Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Life at Conception Law - Personhood Granted to a single Cell

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Mesa, Arizona, United States
    Posts
    7,180

    Life at Conception Law - Personhood Granted to a single Cell

    Once again I feel the need to say something I feel is very important. I just received an email asking me to sign a petition to create a "Life at Conception" law granting legal Personhood to the unborn at the moment of conception. That is because at some point I expressed my strong opinion that the choice to end a pregnancy is wrong, that a woman should not be forced to make that choice by any circumstance whatsoever. But, I'm also a Libertarian, I want the government to have as little to do with the lives of The People as possible. So, let's analyse this thing, shall we?


    When, exactly, is the moment of conception? Usually a woman who gets a pregnancy test does so only after noticing that she's missed her "period", and such over the counter tests are known to have an error rate, they are not perfect, they sometimes show a false answer to the question "Am I pregnant?". Even then, the woman who has just discovered she is pregnant is still unaware of the exact moment of conception. That can be determined, again with a margin for error, by an OB/GYN and a sonogram of the fetus. By looking at the images on the screen the medical professional can estimate, or make an educated guess, as to how much time has passed for the fetus to develop as much as it apparently has in the images. But, still, there is no way to fix the exact conception date, hour, or minute. Perhaps if women agree to have a camera installed inside them that is designed to detect, and register, the exact moment for them, but I doubt such an invasion of privacy would be considered by most women. I shudder to even think of it. So, as far as I can figure out, there is simply no way to know, with absolute certainty, the exact moment of conception. Unlike the exact moment of birth, which historically has been the moment when personhood is granted to a new baby.


    I personally think a baby is a person before birth, they display unique behaviors, hear things, react to things, they are clearly more than just a jumble of cells trying to figure out what they are going to do as a multi-celled organism. But at which point does that developing child gain personhood? I really don't have an answer for that, but I don't agree that it is the moment of conception. Keep reading, I'm not done.


    Let's just say we pass this law, and make it so a new living Person is protected under the same laws as everyone else at the exact moment of conception. Does this mean the government must mandate weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly pregnancy tests of all women with the capacity to bear children, including Young women who are still children themselves? And what if one of these tests, which as I've already explained do have a margin for error and are not by any means perfect, come back as positive, then a test following that, say, a week later, comes back negative? Would the government then seek to prosecute that woman for murder, or negligent homicide, or some other form of illegal taking of human life? Even though it is known that tests can give a false positive result?


    And what about natural abortion of pregnancies that happen all the time to thousands of women all around the world. A lot of things have to go right for a pregnancy to succeed all the way to term. Every new born baby is a little Miracle, because the odds against that event are, frankly Staggering. I know, because I have researched the subject, and there are far too many ways in which a pregnancy may not even get started in the first place, let alone keep going all the way to birth. The odds against one sperm cell managing to get into an egg cell alone are astronomical!! That's why young men, with high sperm counts, are more likely to make babies than older men with low sperm counts. We win the odds battle through sheer NUMBERS!


    So, if a woman who is pregnant by choice, who is excited about having a baby, and wants to have that baby, tragically finds that she has Lost her pregnancy, would she be subjected to a murder investigation? Arrested and put in jail? Put on trial? How would she prove her innocence, that she didn't in fact choose or do anything to purposely end her pregnancy? You can't prove a negative, it's nearly impossible, that's why our justice system was built on the concept of Innocent until Proven Guilty, rather than the other way around.


    And what if the abortion was chemically induced, how do you prove it was by her choice? What if her pregnancy was aborted by the malicious and secret act of someone else? What if by merely spiking that poor woman's food or drink at some point during the day or night she would spontaneously abort, and thus be subject to a murder investigation, her own body being the crime scene?


    Can you not see, yet, the slippery slopes of evil government power, corruption, and just plain abuse of women this law could cause? Have I made my point clearly enough? The right to privacy would all but vanish when it comes to women and their bodies, wouldn't it? But worse than that, what about women who, by no choice of their own at all, become pregnant? I'm talking about rape. Forcing a woman to not be able to chemically induce abortion the morning after she is forcibly raped is tantamount to raping her again!! IMHO of course. Should the government be allowed to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies all the way to term? If they do, women who don't want to carry to term will become desperate. And out of desperation they will turn to the underground, the dirty back alley, the corrupt docs that use unsterilized tools, without the proper medical supervision to ensure safety. Women will die. Women will suffer. And Women will lose their privacy and dignity. Is that really what everyone wants?


    Anyone remember the movie Dirty Dancing? I recall a girl went and got an abortion in that movie, and the guy messed her up, bad. It was horrible. But she didn't go to a clinic, or a hospital, no, she had this done in a dirty alley, and it was done without her safety or health, or even Life being considered. All the guy wanted was her money, once he had that, she was left to bleed out! Is this fictional abortion story from a popular movie based on reality? I think it probably is, that probably there Were indeed young desperate women suffering needlessly because of illegal abortion procedures done in the darkness, in secret, by shady people.


    I consider myself to be Pro-Life, but also Pro-Liberty. If it were up to me I'd find ways to HELP women who are suffering. I believe that most artificial abortions are done, not out of greed or whatever, but because those women do not feel they Can raise a child in their current circumstances. Like, for instance, a teenage girl who is ashamed, and afraid of her parents finding out about her sexual activity. She may be desperate enough to cut herself, take illegal drugs, even give birth in some public bathroom and throw the newborn into a garbage bin. I've seen this on the news several times as it is. If this law is enacted, how many more teens will die? And how do you feel about teenage girls being examined, against their will, on a monthly basis, or even more often, by government order? To make sure she doesn't illegally abort a pregnancy.


    That is what the Pro-Life movement wants, it seems to me. But do you want that? Do you want to help this country slip even further into a dystopian world? The subject of abortion is the only thing I disagree with Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul about. And I bet most of you reading this don't agree with me. Well, fine. We'll see what happens then. I think I'm right, that women will suffer more, and more women will die, after this "Life at Conception" law grants personhood to a fetus before it's even divided into two distinct cells. A single cell, legally considered a person. Why not a sperm cell then? Should masturbation be considered murder too? Or the wearing of a condom, or some other device that prevents pregnancy? Or how about the drugs that can prevent pregnancy? Are those to be considered weapons of mass murder? Or how about medical procedures, like Vasectomies? Should those be outlawed too? Nothing to artificially stand in the way of a new human life coming into the world, period! Where would the line be drawn?


    If you choose to ignore my lengthy rant, I understand. It's much more to read than you normally encounter on Twitter and Facebook. But this is important to me, and I think Not sharing how I think and feel about this would be just plain wrong. So. Now I've aired my thoughts. What say you?

    --- More stuff added later----

    I forgot to mention that Twinning, the separation of a single zygote into two or more, is actually a lot more common than most of us are aware of. It's just that one twin usually dies, or is actually overtaken by the other twin, so that only one fetus is brought to term and birthed. This is called the vanishing twin. Sometimes a child will be born with their twin growing inside them, like a parasite, without a brain. Almost like they are born pregnant. Not a pleasant thought. Anyway. So, how would the law treat a newborn that survived the vanishing twin event? Would that baby be treated like a murderer? Hmmmmm? It sounds totally ridiculous, but it seems to me that the government and our laws are becoming more and more ridiculous as time goes by. So, what happens then, if it becomes known that one twin, absorbed, or killed, the other in the womb? It's not like it was a conscious choice, right? Maybe you could argue self defense? *shakes head violently!!* This whole thing hurts my head!
    Last edited by Krepta3000; 04-23-2012 at 10:53 PM.
    Please ask me about Solavei, Unlimited Everything for $29/month, plus applicable taxes! How would you like Free cell phone service?
    See my Blog and my Numerical Obsession
    I'm a Kopimist, not a Pirate.
    Long live Liberty!! Find me on Facebook too!
    Two bits, four bits, six bits, a dollar ... all for Bitcoins stand up and holler!

    Peace and blessings to you (plural) in D'ni

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Figueres
    Posts
    12,279
    Yup we had a similar discussion a while ago about when is a baby alive. I still am not sure what should be done, but I guess the easiest enswer is it should be up to the pregnant woman. This still leaves lots of problems possible, but I don't really want government telling people what to do with their bodies.

    The really really hard part is coming up with a timeframe where you can say "yesterday this collection of cells was not a person, but today it is". What is that cutoff? Birth? I don't think so since children can be born prematurely and be fine, so a week before a normal pregnancy I think we could all understand that is a fully-developed baby. So, how far back do you have to go? To the time it could not survive on its own? What about if machines could let it survive then? We don't consider people who need a pacemaker to be dead...

    Interesting things to think about, and a debate I don't think will be settled anytime soon.
    proj·ect
    1. something that is contemplated, devised, or planned; plan; scheme.
    2. a large or major undertaking, especially one involving considerable money, personnel, and equipment.
    3. a specific task of investigation, especially in scholarship.
    4. to propose, contemplate, or plan.
    5. to throw, cast, or impel forward or onward.
    6. to set forth or calculate (some future thing).
    7. to extend or protrude beyond something else.
    8. to use one's voice forcefully enough to be heard at a distance, as in a theater.
    9. to produce a clear impression of one's thoughts, personality, role, etc.

  3. #3
    Judee's Avatar
    Judee is offline LOOK TO THE SUN FOR THE ANSWERS OF WHY
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    33,466
    Quote Krepta:
    Can you not see, yet, the slippery slopes of evil government power, corruption, and just plain abuse of women this law could cause? Have I made my point clearly enough? The right to privacy would all but vanish when it comes to women and their bodies, wouldn't it? But worse than that, what about women who, by no choice of their own at all, become pregnant? I'm talking about rape. Forcing a woman to not be able to chemically induce abortion the morning after she is forcibly raped is tantamount to raping her again!! IMHO of course. Should the government be allowed to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies all the way to term? If they do, women who don't want to carry to term will become desperate. And out of desperation they will turn to the underground, the dirty back alley, the corrupt docs that use unsterilized tools, without the proper medical supervision to ensure safety. Women will die. Women will suffer. And Women will lose their privacy and dignity. Is that really what everyone wants?





    I consider myself to be Pro-Life, but also Pro-Liberty. If it were up to me I'd find ways to HELP women who are suffering. I believe that most artificial abortions are done, not out of greed or whatever, but because those women do not feel they Can raise a child in their current circumstances. Like, for instance, a teenage girl who is ashamed, and afraid of her parents finding out about her sexual activity. She may be desperate enough to cut herself, take illegal drugs, even give birth in some public bathroom and throw the newborn into a garbage bin. I've seen this on the news several times as it is. If this law is enacted, how many more teens will die? And how do you feel about teenage girls being examined, against their will, on a monthly basis, or even more often, by government order? To make sure she doesn't illegally abort a pregnancy.


    That is what the Pro-Life movement wants, it seems to me. But do you want that? Do you want to help this country slip even further into a dystopian world? The subject of abortion is the only thing I disagree with Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul about. And I bet most of you reading this don't agree with me. Well, fine. We'll see what happens then. I think I'm right, that women will suffer more, and more women will die, after this "Life at Conception" law grants personhood to a fetus before it's even divided into two distinct cells. A single cell, legally considered a person. Why not a sperm cell then? Should masturbation be considered murder too? Or the wearing of a condom, or some other device that prevents pregnancy? Or how about the drugs that can prevent pregnancy? Are those to be considered weapons of mass murder? Or how about medical procedures, like Vasectomies? Should those be outlawed too? Nothing to artificially stand in the way of a new human life coming into the world, period! Where would the line be drawn?
    Krepta, thank you for taking the time to write such a long and well thought out piece. The abortion issue is probably as volatile as politics, because religion plays a prominent roll in the debate. For those who believe that a fetus is 'a person' at conception, you will never persuade them otherwise. For those who believe that the 'soul' enters the body at birth, you will never persuade them otherwise either. It's a debate that will never be won by either side. Probably the only thing both sides will agree on is that we all have a ever-living soul.

    That said, I get chills when either government or religion dictates what a woman can do or not do, and I find a lot of hypocrisy in those two groups wanting such control. I say that as I find it ironic that those two groups are only too happy to send young men and women off to fight and die in a myriad of wars, many with religious undertones. IMO, it's a case of 'killing an innocent group of cells in a womb is wrong because I say so'; but 'killing an innocent person in a war (religious or otherwise) is right because I say it is'. And I am not singling out any one particular country here. I do not agree with late term abortions, unless it means the life of the mother--and in that case the decision of whether it's her life, or the life of her baby should be hers and hers alone, and I cannot imagine a more painful decision.
    You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body. ~C.S. Lewis

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •