• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support and want legal "person hood" at conception?

Do you support and want legal "person hood" at conception?

  • Total voters
    28
soylentgreen said:
A question for those who say yes.

If a woman from another country flew to america and became pregnant. If the life inside her has the status of personhood then what of the 14th amenment;
Click to expand...

i dont say yes and never would but you are right, this is something that most certainly would come up

currently its verbiage is persons born but if personhood is granted at conception "birth" is no longer a factor here and that is one of countless things that would end up in the courts and many reasons why person hood at conception will never happen.
 
soylentgreen said:
I doubt that doctors would allow it as they too must act under the hypocratic oath.

Waddy is basically creating an unnecessary law of which the only purposes is to keep woman as secondary citizens and maintain the idea that a woman must fulfill her role as a breeder for men rather than a person in her own right.
Click to expand...

And no doctor is forced to perform a procedure that they believe is unethical.
 
Lursa said:
thus far, no newborn has ever survived earlier than 21.5 weeks. And those that survive are almost all severely mentally and physically compromised, often not reaching a year.

24 weeks is where the unborn approach viability. And women do not abort healthy viable fetuses. There's zero data showing that.
Click to expand...



My brother's third child was a 23-week preemie. Just barely 23 weeks.

When my sister-in-law realized she was about to give birth, the first hospital they got to wouldn't take active measures to save the life of a child born at less than 24 weeks. Would only offer comfort care.

So they went to a second hospital which would give lifesaving care for a 23-week birth.

And that began a harrowing several months with the baby in the NICU and every phone call was met with the fear that it might say it was the end for their child.

My nephew didn't just survive. He thrived. The main remnant of his traumatic entry into the world is that he is legally blind and is preparing for the likely event of becoming totally blind as each growth spurt compounds the effect of the scar tissue in his eyes.

So, because of my brother's intimate experience with micropreemies, I asked how he felt about abortion. Because his son lived from such an early gestational age, did he support a 20-week cut-off for abortion, for instance?

His answer was no. That he didn't want any restrictions at all, no matter how many weeks. That he would never try to impose any limitations on how parents dealt with crisis pregnancies such as his son's. And he would never judge how another family dealt with the hellish set of circumstances which would-be parents are going through when they are at a point that they would consider terminating a late-term pregnancy.
 
Amelia said:
My brother's third child was a 23-week preemie. Just barely 23 weeks.

When my sister-in-law realized she was about to give birth, the first hospital they got to wouldn't take active measures to save the life of a child born at less than 24 weeks. Would only offer comfort care.

So they went to a second hospital which would give lifesaving care for a 23-week birth.

And that began a harrowing several months with the baby in the NICU and with every phone call was met with the fear that it might say it was the end for their child.

My nephew didn't just survive. He thrived. The main remnant of his traumatic entry into the world is that he is legally blind and is preparing for the likely event of becoming totally blind as each growth spurt compounds the effect of the scar tissue in his eyes.

So, because of my brother's intimate experience with micropreemies, I asked how he felt about abortion. Because his son lived from such an early gestational age, did he support a 20-week cut-off for abortion, for instance?

His answer was no. That he didn't want any restrictions at all, no matter how many weeks. That he would never try to impose any limitations on how parents dealt with crisis pregnancies such as his son's. And he would never judge how another family dealt with the hellish set of circumstances which would-be parents are going through when they are at a point that they would consider terminating a late-term pregnancy.
Click to expand...
I'm very happy for their good outcome.

And those that understand the emotional pain and mind numbing decisions are in the best position to explain how that decision can only be humanely left up to each individual or couple.
 
Lovebug said:
I don't think that legal personhood at conception necessarily negates choice. A potential mother is accountable for the life within her, regardless, and brings me back to my second point... Life, all life, is precious. Ask a vegan or a scientist looking for life on Mars. It is up to the mother to ponder, and when said life gains legal status, she may just ponder a bit more thoroughly.
Click to expand...

LOL Since 2/3rds of conceptions do not result in a child it is clear that for the vast majority of fertilized eggs conception does not equal life.

Which fertilized eggs will become healthy human fetuses? Researchers predict with 93% accuracy -- ScienceDaily
 
Lovebug said:
Person? Not yet, but potentially.
Life, all life, is precious. Ask a vegan or a scientist looking for life on Mars.
Still, pro choice, because we can't legislate morality.
Click to expand...
Odd reference, IMO.

Vegans are idiots and hypocrites, whereas scientists are essentially truth seekers. Additionally, only the first is explicitly “pro-life”.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL Since 2/3rds of conceptions do not result in a child it is clear that for the vast majority of fertilized eggs conception does not equal life.

Which fertilized eggs will become healthy human fetuses? Researchers predict with 93% accuracy -- ScienceDaily
Click to expand...

Interesting! Good paper.

So then if the unborn were 'persons' from conception...all these millions and millions of miscarriages and 'no longer pregnant women' would require govt investigation.

Good plan :doh
 
Lovebug said:
Person? Not yet, but potentially.
Life, all life, is precious. Ask a vegan or a scientist looking for life on Mars.
Still, pro choice, because we can't legislate morality.
Click to expand...

Vegans eat vegetables. Vegetables are plants. Plants are lifeforms. Ergo, salad is murder.
 
Tlrmln said:
Vegans eat vegetables. Vegetables are plants. Plants are lifeforms. Ergo, salad is murder.
Click to expand...

Wan, do you find this definition of murder acceptable? She's most definite about her 'opinion' on words, esp. the word 'murder'. She refuses to accept all that have come from the dictionary and I have posted several. She's made up her own.

Perhaps she'll see this and concur with you.
 
Wan said:
Only human agents with a functional mind can "commandeer other person's internal organs". The unborn aren't that. They simply exist. But I see that you really hate the unborn, though.
Click to expand...

Funny. If the unborn aren't human agents, how can they have any human right that justifies forcing women, who are human agents, into slavery?

Unless, of course, you really do just hate women that much.
 
Waddy said:
After a point the rights and needs of the unborn become important. Until 20 weeks the pregnant woman should do what she wants, abort or carry to term. After 20 weeks the rights and needs of the baby should be respected and any decisions that affect that almost fully formed baby be considered with that in mind.
Click to expand...

The latest CDC stat based on 2014 data is just 1 percent of abortions take place after 21 weeks and 80 percent of those abortions are because of catastrophic fetal defects.

From:
Dr. Gunter supplied a few facts of her own. Only 1.3 percent of abortions happen at, or after, 21 weeks, she said, and 80 percent of those are the results of catastrophic defects with the fetus. Dr. Gunter continued with a powerful explanation of why women generally seek out procedures like a late-term abortion.
Click to expand...

Read more:

Which States Offer Late-Term Abortions? They Are Very Difficult To Access
 
Well it seems it does remain pretty low and just an extremist position . .

Not surprising nobody that supports person hood at conception can enplane how it works
 
AGENT J said:
Do you support and want legal "person hood" at conception?

A.) Yes
B.) No

I left out the "other" options because when it comes to this question other doesnt really apply.
Im fully aware that some may want a "version" of person hood and not full person hood but then thats NOT person hood
I also understand some may want person hood LATER than conception 12 weeks or something but thats not what my question is about

I always assumed, because of lack of evidence, that people wanting person hood at conception was rare, a very small group and i want to see if thats the case

I personally do not support person hood at conception because when it comes to trying for equal rights (which is factually impossible in this case) person hood at conception is way to far in one direction.
Click to expand...

No I don't. Even if I was against abortion, which I'm not, granting personhood at conception is a really bad idea with way too many unintended consequences.
 
molten_dragon said:
No I don't. Even if I was against abortion, which I'm not, granting personhood at conception is a really bad idea with way too many unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

Exactly true and that why i was curious and its also why like i said in real life i never met anybody that supports it. The endless factual consequences are staggering and they all end up withe women having her rights violated and becoming just incubator.
 
AGENT J said:
Do you support and want legal "person hood" at conception?

A.) Yes
B.) No

I left out the "other" options because when it comes to this question other doesnt really apply.
Im fully aware that some may want a "version" of person hood and not full person hood but then thats NOT person hood
I also understand some may want person hood LATER than conception 12 weeks or something but thats not what my question is about

I always assumed, because of lack of evidence, that people wanting person hood at conception was rare, a very small group and i want to see if thats the case

I personally do not support person hood at conception because when it comes to trying for equal rights (which is factually impossible in this case) person hood at conception is way to far in one direction.
Click to expand...

I think, therefore, I am.
 
Only a demagogue votes yes for this authoritarian usurpation of individual liberty.
 
Casper said:
You did not and could not think at conception.
Click to expand...

maybe i took his post differently but he did vote no so im thinking you are misunderstanding him . . i took it as a no because of exactly what you said . . . i could be wrong though :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom