details...

[Ray9]

If you can prove to me that no money is looted from my paycheck to pay for any of this, you or anyone else can deal with this issue any way you choose.

[JustMel]

If you can prove to me that no money is looted from my paycheck to pay for any of this, you or anyone else can deal with this issue any way you choose.

Expound please? If you're talking about the prosecutors taking possession of a pregnant woman and demanding she submit to a procedure she doesn't want or a form of delivery she doesn't want---that's paid by taxpayer money as they are county/state employees.

If you are talking about medicaid paying for abortion, I'd rather pay the little bit upfront in taxes than the thousands upon thousands they could potentially get if having another child and staying on public assistance.