rights are afforded in this country by a birth certificate declaring american birth or a naturalization ceremony. these are the persons with full rights in this nation. if instead citizenship was conferred upon conception, with a conception certificate, then the fetus would legally be a person afforded rights.
The status as a US citizen is established through those documents now because it is convenient. Originally, that was not the case. Birth was a demarcation for personhood because of medical knowledge at the time. Even so, all rights are not afforded at birth. Parental authority overrides certain rights with regards to children.
Perhaps a conception certificate would establish rights for the fetus, but even an anti-abortionist can see that there are hazards involved with this. When is the fetus "a person". At conception?
Then there are all the "what ifs" that you brought up. A person with full rights inside the womb would limit the available options in the event of problems with the pregnancy.
Additionally, conferring full rights on a fetus and then allowing exceptions could open up the idea that, for example, a child born with severe disabilities can be killed in the same manner as a severely disabled fetus. As it is now the birth demark prevents that. Blurring that line is not recommended in my opinion.
I still have difficulties with abortion-on-a-whim and I have explained that I am for reducing abortions as much as possible. I just don't think that making it illegal is the correct solution.
Perhaps a conception certificate would establish rights for the fetus, but even an anti-abortionist can see that there are hazards involved with this. When is the fetus "a person". At conception?
Why stop there I wonder. Perhaps sperm should be considered sacred too.
but you haven't demonstrated that this happens, or defined "whim". what you have demonstrated is that people who have made an active choice to avoid pregnancy don't deserve to continue that choice if you have randomly decided that they weren't responsible enough in their first choice.
Really? Then what is that movement within you when you're pregnant? Gas in your bowels perhaps? Maybe you meant "not legal entities". Kinda like the Hutu's in Rwanda or the Christian's in Darfur.
should i let someone else make babies out of all the eggs i have in my body to make sure all my potential offspring have a chance at life and don't have to pay for my decision not to have children?
Sublime? No. What part of any of my posts suggested that I advocate fertilizing all of a woman's eggs? Perhaps I used the word "potential" when referring to a zygote but that doesn't mean I think that all eggs are babies.
that is an unscientific assumption. the women receiving abortions who were interviewed are specifically stated as being different from the women who were sexually active who were interviewed. your assumption and the author's alleged assumption are baseless.
Actually, I reread that passage and I agree that my assumption is baseless and not in line with the authors assumptions. Roughly 30% of all sexually active women using contraceptives are using them improperly. Since all the women getting abortions are probably unintentionally pregnant then we can safely say that the 58% of them used contraception that did not prevent pregnancy. Based on the advertised effectiveness of the contraceptive methods, I would say that almost all of these abortion patients who used contraception, used it improperly. They are part of the 30% of sexually active women using contraception that use it improperly. Now that makes more sense but actually hurts your contention that it is the fault of the contraceptive method.
how do you define normal existence? nator? can we get another listing of the massive health risks associated with pregnancy?
A listing of possible health risks does not accurately characterize the overall health risk unless it includes the possibility of occurrence. The risk of dying is less than that of dying in a bathtub accident. Of course that risk is multiplied if you don't go to a doctor during pregnancy.
Probably most of it, I have yet to see anything about research into male contraceptives.
Just google male contraceptive methods. A pill is on the horizon and other research is being done. Currently only vasectomy and condoms are available if you want to have sex.
Strange though. If women don't want men involved in determining their reproductive health, why do they want to depend on the man to use contraception? Seems like a step backward to me.
but you haven't demonstrated that this happens, or defined "whim". what you have demonstrated is that people who have made an active choice to avoid pregnancy don't deserve to continue that choice if you have randomly decided that they weren't responsible enough in their first choice.
I'll define whim when you define "randomly". I have already stated that I don't know where whim starts and responsibility ends. Each case is different. That's why legislative action against abortion won't work. Too much time wasted on decisions by a court on doing an abortion or not, especially if most of the time it will result in an abortion anyway. It just becomes a waste of money like the war on drugs. I do know that there has to be a way to get the proper contraceptive use rate up to 90% of all sexually active people. It is obvious that this would lower abortions. Frankly, I prefer results over control.
Really? Then what is that movement within you when you're pregnant?
there is a distinctive difference in a fetus before and after quickening.
Maybe you meant "not legal entities".
no.
Kinda like the Hutu's in Rwanda or the Christian's in Darfur.
that's actually a really ueducated statement. being targeted for genocide is different from not being a legal entity.
I would say that almost all of these abortion patients who used contraception, used it improperly.
this claim is baseless.
Now that makes more sense but actually hurts your contention that it is the fault of the contraceptive method.
no, it doesn't.
i have a question. does being on an oral contraceptive that's not strong enough for you without your knowledge using birth control improperly? does that constitute irresponsibility to you?
A listing of possible health risks does not accurately characterize the overall health risk unless it includes the possibility of occurrence.
say that again in english?
The risk of dying is less than that of dying in a bathtub accident.
citation?
Of course that risk is multiplied if you don't go to a doctor during pregnancy.
A report released Tuesday by the Alan Guttmacher Institute finds that the rate of abortions among low-income women in the US increased 25%, despite an overall 11% decrease among women of childbearing age. The study, which sampled and surveyed over 10,000 women seeking abortions nationwide, also reported higher rates for women who were African-American or Latino, in their twenties, unmarried, and “economically disadvantaged” (making less than twice the federal poverty level).
The sharp jump, particularly in the context of welfare reform during the 1990s which cut back Title X family planning funding for poor women, “reaffirms that better access to health care, including contraception, equals fewer unintended pregnancies and fewer abortions,” said Planned Parenthood Federation of American president Gloria Feldt.
Just last month in Indiana, the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled in favor of an Indiana law mandating in-clinic counseling for women seeking abortions. Dissenting Judge Diane Wood argued that shifting the mandate from telephone to in-person counseling was unduly burdensome, particularly for women in rural areas where access to clinics is already difficult. According to the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, 22 states mandate waiting periods for abortions. Mississippi, Louisiana, Utah, and Wyoming require in-person counseling.
The report finds that while unintended pregnancy and abortion rates have decreased among teenagers, college graduates and women in the middle or upper class, the rate has increased almost 30% among low-income women, the Times reports. Researchers found that low-income women are four times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy and three times as likely to undergo an abortion as women who are more affluent, according to the Times. Guttmacher analysts believe that a lack of affordable contraception is one of the main reasons for the disparity. However, some public health officials have said that increased funding for contraception is not necessarily the solution, according to the Times. Contraception alone, provided at no cost, will not lower the rate of unintended pregnancies, former U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher said, adding that low-income women also must build confidence and self-esteem, so they will want to prevent unintended pregnancies. "To gain control of these issues, you really have to get beyond sex," Satcher said, adding, "You have to dig deep and look at what's happening in their lives, their relationships and their minds." According to the Times, even when low-income women have access to birth control, "they are often ambivalent about using it -- or too disorganized to remember." Cynthia Harper, an assistant professor at the Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy at the University of California-San Francisco, said, "To get people to use contraceptives is an effort." In addition, "you'll find almost no intervention or prevention programs targeted at older women," even though women age 20 and older account for about 80% of all unintended pregnancies, according to Laura Gaydos of Emory University. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates devote 30% of a $49 million educational budget to women age 20 and older, and the rest of their budget is geared toward teens, the Times reports (Simon, Los Angeles Times, 6/26).
for several years now, the rate of abortion among low-income women (presumably those less able to pay for regular preventive healthcare) have been increasing. i would say that since you argue that not going to the doctor increases the risk of ill-effects from pregnancy, these women are at increased risk already. being pregnant doesn't magically increase the money available for healthcare.
not to mention, 67% of the us population is obese. it's rising by a percentage point every year. obesity during pregnancy increases the risk of diabetes in both the mother and the child. despite modern treatment, diabetes is an incurable and fatal condition. the fact that you don't generally die tomorrow doesn't change that. i'm almost obese, despite much work to the contrary. i cannot afford the increased health risks, considering a family history. how about that?
Where are the "rights" to a conception certificate, death certificate, or "Christian burial", delineated in the defining documents of my country or yours?
Irrelevant.
The question asked was, "How is human distinguished from non-human?" and the answer I gave was, "When it has papers." The state - virtually every state - recognizes a human being at birth , not before. I'm saying that if anti-abortionists were honest about every conceptus being a human being, they would be pushing for them to be treated as human beings by the state from the point of conception. One of the most important ways the state recognizes its human beings is by registering them six ways from Sunday. Push for registering every conception and I might take your claimed motivations seriously.
Yet I see no laws being put forth to control who women have sex with or how they dress. Nothing about how when and where they can go.
So, if you can come up with one or two areas of a woman's life that aren't controlled, that proves there are no areas that are controlled?
“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
Strange though. If women don't want men involved in determining their reproductive health, why do they want to depend on the man to use contraception? Seems like a step backward to me.
considering that many of the male methods in development carry fewer health risks than the ones currently used by women, it isn't, necessarily. however, if there were a real treatment, it would increase your precious little responsibility by allowing people to use three or more methods instead of just two. i would use three if i weren't allergic to spermicide. i would be more comfortable if my fiance and i were able to use three methods.
it's not about men being able to determine women's reproductive health, it's about men being able to take greater responsibility for their actions and their own reproductive choices.
you haven't given a reason why you think you have a right to define when a woman has been careful enough or responsible enough. as such, you seem to make these decisions randomly.
I do know that there has to be a way to get the proper contraceptive use rate up to 90% of all sexually active people.
it's through education. currently planned parenthood is fighting for real, effective, comprehensive sex education and an end to this abstinence only bullshit. visit their site and see what you can do. it's about abortion being safe, available, and rare. that's what it's always been about.
Ringo, first you need to stop the process of killing babies! You can't very well get a certificate of conception without first changing the law.
Exactly. You could stop the killing instantly by changing the law. It's automatically illegal to kill citizens, isn't it? So why not simply confer citizenship at conception?
You can claim no one really cares about either the woman or the fetus to detract from the real argument if you'd like, but it just shows the weakness of yours.
Not at all. I'm showing that there's an easy route you could use to protect the fetus - just make it a citizen. Your refusal to follow that route - and your refusal to even take it seriously - certainly weakens your argument.
All anti-abortionists have to find a way to subvert that horrid pro-abortion law, lawfully, not unlawfully.
Exactly. And there's nothing illegal about pushing for fetal citizenship, is there? So why aren't you doing that?
To be honest, what I wanted to say was that it was the stupidest thing I'd ever heard. But I didn't want to upset your sensibilities.
Don't worry. For you to call me stupid would be a compliment. I'd probably use it as my signature.
First the law has to change, otherwise, there is no point in a conception certificate.
That's what I'm saying. Either way the law has to change. If you succeed in making all abortions illegal, the next logical step is to give every fetus full citizenship from conception. So why not change that law instead of the abortion laws? Granting full citizenship at conception would automatically short-circuit any future attempts to kill those precious citizens.
It would be well with you to figure that out instead of whining about how little I care.
“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
That's what I'm saying. Either way the law has to change. If you succeed in making all abortions illegal, the next logical step is to give every fetus full citizenship from conception. So why not change that law instead of the abortion laws? Granting full citizenship at conception would automatically short-circuit any future attempts to kill those precious citizens.
So suppose a law is passed confirming citizenship on a fetus, what happens if a woman miscarries? Does she get charged with manslaughter?
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
™ Version 4.2