General Question

LadyMarissa's avatar

When does an unborn baby become a person?

Asked by LadyMarissa (12967points) 2 months ago

Brandy Battone of Plano TX was 34 weeks pregnant when she determined the day after the SCOTUS killed Roe that since her baby was now a person that she could drive in the HOV lane of Hwy-75. A cop saw 1 person in the vehicle & pulled her over asking why she was using the HOV lane which required 2 people. She responded that there were 2 people in her vehicle. The cop asked her to show him the 2nd person & she responded “She’s right here” as she rubbed her very pregnant belly. The cop gave her a $215 ticket for driving in the HOV lane without the required number of people. He failed to understand her logic. A local attorney said that although she was thinking creative that he didn’t think that she would win her case. Being in Texas, I’m sure the Good Ol’ Boy network will band together to stop a woman from thinking for herself.

My question is since a baby is considered a person at the sign of the first heartbeat, when does it become a non-person for any other reason???

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

196 Answers

Blackwater_Park's avatar

IMO she deserves that ticket. He certainly did not fail to see her logic, he knew she was riding the letter of the law in opposition to the spirit or color of the law. It may go to court and she will probably lose. I’d assume “passenger” is legally defined somewhere.

I’m not sure when a state considers a fetus a person. A case like this or others like it may just force the issue.

Smashley's avatar

:p this is an old canard. I doubt it’s real. People have been spreading this story on the internet since the 90s at least. In most versions, the cop gives the mom a ticket for not having the child in a car seat,

elbanditoroso's avatar

@Smashley read yesterday’s newspaper and today’s New York Times. It’s real. It’s Texas.

Smashley's avatar

@elbanditoroso – Meh. Show me the body cam footage. It still sounds like BS. I don’t doubt she got a ticket for illegally using an HOV lane, but this isn’t Rosa Parks here. This sounds like when people don’t pay their taxes and act all indignant when they lose their houses, “but… I do not give my consent to be taxed!”

SQUEEKY2's avatar

But if her wonderful unborn fetus is a person, then doesn’t she what it takes to be in the HOV lane?

Smashley's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 – despite what stilted arguments people facing a ticket sometimes use, there is no fetal personhood statute in Texas. This is an imaginative interpretation of a law about abortion.

jca2's avatar

According to Catholics and many Christians (which I am not a Catholic nor a fundamentalist so I am in no way, shape or form defending this viewpoint), a baby becomes a person at the moment of conception, despite the fact that it’s a few cells and at even at six weeks of age, the size of a pea, gelatinous.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@Smashley you’re right this is about abortion,if the law says her unborn is a person and she can not abort it ,then why does it not extend to other areas such as H O V lanes that require two or more persons in the car?

Smashley's avatar

The law doesn’t say the fetus is a person. It says she may not abort the fetus.

cookieman's avatar

I like her logic. Given that, she should be able to claim the kid on her taxes as well. If anti-abortion lawmakers and judges are using mythical Christianity as the foundation for their decisions, then this lady’s logic is no more daft.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@cookieman excellent point.

I would add that since every one of the zillions of sperm that I have in my body are potential people, that I should be able to declare each and every spermatazoan as well.

Same for women and their eggs.

Demosthenes's avatar

Fetuses are not treated as persons in any situation other than abortion. Though I do suspect that “fetal personhood” is the endgame of much of the anti-abortion lobby and we will likely see it codified in law in states like Texas. The result will be a lot more pregnant women and women who have miscarried in jail.

Bill1939's avatar

Though the comment referred to a woman trying to dodge a traffic citation, the question was “When does an unborn baby become a person?”

A fetus is not a baby until it has developed to the point where it can live outside of the womb. While some religions claim human life begins at conception, they ignore the fact that at the time Jesus was alive (and long before that) it was believed that life begins with the first inhalation and ends with the last exhalation.

As a fetus develops, its nervous systems, organs, cardiovascular system, and muscles are activated. This, however, does not mean that the fetus has become sentient. It is the capacity for sentience that makes a being human, which does not happen until this higher level of brain activity has been established.

si3tech's avatar

At the moment of conception.

canidmajor's avatar

@si3tech Why? Why is it the “moment of conception”? There is no scripture that supports this concept, why do you think so? And do you think that everyone should agree with you, to the point of legislating away the rights to autonomy of persons who are carrying said blastocyst/embryo/fetus?

As to the details, I believe this was a stunt to make a point, and it was successful as I see it being discussed all over the internet.

As to the Q, I believe the fetus should enjoy personhood status when it is viable extra-utero.

Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
Response moderated
Response moderated
Caravanfan's avatar

When they are born.

kritiper's avatar

When (and if) they are of two minds, which makes one human compared to animals that are of one (and only one) mind.

Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
filmfann's avatar

The logic behind HOV lanes is to stop people from driving in cars alone. Since the unborn baby wouldn’t be driving alone, the mother is on tenuous ground.
I have seen newspaper reports where policemen have used this logic to discount young children from qualifying for HOV passengers.
If you simply want to point out Texas hypocrisy, that’s already baked in.

gorillapaws's avatar

In my mind, you can’t logically separate the end of personhood and the beginning of personhood. If a person in a persistent vegetative state is able to have “the plug pulled” because they lack the higher functioning that separates a human person from a potato, then a fetus—yet to develop such brain functioning—is morally equivalent.

Furthermore, even if we do extend personhood to a fetus with higher brain functioning, that doesn’t mean that women are obligated to carry that fetus to term. If someone’s drowning in a lake, you have no legal obligation to jump in to try to save them. Giving birth has very real risks, especially in red states where there is little investment in healthcare, and they’ve rejected the expansion of Medicaid. It’s perfectly rational for a women in such a predicament to focus on her own safety. These are conversations and decisions she should be making with her doctors.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
Response moderated
LostInParadise's avatar

If we could agree that at some point a fetus becomes a human then from that point on abortion should not be permitted. Using @gorillapaws‘s lake analogy, if you toss someone into a lake then you are obligated to try to save them to avoid being charged with murder. If a woman chooses to remain pregnant up to the point that the fetus attains personhood, then she is responsible for that personhood and must give birth to the child.

The philosopher Peter Singer says that humans do not attain full blown personhood until after they are born. Link

Inspired_2write's avatar

“link” https://helloclue.com/articles/pregnancy-birth-and-postpartum/what-is-the-difference-between-an-embryo-a-fetus-and-a-baby

Read Quote under heading: What is a Fetus:

“The fetal stage begins at 10 weeks from the last period and lasts until birth (2).
By the beginning of this stage, all the major organ systems have formed, but are immature (2). From this point on, the fetus will primarily be growing and tissues will be maturing.

There is no exact timing of fetal “viability” (or ability to survive outside the uterus), but a fetus that is at least 24 weeks may be viable if given intensive care after birth (2).

Before 30 weeks gestational age, a fetus is less likely to survive than an older fetus because their lungs and brains are immature (2).”
:
There is more information in that whole article about birth.( personhood).

SnipSnip's avatar

Conception.

gorillapaws's avatar

@LostInParadise ”...if you toss someone into a lake…”

How is the woman “tossing the person into the lake?”

“If a woman chooses to remain pregnant up to the point that the fetus attains personhood, then she is responsible for that personhood”

Why?

smudges's avatar

Conception simply means that the cells have the potential to become a human being, given the correct nutrients and conditions. I have the potential to be a rocket scientist, given the correct education, determination and funding. Does that mean I am one now? Nope.

canidmajor's avatar

So I’ll ask you, as well, @SnipSnip, Why? Why is it the “moment of conception”? There is no scripture that supports this concept, why do you think so? And do you think that everyone should agree with you, to the point of legislating away the rights to autonomy of persons who are carrying said blastocyst/embryo/fetus?

@si3tech hasn’t answered that, can you?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Sorry going to get a bit vulgar, in Red states it would seem that women would have more rights over their bodies if their vagina was an AR 15.
Now come out and scream denial over that statement.

LostInParadise's avatar

@gorillapaws, Assuming that the woman is permitted to have an abortion before the fetus attains personhood, the fetus only attains personhood due to her decision not to have previously chosen abortion.

flutherother's avatar

A baby becomes a person from the moment of birth until their nomination to the Supreme Court.

seawulf575's avatar

I’d have to agree with the logic the young lady used to a point. If you want to claim the child is a person at conception then the full rights should be employed. Of course the argument would be the lady was the only passenger in the car, the baby was the only passenger in the lady. But what the SCOTUS did with RvW was not saying that a fetus is or isn’t a person. What they did was to say that abortion is not a federal government decision to make…that it belongs more at the state level.

gorillapaws's avatar

@LostInParadise So we’re responsible for things becoming that don’t yet exist because we’ve not taken active steps to prevent it? In this but for standard you’ve claimed, there are lots of potential opportunities for the creation of that person, right? Why is it the woman’s burden and no-one else’s?

Blackwater_Park's avatar

There is no fine line when a fetus becomes a human. It’s a gradient. I’m inclined to say when the heart starts beating but It’s a fool’s errand to try to define and defend that line though. I refuse to sugar coat it. Abortion is murder in my mind and I’m ok with it. There are times when we need to be ok with that as a society. The level of murder is a gradient too. The longer a healthy pregnancy is allowed to continue the more like murder it becomes. Early pregnancy detection is critical. My recent rabbit hole in fetal alcohol syndrome confirmed that.

Response moderated
cheebdragon's avatar

It’s a common excuse and women have been unsuccessfully using it for years.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
chefl's avatar

It’s a person at conception. This is something one doesn’t need to ask scientists or religion about. How the mother got pregnant, how perfect the zygote’s medical condition is, whether or not the parents want to keep or abort, have nothing to do with it.

gorillapaws's avatar

@chefl “It’s a person at conception. This is something one doesn’t need to ask scientists or religion about…”

We just need to check with you? Nice. I didn’t realize it was that simple!

While we have you here to solve the World’s problems for us could you help us out with P vs. NP as well? Thanks!

canidmajor's avatar

Why, @chefl? Why is it a person at conception? Why are you, of all people, privy to the answer of that question? And is your basic personal belief something that you feel compelled to impose on the rest of us? Do you feel compelled to support legislation that will impose this belief on the rest of us?

What a load of arrogant crap.

Brian1946's avatar

@chefl

“It’s a person at conception.”

If intrauterine sperm=person, then you are a sperm wad attached to a uterine wall.
Why not wait until you at least become a fetus, and then see if your opinion changes? ~

Blackwater_Park's avatar

So if I jerk off and my sperm count is high I have killed hundreds of millions of babies. The horror.

LostInParadise's avatar

Not just sperm cells but any cell. A human egg cell that is injected with a skin cell of any other person will clone the other person. Granted that this does not occur naturally among humans, but pathogenesis occurs among other vertebrate animals. Does this make each cell a full fledged human, or is there some magic, some soul insertion, when the egg cell is stimulated to start cloning?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

How come it’s a person at conception, but not a person inside the mother in a HOV lane?

cheebdragon's avatar

It’s not a person in the HOV lane until it’s in its own car seat. Pregnancy isn’t always obvious and most people have no desire to see fat people piss on pregnancy tests roadside for police.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

So NOT a person in a HOV lane, but a person if the mother wants an abortion?

cheebdragon's avatar

It’s not a person if you want to justify abortion.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Writing Standards)
elbanditoroso's avatar

Get it through your skull. I am not pro-abortion.

I am pro women’s rights and pro-bodily-autonomy. And frankly pro-freedom.

Calling someone who believes in women’s rights ‘pro-abortion’ Is just plain insulting.

Caravanfan's avatar

I am anti “forcing a woman to have a birth against her will”.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Sort of what the state of Ohio wanted that 10 year old rape victim to do?^

janbb's avatar

@Caravanfan Or in my shortened form – “forced birth.”

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated
Response moderated
chefl's avatar

If I find it insulting to be called apro abortion, it would have to be because I know it,s wrong to be pro abortion.

gorillapaws's avatar

@chefl “If I find it insulting to be called apro abortion, it would have to be because I know it,s wrong to be pro abortion.”

I’m pretty sure you’re being intellectually dishonest here, but giving you the benefit of the doubt here are the possible positions:

1. “Pro-Abortion”: They love abortions. They want every fetus aborted. They want to see the extinction of the human race. Close to zero people actually have this position. Labeling people “pro abortion” is insulting when they don’t hold this belief. You’re correct in asserting this position is wrong. If people want to have kids they ought to have the autonomy of their body to have them.

2. “Pro-Choice”: They may (a) personally believe that abortion is wrong, (b) not view a zygote/fetus as a person, or (c) hold some other interpretation of when legal personhood should apply, regardless of a, b or c, they all agree that ultimately a woman’s right to bodily autonomy supersedes the government’s authority to impose restrictions on her. They believe that each woman ultimately has the authority to make these decisions for herself, or as @Caravanfan so eloquently put it: “I am anti ‘forcing a woman to have a birth against her will.’” It’s not about loving abortions, it’s about the libertarian principle of personal freedom and bodily autonomy.

3. Pro-life: These people love life. They don’t eat meat. They vehemently oppose the death penalty, are strongly anti-war and anti-gun. They want to defund the police and see a return to friendly, community policing. They want every possible egg and sperm to become a person. They will never pull the plug on a braindead person. Most importantly they care deeply about health, safety, wellbeing of others. They’re happy to pay nearly all of their income to supporting robust neonatal care for the poor, programs to nurture and support healthy and long lives, educating everyone and supporting the underprivileged so they can live long lives. I’ve never met anyone like this.

4. “Anti-Choice”: These folks believe that abortion is morally wrong and so they want big government to enforce their personal beliefs on everyone, regardless of what those people, themselves believe.

Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
seawulf575's avatar

I’ve seen the argument that every sperm is the same as a fetus made a couple of times in this thread. I have to say that is an ignorant dodge. The pro-lifers state that once an ovum is fertilized, life is started. That requires both an ovum and a spermatazoa. But without both of them, life will not start. The sperm-is-sacred argument is a dodge. to avoid the real issue.

Smashley's avatar

@seawulf575 It’s this weird sexist cultural artifact: it’s the notion that personhood exists in the male gamete, while the female is just the fertile earth the person is sown in.

LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 , An egg cell with its nucleus removed can be used to clone the DNA from someone else’s skin cell. Does that make a skin cell a person? Link

gorillapaws's avatar

@LostInParadise The human skin cell: it’s alive, it’s human, it has the potential to become a being with a social security card, driver’s license and passport, ergo, each skin cell is a person?

I think I just massacred a D-Day’s worth of soldiers exfoliating in the shower just now…

@seawulf575 “But without both of them, life will not start

Are you saying that skin cells or unfertilized eggs aren’t alive?

Caravanfan's avatar

@seawulf575 The “every sperm of sacred” argument was a Monty Python joke.

seawulf575's avatar

@smashley, again…the female ova by itself is not a life. so to claim some sexist cultural artifact is not only not accurate nor is it pertinent.

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise and @gorillapaws Are you saying that either the ova or the skin cells will spontaneously create life without any outside assistance? And if they are sitting by themselves? If so, you need mental help. If not, you are dodging.

And since you are so dead set on considering cloning in this argument, are you suggesting that we should clone a person just so we can abort it before it is born?

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 It’s not a dodge at all. We’re applying the criterion you’ve asserted as being necessary and sufficient for something to be a person and demonstrating how that set of criterion can lead to ridiculous results, thereby demonstrating that your criterion is flawed.

Ova are alive. Skin cells are alive. They’re human. If given the right circumstances can become walking/talking people. So why shouldn’t they be considered persons under the law but zygotes should? Also, refrain from special pleading in your response.

LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575, Natural cloning, called parthenogenesis, does exist in some other animals, including some vertebrates. It is possible, though highly unlikely, to occur in humans. Link Why does something that takes place in nature have more importance than something that can be done in the lab? Are you opposed to in vitro fertilization? Do you oppose genetic engineering of food crops?

The object is not to clone people so they can later be aborted. The point is that a single skin cell, if placed in the proper environment, will produce a clone. All the necessary material is in the skin cell’s DNA. Why make a distinction as to how the zygote is created? Would you be in favor of aborting a clone, but not a “natural” conception?

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws This is all criterion YOU have asserted, not me. I stated that for a fetus you would need both an ova and a spermatozoa to interact. And this was all in reference that every sperm is sacred. that it is a sexist cultural artifact that it requires both sperm and ovum to create life, etc. So YOU are the one asserting that either one is capable of life by itself. You are dodging from the real issue.

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 You’re playing definitional musical chairs. The OP question is about personhood (i.e. when does the law treat this living thing as a legal person and differently from other living human things like skin cells, sperm, etc.). You’re talking about things being alive (which skin cells and ova are), and then defining conception as the moment that conception happens (which nobody disagrees with).

So make the case. Why do we extend personhood to a zygote at the moment of conception but not to skin cells and ova? You’re the one asserting their position is so superior to everyone else’s that it should override all of our individual beliefs on the topic. With that degree of certitude it should be easy to put together a robust logical argument that survives rational scrutiny, no?

LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 , But it does not take both a sperm and an egg cell to create life. It just takes the DNA of a skin cell placed in some evacuated egg cell. The person’s identity is in the skin cell’s DNA. Why then is a skin cell not a person?

Response moderated (Writing Standards)
JLoon's avatar

Jeezus.

Why is it so many men seem to feel their opinion should be the last word on this question? Isn’t that really how we ended up where we are – The Big Boys Club of judges, politicians, priests & ministers “solving the problem” for everyone else??

Zygote, fetus, ovum – ya’ll have fascinating ideas about things you’ll never really have in your own bodies. But maybe that’s the only discussion that will really matter now, since what women feel and think and choose is legally irrelevant.

If some pregant woman is trying to drive in a fucking HOV lane good for her. I just hope she’s headed to Canada, or Mexico, or any place else that hasn’t gone so batshit crazy that they’ve forgotten she’s a human being.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Great answer^^^

LadyMarissa's avatar

@JLoon Since she lives in Texas, I’m just guessing that she was headed for Mexico but got stopped before she could make it over!!!

She seems to be serious about this as she’s still working to fight her $275 ticket. Her precious daughter is due on Aug 3. Wonder IF she’ll count as a person once she can be seen???

cheebdragon's avatar

It’s going to end up costing her far more than $275 eventually, between processing fees, late fees & traffic school, she can expect her auto insurance bill to increase very soon also.

I wish any of my tickets had been that low.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated
SQUEEKY2's avatar

So to answer your question it counts as a person as soon as it can survive on it’s own with more rights than the mother.

A fetus is after six weeks, with more rights than the mother.

LadyMarissa's avatar

It appears to me that it has MORE rights than its Mother the second after the sperm hits the egg (even IF it bounces off)!!!

Response moderated (Writing Standards)
Response moderated (Writing Standards)
LostInParadise's avatar

@chefl , I have a simple question for you that I previously asked @seawulf575 . You say that abortion of a zygote is murder. Do you support having the woman and her abortion provider tried for murder? That would mean possible execution or, at the least, lifetime imprisonment.

Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise You might want to represent my answer correctly if you are going to use me as a yard stick. I pointed out that in a case where an unborn child is killed by someone that attacked the mother (for instance), that person can in many states face murder charges for the death of that unborn child. My stance is you can’t have it both ways. Either you drop the idea of treating an unborn child as a viable person that can be murdered or you have to treat abortion as murder. There is no sensible way it can be both.

Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 , You make things complicated. It is a simple question. Do you or do you not favor trying a woman and her abortion provider as murderers? As near as I can tell, you do not favor treating them that way.

As to consistency, this is also a simple matter. If anyone kills a fetus beyond a certain age then it is murder. If someone kills a fetus before that age it is not murder. If it is done to a fetus before personhood by an outsider against the mother’s wishes then it is a crime, but it is not murder.

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise No, you can’t take a statement that points out discrepancies between rules and try to make it one or the other. My statement is to point out the hypocrisy in our society. If killing an unborn baby is murder, then abortion has to be murder as well. Murder is not dependent on how a woman feels. You can’t say she gets to choose but then say it is murder if someone else kills the baby. That’s like saying it’s murder if someone kills my wife, but if I choose to do it then it is okay. Sounds pretty idiotic, doesn’t it?

LostInParadise's avatar

I don’t know how to make this any simpler. Killing someone’s pet dog is a crime but it is not murder. If the fetus is not yet a person then killing it is not murder. It belongs to the mother so killing it would be a crime, just as in the case of killing someone’s pet dog.

Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
Response moderated
Response moderated
WhyNow's avatar

What if… a game played round these parts. What if science learns how
thru some kind of prenatal genetic screening advancements
to determine if a fetus is likely to be trans or gay and a women uses that
to determine weather or not to have an abortion?

gorillapaws's avatar

@WhyNow That would be horrible. It should also be legal for them to do so because women have the right to bodily autonomy.

People have the freedom of speech, which allows for the KKK to peaceably assemble and say horrible shit publicly. It sucks, but it’s important that we protect/defend their rights to say horrible shit.

Notice the distinction between authoritarian vs. libertarian impulses. Authoritarian: “I don’t like X so the government should make X illegal for everyone.” Libertarian: “I don’t like X, but I’m not willing to expand the Government’s authority to trample everyone’s rights to prevent other people from doing X.”

WhyNow's avatar

@gorillapaws Unbelievably and again I agree with you! Except
here in NYC we do the xxx.not just the X. That’s right.

chefl's avatar

@JLoon pitting men against women, muddying the waters, doesn’t fool many people.
And addressing me as “sir”? That’s called doing fake news. There is nothing to indicate that I’m a male, and there is no need to bring up anyone’s gender. It’s I got nothing let me make noise kind of item. Another post too, men this, women that Based on that it should be segregation, only female doctors dealing with females, and female judges deal with only female related things….on and on. That sounds….
And the _“Women are human beings” just noise. I’m sure some other person has said “Hitler is a human being”, and the point is…?

@LostInParadise some restaurant owners would argue “but the rat poop and the mold etc, is only piled up 2 inches high, it should be piled up much higher, the mold should be found on the ceiling in order to make it to the level of “Temporarily closed”. Of course the owners of these kinds of restaurants are expected to say that kind of thing. Aiming for the bottom of the barrel. Very few (I hope) _ pro abortionists would say “It [the fetus] belongs to the mother.”(I own the person inside me.)

LostInParadise's avatar

That might not be the best word choice, but it is illegal to take a child away from the parents. Perhaps you would prefer “having custody”.

chefl's avatar

@LostInParadise The person belongs to me I can dispose of him her, and we the parents have custody (of this unborn person), and we’re responsibe for him/her are polar opposites of each other.
And there is nothing else in my post I guess?

Edited to add: It’s illegal to take away a child from his parents but the parents preventing him/her from existing is….better?

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise Killing someone’s dog is a crime regardless of who does it, with the possible exception of euthanasia. But your answer ignores that there are many states where killing an unborn child is murder if someone other than the mother does it since they view the unborn baby as a human life. If the mother chooses, then it is called abortion and is entirely legal since in that instance that unborn child stops being a human life and becomes an set of cells that are inconvenient for the mother.

chefl's avatar

Is there anything else that works like that? If I do it it’s ok, if you do it it’s a crime/murder, (wrong)?

LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 , There may be inconsistencies at the state level, but that does not excuse you from having inconsistencies in your own beliefs. You say that abortion of a zygote is murder, but you are opposed to having the person who performs the abortion being convicted of murder and are opposed to having the mother punished at all. That is a serious inconsistency, which would seem to imply that you really don’t believe that abortion of a zygote is murder. If you were put in charge, under what circumstances would you convict a person of murder?

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise No. When did I EVER say abortion of a zygote is murder? I DID say that there are laws that treat a zygote as a person and the premature “death” of the zygote is murder. Again…you are assigning a statement or a belief to me and then trying to hold me accountable for it. My statement is with the inconsistency of the law…that there are those that feel that injuring or killing a pregnant woman and by that killing the unborn child is murder. And many of those same people feel abortion is perfectly normal. If the unborn child is a person in the eyes of the law, then abortion would be murder. If the unborn child is NOT a person in they eyes of the law (as in abortion) then causing the premature death of one is not murder either.

I keep pushing you back onto track with this and you keep trying to assign some other statement to me. WHY?

LostInParadise's avatar

At what age does killing a fetus become murder? Two weeks? Three months? Only after birth?

If a zygote is a person and killing a person is murder, then does it not follow that killing a zygote is murder? Saying otherwise is illogical, so maybe you are not inconsistent, just illogical. Furthermore, paying someone to kill somebody is also murder so, logically speaking, the mother is also a murderer, but you don’t think the mother should be punished at all. How do you explain that logic?

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise You almost have it. Except you keep assigning things to me instead of where it lies. You are asking me these questions like I am the one that came up with the inconsistency. I didn’t. The laws did. I have stated this over and over and you keep trying to avoid that. But you have at least recognized the idiocy of this inconsistency and can see what I am talking about. You have identified many of the aspects that don’t make a bit of sense, but you refuse to acknowledge they come from law instead of from seawulf575.

You have laws that call killing an unborn baby a murder. Murder is the killing of a person. So the LAW identifies that the unborn baby is a person. BUT, many of those same states have laws that say abortion is okay because an unborn baby is NOT a person. It makes no sense. But in a real world sense, if you went to the murder side, then a mother and her doctor could be responsible for murder. If you go with the abortion side, then killing an unborn baby is NOT murder…it can’t be. It would be the loss of excess cells…akin to breaking off someone’s finger nails or ripping their hair out.

LostInParadise's avatar

Forget about what the laws say! They are not required for you to create a logical argument for why killing a zygote is wrong. You have failed to do that.

Here is the argument in terms of logic based on your assumptions without referring to any existing laws:

1. We define murder as the intentional killing of a person.
2. A person convicted of murder should either be executed or locked up for life.
3. A zygote is a person.
4.Therefore killing a zygote is the killing of a person.
5. Therefore the intentional killing of a zygote is murder.
6. Therefore the person killing the zygote and the one who paid them to do it should either be executed or given a lifetime prison sentence.

cheebdragon's avatar

Nearly every state with fetal homicide laws specify that the provisions do not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion to which the pregnant woman has consented or to acts which were committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice during testing or treatment.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Everyone knows that pro-abortion vegans are the real hypocrites.~

LostInParadise's avatar

@cheebdragon , That raises @seawulf575 ‘s argument that if the death of an unborn child is murder when done by an outsider, shouldn’t it also be murder if requested by the mother?

chefl's avatar

@LostInParadise So, if from now on (ASAP) , the law says women who seek and get the abortions and doctors nurses who perform it will end up being charged for murder, then you ‘ll decide that a zygote is a person? Added So, why not post here on other threads about ways of to reducing the unplanned pregnacies, abortions?
Did you respond to @seawulf575‘s question where is asks Would you be ok if abortion was limited to rape incest, health/life of woman in danger maybe it’s on the “When does an unborn bany become a person?”

cheebdragon's avatar

@LostInParadise Your logic is incorrect, a murder conviction doesn’t always mean a life sentence or death penalty. The average time served for murder is 15 years. Personally, I don’t care if they charge people with murdering zygotes but I can’t imagine it would be great for our already overcrowded prisons.

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise You keep saying “Forget what the law says!!”. But that is the key of what I have been saying. That is where the complete lunacy comes from. I’m pointing out that lunacy. And you CONTINUE to apply the logic of that lunacy to me. INCLUDE THE LAW!!! Because your entire logic tunnel for me falls apart when you ACTUALLY INCLUDE THE LAW as I have been doing. My logic would actually read more like:

A person kills a zygote while attacking a pregnant woman
That person gets charged with murder in the laws of many states.
The charge of murder, by definition, means a person was killed.
Yet those same states often allow abortion.
Abortion is the killing of a zygote.
Those same state laws allow abortion.
Therefore during abortion that zygote is not a person.
Therefore no murder was done.

That makes zero sense. Either the law admits a zygote is a person or it doesn’t. To say it is a person in one case and not in the other is contradictory.

THAT is how my logic looks.

If you want to extrapolate out my logic it looks like this:

Killing a zygote in an attack is murder but in an abortion is not.
Pick one.
If you choose it is murder in an attack it has to be murder in an abortion.
If you choose it is not murder in an abortion then it cannot be murder in an attack.
If you choose the first, then the mother and the abortionist are both murderers.
If you choose the latter, then anyone that has ever been convicted of killing a zygote needs to go free and all future charges of this sort will be illegal.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

By your own logic Wulfie then why did it not count for that pregnant woman to be in an HOV lane with her unborn Zygote?

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 go back to my initial answer on this thread for the answer to that question.

chefl's avatar

The pro abortion side is wasting the opposing side’s time /making noise since it can’t win.
Either I’m going to return the valuabes that I found to the right owner, or I’m going to see what the Bible says what the scientists say to do, or what the law says I can get away with. Either I abuse animals kids born or not, just conceived or 9 months (fetus) or I can see what the law, science scriptures say. I know for a fact which kind of person pro abortionists would rather have take care of them, their family friends when they are sick and need to be taken care of. Argue that. (Edited)

WhyNow's avatar

Can I try a different angle?
Killing by a member of the public of a zygote is murder.
Killing a zygote if it’s condoned by the state is lawfully fine.
Am I close?

LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 , Okay, the state laws are inconsistent. Under what circumstances, if any, should killing a fetus be considered murder? If you don’t answer this basic question then I am done with this conversation. Feel free to live with your inconsistencies.

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise I’m not sure it should EVER be considered murder. But I will say getting rid of a zygote, especially for reasons of convenience, shows a huge lack of respect for life. A zygote is a growing life that, if left as it is, will usually develop into a separate life from the mother. To try explaining it as anything else is to try fooling yourself. Trying to justify it shows you have no respect for that life at all. And you have to be honest in the discussion of abortion…an overwhelming majority of all abortions are done for reasons of convenience.

LostInParadise's avatar

Do you consider killing a two year old to be murder? When, if ever, is the line crossed?

chefl's avatar

@LostInParadise You don’t know how you’re harming yourself by posting that question, and esp. posing it at @seawulf575

Response moderated
Response moderated
SQUEEKY2's avatar

Personally I would have no problem at any time frame when it comes to rape, incest, or the mother’s health in jeopardy,baby be damn the mother comes first.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

For all other cases 15 weeks is fine.

Response moderated
SQUEEKY2's avatar

I am not for abortions used simply as a means for birth control but still if the women thinks it’s a mistake and is in the 15 weeks then it is her choice.

BUT IN CASES OF RAPE!, INCEST!, or THE MOTHERS HEALTH in great jeopardy then I am ok with it being done at any time, if that bothers you then tough fucking shit, I suppose you think that 10 year old Ohio rape victim should have carried it to term?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I have an idea @chefl let’s focus on caring for the children that are already here instead of the ones that are not born yet.

Response moderated
Response moderated
chefl's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 “within the first 15 weeks in cases of rape or incest or where there was a significant birth defect with the child or where the mother’s life was legitimately at risk from carrying the child to term…would you be okay with it?” Answer: “VERY MUCH SO”

SQUEEKY2's avatar

In cases of rape,incest,or the mothers health I don’t think there should be any time limit I told you that.
The 15 weeks are for cases where those issues are not present.
Is that clear enough?

chefl's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 You’re re saying yes to any and all abortion,—for not missing a vacation…for job promotion, ..and on and on—,(“For all the rest”, meaning other than the ones that have to do with the rape etc.)
And, If a woman after deciding not to abort, all of a sudden even the day before it was due,decided to end the life of the baby who could have been given away, that’s ok, is what you’re saying, by “any time frame” That would make it 100% of the cases.
You thought @seawulf575 was asking you all, _would you be ok, if abortions were anytime anywhere, when you answered “VERY MUCH SO!! Very interesting. (Edited)

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Where the fuck did you get that?
The three issues I stated I don’t think there should be any time limit.
all the rest falls within a 15 week dead line.
The Propaganda you anti abortion freaks spread by thinking ,late term abortions are common place is wrong most if not all doctors will not do a late term abortion unless the mothers health is in great jeopardy.
WHERE DID I SAY I WAS OK WITH ALL ABORTIONS?

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise Of course I would. As I have posted a number of times, it is the pro-abortion crowd that is all for post birth abortions. It is really the pro-abortion or pro-choice side that question. How about it? Where do you draw the line?

chefl's avatar

Just like the term pro choice post birth abortion is a misleading term. It’s not abortion if it is born. The need to confuse lies with the side that’s in the wrong.

Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 , I would draw the line at 15 weeks, but the point is that you agree that there is a line. At some point killing the fetus or person is murder and before that time it is not murder. Killing the two year old is murder but killing the zygote is not murder. How do you account for the difference? Can we say that the zygote is less of a person than a two year old?

hat's avatar

Fuck, it keeps going. You can’t convince people who believe it’s ok to build an authoritarian regime that controls women’s reproductive organs. You just cant’t. And in case you didn’t hear me: You cannot convince them.

I think what we’re really doing here is trying to figure out if we can convince the Nazis to reconsider their position on Jews.

cheebdragon's avatar

@hat Nazis were technically pro-abortion for certain groups of women.

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise I have always been of the mind that there are legitimate reasons for an abortion. I have also been a big proponent that convenience is not one of them. If you were afraid you couldn’t support a child at this point in your life, then you ought to take steps to prevent that from happening. And please note that is not women only. Men are just as stupid as women in this case. And ANY TIME someone gets an abortion, it ought to be an extremely painful decision to be made. It should never be an easy decision. Some things are necessary…pregnancies that threaten the woman’s life for example. But beyond that is should not be made lightly.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Wow!! I totally agree with wulfie.

hat's avatar

@cheebdragon: “Nazis were technically pro-abortion for certain groups of women.”

Yep. That is correct. Thanks for supporting my statement.

But since you are clearly in the “I want a Nazi-type authoritarian government who controls women’s reproductive organs”, are you of the opinion that any of you types can be convinced otherwise? We weren’t in a position to convince Nazis to reconsider their views – they needed to be eliminated.

seawulf575's avatar

@hat It’s interesting to me that the SCOTUS overturning RvW is seen as some Nazi move where you want the government controlling women’s reproductive organs. There is so much wrong with that statement it’s almost comical. But let’s just focus on the one big thing that is wrong with your statement. The SCOTUS decision was that the federal government should NOT be in control. Kinda takes the wind out of everything else, doesn’t it? In fact, by trying to push it as a federal thing, YOU are the one that wants a Nazi-type authoritarian government in charge of women’s reproductive rights.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 , I repeat my question. Why do you say it should be murder when a two year old is killed, but should not be murder when a zygote is killed? I just want your personal opinion on this. I don’t care what state laws are. You have been put in charge. Why would you execute or imprison someone for life for killing a two year old but not for killing a zygote. I need to know the answer to this to continue the discussion.

Response moderated (Writing Standards)
hat's avatar

@seawulf575: “The SCOTUS decision was that the federal government should NOT be in control”

Since the US is a shit country, you know it didn’t protect a woman’s right to control her body. So it left that protection to the flimsy supreme court decision. The scotus decision specifically removes the right of a woman to control her body, handing it over to state governments to control. You know this, and I’m not going to convince you to stop being disingenuous.

@seawulf575: “In fact, by trying to push it as a federal thing, YOU are the one that wants a Nazi-type authoritarian government in charge of women’s reproductive rights.”

I’m familiar with the “if you try to protect rights, you’re actually violating rights” argument that has been made popular among propagandized. “If you provided rights, you’re taking rights away”, “if you don’t invade a country, it’s actually invading the country”, “not stealing is actually stealing”, etc. The fact that you can try that on me tells me where you live and who you are surrounded by.

Let me make this as clear as possible: The US doesn’t deserve to exist if it doesn’t allow woman to control their reproductive organs. I’ll repeat, it doesn’t deserve to exist. And anyone who is in a position of power and doesn’t protect this right doesn’t deserve to live.

I’m not going to convince you – and neither is anyone else. We just need to stop you authoritarians. Personally, I’d cut the throat of anyone who grabbed my daughter’s ovaries. And if we have any chance of creating a society that is worthy of existing, we need to do the same to those in power. Time for talk is over.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
cheebdragon's avatar

What rights have been violated? Abortions can still be obtained in the United States, the routes might be more scenic for some than others, but you can still kill (forcefully reject/eject?) your parasitic zygotes.

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise Nope….sorry. I answered that as much as I am going to. Since it is pro-abortion folks, such as yourself, that have led to the idea of post-birth abortion, I think it is YOU that needs to answer your own question. When is it too much?

seawulf575's avatar

@hat “Since the US is a shit country, you know it didn’t protect a woman’s right to control her body.” Are you a Russian bot? Here’s a little civics lesson for you. In this shit country we have The Constitution. That is what outlines how our country will be run. There are things called Enumerated Rights. These are those rights that are either spelled out in the Constitution itself as applying to everyone or are identified as being either things controlled by the federal government or the state governments. And it’s funny…if it doesn’t say it is controlled by the federal government it specifically goes to the state governments. Because we are a Republic. We are 50 sovereign states that are allowed to legislate themselves, all working together as one nation with the federal government being the entity that deals with issues that involve foreign affairs or inter-state issues.

When Roe v Wade was first passed, it was known at that time it was likely unconstitutional since it assigned power to the federal government that was not specifically there. This SCOTUS ruling corrected that. And why is this important? Because it is easier for people to change state and local laws rather than federal laws. RvW is a perfect example of that. Look how long something that was incorrectly deemed “a federal right” took to change. By pushing this back to the states it did NOT remove a woman’s right to control her body. That was never really a right. What it did was to push the decision for what is deemed acceptable back to the states where it belonged in the first place. Will some states go wide open for no abortion? Likely. But if that is not the will of the people it will not last long. People that are pushing laws that go against the will of the people get voted out.

As for your claims of trying to protect rights is violating rights…go back and read what I wrote before. You made the statement to @Cheebdragon that he was a person of the ”“I want a Nazi-type authoritarian government who controls women’s reproductive organs”” frame. But the latest SCOTUS ruling, which you are so diligently railing against, took the authoritarianism of the federal government away. That’s what it did. And you are the one arguing that it needs to be back. So which one of us is Nazi-esque? You want it in a federal level so you can squash the opinions of anyone that disagrees with it and make it harder to change. That is exactly what you were accusing @cheebdragon of.

hat's avatar

@cheebdragon: “What rights have been violated? Abortions can still be obtained in the United States, the routes might be more scenic for some than others,”

Don’t play that game. You know it’s complete bullshit. If half the states in the US suddenly outlawed women from driving or holding a job or seeing a dentist, we’d have to invade those states by force and resolve the situation. The US is not doing so, which means that poor women, young women, women in abusive relationships, and unhoused women will not be able to get healthcare and will be forced by the state to give birth or in many cases just die. I know with 100% certainty that you know this, so do not fucking say otherwise. Save that shit for your church group meeting. Also, you are well aware that keeping women from crossing state lines to control their bodies is something authoritarians want to stop.

cheebdragon's avatar

@hat Traveling freely between states is a concept so old that it predates the constitution. The Magna Carta, contained protections for the right to travel. And the right to travel has been recognized by the Supreme Court numerous times, it’s also been granted under the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, “a right to travel under the citizenship and due process sections of the 14th Amendment.”
If a woman wants to get an abortion, no one is standing at the state borderline to stop her from crossing. You seem to believe that women aren’t capable of making certain decisions, they can’t figure out how to get from A to B unless B is conveniently located on every fucking street corner. Because they are too weak, poor, young or dumb to find transportation farther than Starbucks or the mall, right? That’s essentially what you are saying. Women can’t think or make responsible decisions for themselves so they need everything to be easily accessible, otherwise it’s a violation of their rights?
Btw, I’d honestly rather wait in line at the dmv for 2 hours, than spend 20 min in church.

seawulf575's avatar

@hat I saw this opinion piece that I found interesting. All the scare tactics out there about poor helpless women being forced into something they didn’t want and this article points out there are more centers that offer free help to pregnant women that aren’t Planned Parenthood than there are abortion providers. Significantly more. Now this was just in Massachusetts, true, but it brings up an interesting point. All the Dems have done is to scream about lack of abortion. They actually want to do away with any other options for women. Talk about taking away options for women!!

Entropy's avatar

IMHO, there is no bright line. It’s a gradual shift. Take any moment in development and there’s little to no real difference between the moment before or after. You could say when the heart starts beating or when the brain develops, but the moment before the fetus isn’t that much different. You could say when it’s viable outside the mother, but again, not much really changed just before.

So any moment you pick is going to be arbitrary. The problem is, birth itself is the same. The unborn fetus just before birth and the born baby aren’t any different…only their location has changed. But we have to pick a line somewhere. My feeling is that as long as that line is early enough that we’re not aborting fetuses that are basically babies, but late enough that women have the time to make a decision and make arrangements if they want to abort without it being a developed baby….that’s what I’m shooting for. And there’s plenty of time between those thresholds.

RocketGuy's avatar

There is the viability argument, when the fetus cannot survive outside of the womb. It is thus a parasite before that point. The host should be free to say no to unauthorized use of her body. (BTW, dead bodies have that right.) That’s around 24 weeks.

Blackwater_Park's avatar

I have a hard time calling a fetus a parasite.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Well @Blackwater_Park I hardly think a rape victim would call it a little miracle .

raum's avatar

I get that people take offense to that term. But from a scientific perspective, it’s pretty accurate.

The fetus and placenta have a separate genotype from the mother. Lives within the host. Draining resources at the expense of the host. Sometimes causing diseases within the host.

Also there’s some interesting research on how the placental NKB contains the molecule phosphocholine. Which is used by filarial nematodes, a type of parasitic worms to escape host immune systems.

I love kids. And think the process is definitely worth it (when you decide it’s something you want to do). But I don’t object to this terminology.

jca2's avatar

I agree, @raum.

Blackwater_Park's avatar

Ok, fine but realize you’re not doing anyone any favors using such language. If you want pro-lifers to think pro-choice proponents are a bunch of uncaring, sick f’s that’s a great way to go about it. Also, to be specific, a parasite is not the same species by definition. So it’s not scientifically accurate. It is accurate to call it a human fetus. I’m pro-choice myself but I refuse to make this appear innocuous by using dehumanizing language like that. Abortion is serious shit.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

You are right all I can say is thank god I am not a woman, or an American citizen when it comes to this issue.
One thing that pro lifers should STOP doing is claiming late term abortions are common place that is an out right lie.
But I hear it a lot.

raum's avatar

@Blackwater_Park I don’t disagree that abortion is serious shit. But if people make assumptions about me because I’m okay with scientific terminology, I’d say that’s more on them than on me.

Also, there are examples of parasitism within the same species. I forget the exact term for this though.

RocketGuy's avatar

Pro-lifers are pretty uncaring about the pregnant woman and any supporters she has (including doctors, who have been KILLED by them).

chefl's avatar

People who call a zygote a parasite were “parasites” themselves. If you end the life of the the quote unquote parasites, they can’t become “non parasites”. And are they saying the zygotes should know better than to be parasites, and should make the choice of not being parasites, in the women? Isn’t it funny they don’t know what they are saying? It’s because of pro lifers they get to be born, and to say whatever they want to say. “Let me come in, and then close the door behind me. (Edited)

The more pro abortion is successful, the fewer close friends and family that they (pro abortionists) cherish.
Pro abortion > higher rate of abortion.

raum's avatar

Yes, I was a parasite as well. Nothing terribly radical about that idea.

Also, I’ve told my parents multiple times that they probably shouldn’t have had me. Nothing to do with me not appreciating being alive.

Just pragmatic about it. My parents were poor. And had four kids. Chances are my older siblings would have done better if resources weren’t spread out between that many kids.

I’m also a parent and I love my kids more than anything in the world. And, yes. They were scientifically parasites at one point.

Blackwater_Park's avatar

@RocketGuy That’s a normative statement. I don’t see pro-lifer’s being uncaring toward the mother. Pro-choice proponents blast out those statements with nothing to back them up. This is an issue that demands honesty regardless of how we feel about it. Even though I fall on the pro-choice side I do find the arguments to be relatively weak and the language is often inflammatory and in very poor taste. It’s not winning over any pro-lifer’s. IMO it kinda needs to stop.

chefl's avatar

@ those who call it a parasite,
From newborn, till a completely independant adult, a person is a parasite? So, I guess the mother has a choice of killing him/her?

chefl's avatar

” I’ve told my parents multiple times that they probably shouldn’t have had me.”
“Chances are my older siblings would have done better if resources weren’t spread out between that many kids.”
That could be self hate (as a result of a person having been made to feel that way, brainwashed) talking. It doesn’t justify abortions that could be prevented.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@Blackwater_Park, as for not caring about woman what do you call the state of Ohio telling a 10 year old rape victim, sorry kid it’s a couple of DAYS past the states 6 week dead line for having an abortion you are just going to have to carry it to term, a rape victim and a child no less is that really caring for the female??

Blackwater_Park's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 I mean, that’s pretty shitty. It’s unfortunate and I doubt many even on the pro-life side would agree with the handling of the situation. It does not mean that pro-lifer’s on the whole don’t care. I assure you, they do. Only the most hard-lined and obtuse would think that an abortion is not unwarranted in that specific, extreme case. We have some of those and even if they still think the baby should live that still does not mean they don’t care about that little girl. I don’t think lawmakers there were thinking through the legislation enough to realize this sort of situation can happen. Lazy, selfish and incompetent, sure. Ideological, perhaps. Uncaring? probably not. I think that they, and you both suffer the same trap when it comes to this. If you think, really think about why the other side feels the way they do, you may soften up to their perspective a little. You don’t have to agree but at least you’ll understand. That probably scares you and should scare you a little because of how uncomfortable those thoughts are. I don’t think many people wade through the issue enough to not be sharply polarized here. It’s what people do when they don’t think.
It’s a very uncomfortable thing to think about and that’s part of the problem. Again, I don’t see any moral high ground to be had with this issue. If you continue to call them uncaring, then it’s obvious you have not really thought about it.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Well @Blackwater_Park to prove they do indeed care about the woman,then why not show tons of programs,and financial help programs, hell affordable daycare ,and show the pro choice side you do have options,not just scream baby killer at a terrified teenage girl.
But these states and prolife side take a hard line case in point this 10 year old rape victim.
And in cases of rape or incest if the woman wants it gone then there should be no question BY ANYONE it’s gone.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther