so at 5 weeks the unborn would be a person, there's a brain there http://www.onetoughjob.org/development/pregnancy-childbirth/your-unborn-babys-growth-a-development note that week 5 the brain begins to form. by week 18 the baby can hear. Hard to hear without brain function telling us to hear correct?
bubble boy...you live in a cave? This has been true since the first Moral Majority claptrap about abortion in the 70s. First you force women to have babies, then you call them sluts for doing so, cut all benefits for them and make them miserable, use them as cannon fodder for race based ads about welfare queens with 10 kids, bla bla bla.
Does having a brain define being a human being? When does the brain actually become a brain to you? How much of the brain needs to be present? How many cells, nuerons, synapses? If I had a way of keeping a human brain alive in a jar, would it be a human? Is a blank page a book? When an artist buys a canvas and mounts it on an easel, it is already a masterpiece? You will never answer these questions definitively because they are unanswerable given the state of science today. You can't even answer it with philosophy yet because to the best of my knowledge, no philosopher of any importance has ever written a book post Roe v Wade about the newest definition of what it means to be a human being. Do you really think Socrates or Plato or Moses or Jesus or Mohammed or Aquinas or Descartes or Hume or Locke or Hegel or Nietchze or anyone else from our long list of giant minds of philosophy ever wrote a book about a fetus being a fully formed human being within the womb at 5 weeks? Not a chance. So, the deepest minds of humanity never touched on this subject and no giant mind since Roe has either yet here you stand spewing nonsense as if it was a long held meme of humankind. Sorry to tell you but up until a couple hundred years or so ago, women were hardly considered human by most measures let alone their babies in utero.
only thing you proved there is you have bought into the liberal assertions. We don't force women to do anything. We don't call them sluts. We don't cut off all benefits just because they get pregnant. We don't make them miserable. We don't use them for anything. We aren't the ones crying about this bogus war on women
thanks for proving my point, that it takes more then a brain to make a human being. I'm not trying to answer the questions you pose, nor am I arguing that a brain is what makes us human. Human being and person are the same I'm also not arguing that a fetus at 5 weeks is fully formed. New born babies aren't even fully formed. up until 1868 African Americans were barely considered humans too. Who cares. Fact is women are human, their babies are human, their unborn babies are human.
what you seam to not understand slaves was allowed to be property like owning a horse because the was deemed not being human a class of subhuman there for not worthy of the rights as humans you know the same argument used today to kill the unborn claiming they are not human so there for not allotted the rights of being a human
You obviously don't want to admit to a war on women, but just answer yes or no: has there been a sharp increase in abortion restriction legislation since 2010?
No I doubt there is true conscience thought at that early stage, the time frame is closer to the area of 25 weeks that is why I have no problem with the 20 week limit here in Texas, it coves early bloomers. As I said I prefer to leave how and when it is defined to the medical community not guesses based on ones own Opinion or Beliefs, neither of which is a scientific way of addressing the determination factors. Actually many forms of life react to sound, even plants, nice try but I am looking for the point to define a Person not a head of lettuce.
I find it hilarious that you, along with the other right-to lifers, that cannot grasp the fact or simply ignore the fact that Human and Person are two different things, one can be a potential person and have human DNA but no matter how you cut it a two day old fetus is Not a Person because there is no Person living there yet. You and your ilk want to ban all abortions, no matter what the reason and next your will want contraceptives banned, it used to be openly stated on the right to life sites but they now hide it because they know that even many of their fellow right to lifers are not in agreement when it comes to contraceptives. Keep the laws rational and fair and you will win a lot, ask for too much and you will win nothing in the end.
The argument is the supreme court does not have the authority to classify a person as property. That opinion was made law with a constitutional amendment and the supreme court subsequently set aside Dred Scott v. Sandford. If you think this has something to do with abortion, you'll first need to establish that a fetus is a person. I expect that might also take a constitutional amendment. Further, in America non-citizens have rights and government tells people what they can do with their own property all the time. It tells a man he can't shoot his dog, it tells him he cannot burn his leaves, it tells him he cannot pour his tetra-ethyl lead into his pond, or swing his fist in a crowd. Freedom is not absolute. In America, we try to minimize those limits but in any society of equals limits to freedom will exist.
You can be an unsure as you wish, the fact is that the courts do see pregnancy after rape as a serious injury, hence why a rapist whose victim becomes pregnant receives a higher sentence, it is also confirmed as a serious injury in at least two state laws .. Nebraska and Michigan. Here this might help you learn something - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2241214 The serious injury only continues if the woman is refused an abortion .. which ironically is what you want to happen, furthermore if, by some small chance, the woman consents to remain pregnant then there is no injury, just as it is when any other person consent to something that could, or will, cause injury to them .. hence why S&M is not illegal. Yet another lie that drips so easily from you.
Mens Rea - As an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and wilfulness. A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element. Mens rea, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element. The concept of mens rea developed in England during the latter part of the common-law era (about the year 1600) when judges began to hold that an act alone could not create criminal liability unless it was accompanied by a guilty state of mind. The degree of mens rea required for a particular common-law crime varied. Murder, for example, required a malicious state of mind, whereas Larceny required a felonious state of mind. Today most crimes, including common-law crimes, are defined by statutes that usually contain a word or phrase indicating the mens rea requirement. A typical statute, for example, may require that a person act knowingly, purposely, or recklessly. Sometimes a statute creates criminal liability for the commission or omission of a particular act without designating a mens rea. These are called Strict Liability statutes. If such a statute is construed to purposely omit criminal intent, a person who commits the crime may be guilty even though he or she had no knowledge that his or her act was criminal and had no thought of committing a crime. All that is required under such statutes is that the act itself is voluntary, since involuntary acts are not criminal. Occasionally mens rea is used synonymously with the words general intent, although general intent is more commonly used to describe criminal liability when a defendant does not intend to bring about a particular result. Specific Intent, another term related to mens rea, describes a particular state of mind above and beyond what is generally required. - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mens+rea As a fetus is a person, it also would have to be "assigned" a level of mens rea for legal purposes - this would be as a mentally incompetent person ie the fetus cannot legally be held responsible for it's actions, be they voluntary or involuntary actions. Even though a person who is mentally incompetent cannot be legally charged for any voluntary or involuntary action it does not mean that they are free to impose on another person, nor does it mean that a person being imposed upon by a mentally incompetent person cannot defend themselves up to an including deadly force and that the state has a legal duty to help protect all people from such imposition.
Oh I understand the fallacious argument very well, what you don't understand is that slaves were deemed property by law, fetuses are not, furthermore even IF a fetus were to be recognised as a person from conception it would make little to no difference to abortion. Like most pro-lifers you gloss over the fact that along with the protections of personhood there are also restrictions, one of which is that no person (what you say a fetus is) can use another persons body to sustain their life without consent ergo the fetus, as a person, MUST gain separate consent to impose pregnancy onto a woman, pregnancy is a connected but separate act from sexual intercourse, and consent is not transferable without the agreement of the person who first gave the original consent. To put it simply, consent to a person (the man) for sexual intercourse (the act) cannot be used as proxy consent to another person (the fetus) for pregnancy (a separate act). Not even implied or informed consent gives any standing to make a woman remain pregnant as both are only valid until the person, by word or action, explicitly says NO, from that point both are moot.
I don't know, sounds like it's just word semantics in many cases. It does depend somewhat on the exact stage of development, but that's really another argument. I think we can all agree (except for some of the really extreme pro-choicers in this forum) that a Person does exist inside the womb before the moment of birth.
consent is given when consent to have sex was given when you give consent for an action you are also giving consent to the possible consequences of that action if you are informed of those consequences that argument would hold up in any court of law
What does restricting abortion have to do with warring against women? Are all women psychotic killers? I don't think so.
What does restricting abortion have to do with a war against women? Gee, who has abortions? What do restrictions try to do? Take away women's right to their own bodies....that's war. The only psychotics I see in this war are the self-righteous busybodies who have a deep interest in controlling women's innards...
I wonder how you function in life. It is said that Americans are now so thoroughly stupid that they can no longer think. I believe that is true for a large portion of the population and you are a prime example of this horrible evolution from sanity to just plain stupidity. I come here to remind each of you with ideas like this that the bubble you live in is obvious and that maybe, just maybe, one of you will burst through it and join the rational world. Until then, keep watching Fox and listening to your closeted preachers.
Nothing. Psychopaths who belong in prison. Blatant non-sequitur. We're talking about abortion here, nothing to do with having a right to your own body.
Obviously facts and common sense will not dent such an extremist opinion so all I have to say is "Abortion is legal" (...and don't (*)(*)(*)(*) off "psychopaths"... )
The unprecedented amount of legislation in recent years to undermine women's constitutional right to abortion IS an assault on women, whatever you want to call it. One in three women will have an abortion sometime in her lifetime. One in three. Someone close to you already has or will have one in her lifetime. In case you didn't know, restricting abortion rights takes away a woman's right to make decisions about her own body.
