Political Crossfire Forums

[TheCaliforniaLife]

I am going to start this long post by stating that I am pro-life. I don’t believe abortion is a moral issue at all, but a civil liberties issue. It took me a couple days to gather the information and write this out. Please respect that.

A zygote/embryo/fetus is human and is alive

At conception the 22 haploid chromosomes and one autosomal chromosome in the sperm and the 22 haploid chromosomes and one autosomal chromosome in the ovum come together, they form 46 diploid chromosomes. At the very moment that those two come together and the first cell divides, they become a system of live homo sapien cells. Every species is a live system of cells; prenatal (back until the point when the first cell divides) and postnatal. This system of cells is what makes us a species and not a Petri dish with some human cells in it. This cell system is what makes our leg not a species in itself. Only the system of cells is what makes a species.


The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


The American Civil War started in 1861 and ended in 1865. When the Union won the war, the government wanted to overturn the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already given U.S. citizenship to those born in the United States .The framers of the 14th Amendment wanted to insure that this right would not be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and would not be overruled by a simple majority vote in Congress in the future. This is why the first clause of the 14th Amendment says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It is to reinsure the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was to give all those born in the U.S. a U.S. citizenship. The second clause is to protect U.S. citizens from the power coercive power of the government and to afford every person equal protection under the law. This is law that protects illegal immigrants with U.S. laws. Since the illegal immigrants aren’t citizens, they should and they are afforded the protection of the U.S. government.


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
This clause is the reinforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It gives all people born in the U.S. a U.S. citizenship. It also states there are some exceptions to the universal rule that birth on U.S. soil automatically grants citizenship (“…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”).


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

This states that all citizens of the U.S. are protected from the government with the Bill of Rights (a.k.a. first 10 Amendments) and the government cannot abridge this.


nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is the clause that protects illegal immigrants. Notice how it changes from the term citizen in the amendment to person. This clause is what protects every person on U.S. soil even if they aren’t a U.S. citizen. This is what protects zygotes/embryos/fetuses. I’ll get to why this is later.



What is personhood?

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes.

Biologically a zygote/embryo/fetus is a homo sapien. Homo sapien is the scientific term for human. Hidden within the mammalian genome are a number of genomic retroviruses without which placental reproduction could not take place. The purpose of these retroviruses is to suppress the mothers immune system in order to keep the fetus from being recognized for what it is; a foreign body. The female body even realizes that the zygote/embryo/fetus is an individual.

Some pro-choicers believe sentience is what grants personhood. I am going to refute this. The term sentience is the perception and realization of someone’s self existence. During the first few weeks of the birth of a baby, the brain of the baby is only 1/4 the size it will eventually be. When the baby is born its brain is not complete. The brain of the baby works in its primitive way. The primitive cerebral cortex of baby is what controls its actions. Between mid-gestation and birth, an insulating sheath called myelin begins to form around the axons of the neurons in the brainstem, greatly increasing the speed and efficiency of the signals. Once the myelin around the neuroceptors of the brain greatens, the controls of motions are given to the baby. Before then the baby has no consciousness and action. The primitive cortex of the newborn’s brain controls the body’s actions to strengthen the neurons connections. When the brain sees anything moving the brain tells the eyes to look at it. This is why newborns will sometimes just stare an object for long periods of time. Newborns focus on strong lines and distinct contours. Studies have shown that they can tell the difference between the outline shapes of a triangle, square, circle, and cross. In human faces, the eyes and hairline are prominent features. Perhaps for this reason, mothers—and fathers—of newborn infants might think twice about changing their hairstyles too often. I have just proven that babies within the first couple weeks have no sentience. Just because they don’t have sentience, does this mean they don’t have protection under the law? – No. Prenatal babies are people like I just proved with the biological evidence and the terminology.


Conclusion
Since I proved that a prenatal baby is a live person; they should be afforded the protection of the 14th Amendment under the law. Since prenatal zygotes/embryos/fetuses are human at the time of conception, no abortion after such time should be allowed. The only reason an abortion should be permitted is if the mother will die due the birth of the baby. The mother is the reason the zygote/embryo/fetus is alive. It is not have the right to overrule a mother’s right to life.

[Nice Geod]

Quote: This is the clause that protects illegal immigrants. Notice how it changes from the term citizen in the amendment to person. This clause is what protects every person on U.S. soil even if they aren’t a U.S. citizen. This is what protects zygotes/embryos/fetuses. I’ll get to why this is later.

I'm impressed. You're the second person I have seen to notice this.

I am pro-choice, but not because I believe it to be legal. If you take a strict interpretation of the constitution then I do not believe that it is legal. However, I not think that this is the real debate, the real debate is whether or not it is moral.

[TheCaliforniaLife]

Nice Geod wrote: Quote: This is the clause that protects illegal immigrants. Notice how it changes from the term citizen in the amendment to person. This clause is what protects every person on U.S. soil even if they aren’t a U.S. citizen. This is what protects zygotes/embryos/fetuses. I’ll get to why this is later.

I'm impressed. You're the second person I have seen to notice this.

I am pro-choice, but not because I believe it to be legal. If you take a strict interpretation of the constitution then I do not believe that it is legal. However, I not think that this is the real debate, the real debate is whether or not it is moral.
For major conservatives it is a moral issue. I am libral, so it a major civil rights issue for me.

[alclarkey]

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Nice Geod wrote: Quote: This is the clause that protects illegal immigrants. Notice how it changes from the term citizen in the amendment to person. This clause is what protects every person on U.S. soil even if they aren’t a U.S. citizen. This is what protects zygotes/embryos/fetuses. I’ll get to why this is later.

I'm impressed. You're the second person I have seen to notice this.

I am pro-choice, but not because I believe it to be legal. If you take a strict interpretation of the constitution then I do not believe that it is legal. However, I not think that this is the real debate, the real debate is whether or not it is moral.
For major conservatives it is a moral issue. I am libral, so it a major civil rights issue for me.

And for me as well, I'm for the right to life. Isn't that a civil right?

[Iandefor]

Using this same argument, I could cut my finger off and claim it has all the rights of a legal person, if you define a specimen of a given species as nothing more than an agglomeration of cells from the same species.

Also, the definition of a person is usually more nuanced than just a member of Homo sapiens sapiens. It is usually defined as an entity capable of making moral/ethical decisions and rational thought.

[alclarkey]

Iandefor wrote: Using this same argument, I could cut my finger off and claim it has all the rights of a legal person, if you define a specimen of a given species as nothing more than an agglomeration of cells from the same species.

Also, the definition of a person is usually more nuanced than just a member of Homo sapiens sapiens. It is usually defined as an entity capable of making moral/ethical decisions and rational thought.

So then its ok to kill your seven year old, since it is not capable of making moral/ethical decisions or rational thought?

[The Grandmaster]

alclarkey wrote: Iandefor wrote: Using this same argument, I could cut my finger off and claim it has all the rights of a legal person, if you define a specimen of a given species as nothing more than an agglomeration of cells from the same species.

Also, the definition of a person is usually more nuanced than just a member of Homo sapiens sapiens. It is usually defined as an entity capable of making moral/ethical decisions and rational thought.

So then its ok to kill your seven year old, since it is not capable of making moral/ethical decisions or rational thought?

Perhaps not, since it has the machinery necessary to make these moral decisions, where as an embryo does not.

[AllAmericanMan]

The Grandmaster wrote: alclarkey wrote: Iandefor wrote: Using this same argument, I could cut my finger off and claim it has all the rights of a legal person, if you define a specimen of a given species as nothing more than an agglomeration of cells from the same species.

Also, the definition of a person is usually more nuanced than just a member of Homo sapiens sapiens. It is usually defined as an entity capable of making moral/ethical decisions and rational thought.

So then its ok to kill your seven year old, since it is not capable of making moral/ethical decisions or rational thought?

Perhaps not, since it has the machinery necessary to make these moral decisions, where as an embryo does not. Yes lets point out how much dumber immature human beings are and use that as an excuse to kill them. Seen any handicapped around lately?

[The Grandmaster]

AllAmericanMan wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: alclarkey wrote: Iandefor wrote: Using this same argument, I could cut my finger off and claim it has all the rights of a legal person, if you define a specimen of a given species as nothing more than an agglomeration of cells from the same species.

Also, the definition of a person is usually more nuanced than just a member of Homo sapiens sapiens. It is usually defined as an entity capable of making moral/ethical decisions and rational thought.

So then its ok to kill your seven year old, since it is not capable of making moral/ethical decisions or rational thought?

Perhaps not, since it has the machinery necessary to make these moral decisions, where as an embryo does not. Yes lets point out how much dumber immature human beings are and use that as an excuse to kill them. Seen any handicapped around lately?

There is a difference between having a brain and being handicap, and literally not having a functioning brain at all. I would say that which has no brain cannot be deprived of a human life as we mean it here. Some are born with no brain. We do not attempt to even save them? Why? We realize they are nothing. Why do we not attempt to keep “them” alive by every means possible?

[AllAmericanMan]

The Grandmaster wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: alclarkey wrote: Iandefor wrote: Using this same argument, I could cut my finger off and claim it has all the rights of a legal person, if you define a specimen of a given species as nothing more than an agglomeration of cells from the same species.

Also, the definition of a person is usually more nuanced than just a member of Homo sapiens sapiens. It is usually defined as an entity capable of making moral/ethical decisions and rational thought.

So then its ok to kill your seven year old, since it is not capable of making moral/ethical decisions or rational thought?

Perhaps not, since it has the machinery necessary to make these moral decisions, where as an embryo does not. Yes lets point out how much dumber immature human beings are and use that as an excuse to kill them. Seen any handicapped around lately?

There is a difference between having a brain and being handicap, and literally not having a functioning brain at all. I would say that which has no brain cannot be deprived of a human life as we mean it here. Some are born with no brain. We do not attempt to even save them? Why? We realize they are nothing. Why do we not attempt to keep “them” alive by every means possible?
I also think we all know the difference between an immature human being who hasnt yet developed a brain and a matured human being with no brain.

[Blinky]

AllAmericanMan wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: alclarkey wrote: Iandefor wrote: Using this same argument, I could cut my finger off and claim it has all the rights of a legal person, if you define a specimen of a given species as nothing more than an agglomeration of cells from the same species.

Also, the definition of a person is usually more nuanced than just a member of Homo sapiens sapiens. It is usually defined as an entity capable of making moral/ethical decisions and rational thought.

So then its ok to kill your seven year old, since it is not capable of making moral/ethical decisions or rational thought?

Perhaps not, since it has the machinery necessary to make these moral decisions, where as an embryo does not. Yes lets point out how much dumber immature human beings are and use that as an excuse to kill them. Seen any handicapped around lately?

There is a difference between having a brain and being handicap, and literally not having a functioning brain at all. I would say that which has no brain cannot be deprived of a human life as we mean it here. Some are born with no brain. We do not attempt to even save them? Why? We realize they are nothing. Why do we not attempt to keep “them” alive by every means possible?
I also think we all know the difference between an immature human being who hasnt yet developed a brain and a matured human being with no brain.

It doesn't change what he's saying.
That, at the point in time where the "life" ends, there is no functioning brain.
If a functioning brain is the measure by which something is deemed alive (and you haven't sought to refute that so far) then your position is a moral one.
(If I understood Grandmaster correctly).

[alclarkey]

A newborn child does not yet have a functioning brain, yet no one is advocating allowing the mother to kill their newborns. Also a newborn child is not really functionally much more than what an unborn fetus is. The pro-abortionists would define life as begining at birth. But then they also define life as when one has a functioning brain, can't have it both ways. Frankly all human beings are in a stage of growth, none of us has yet reached our full potential and never will, if there is such a thing. That being the case, an unborn fetus is just as much a human person as a 90 year old.

[Blinky]

alclarkey wrote: A newborn child does not yet have a functioning brain, yet no one is advocating allowing the mother to kill their newborns. Also a newborn child is not really functionally much more than what an unborn fetus is. The pro-abortionists would define life as begining at birth. But then they also define life as when one has a functioning brain, can't have it both ways. Frankly all human beings are in a stage of growth, none of us has yet reached our full potential and never will, if there is such a thing. That being the case, an unborn fetus is just as much a human person as a 90 year old.

If by functional you mean able to do mathematics and drive a car, then you are right - newborn's aren't much more functional than an unborn fetus. But abortions aren't (legally) carried out up until the day before a fetus becomes a born child. There is a legal limit which varies country to country but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't take place anywhere over about 24 weeks.
Whether at that stage a fetus could be considered to possess a functional brain is up to scientists or doctors to determine.

[straw man]

Quote: If a functioning brain is the measure by which something is deemed alive...

Of course it is not. Bacteria don't have a functioning brain.

[Blinky]

straw man wrote: Quote: If a functioning brain is the measure by which something is deemed alive...

Of course it is not. Bacteria don't have a functioning brain.

People kill animals and bacteria everyday. Why do you not object to that?

[alclarkey]

Blinky wrote: alclarkey wrote: A newborn child does not yet have a functioning brain, yet no one is advocating allowing the mother to kill their newborns. Also a newborn child is not really functionally much more than what an unborn fetus is. The pro-abortionists would define life as begining at birth. But then they also define life as when one has a functioning brain, can't have it both ways. Frankly all human beings are in a stage of growth, none of us has yet reached our full potential and never will, if there is such a thing. That being the case, an unborn fetus is just as much a human person as a 90 year old.

If by functional you mean able to do mathematics and drive a car, then you are right - newborn's aren't much more functional than an unborn fetus. But abortions aren't (legally) carried out up until the day before a fetus becomes a born child. There is a legal limit which varies country to country but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't take place anywhere over about 24 weeks.
Whether at that stage a fetus could be considered to possess a functional brain is up to scientists or doctors to determine.

Exactly, if the "functional brain" argument is to have any success, one must apply it to all without a functional brain, and a fetus at 24 weeks is even further from having a functional brain than a newborn, and yet you declare that it is not ok to abort it. What gives?

[straw man]

Blinky wrote: straw man wrote: Quote: If a functioning brain is the measure by which something is deemed alive...

Of course it is not. Bacteria don't have a functioning brain.

People kill animals and bacteria everyday. Why do you not object to that?

Who says I don't object? Besides, what does this have to do with my comment? The only thing I was suggesting is that lots of things like plants can be alive without having a brain, and so a brain is not criteria for being alive.

[Iandefor]

alclarkey wrote: Iandefor wrote: Using this same argument, I could cut my finger off and claim it has all the rights of a legal person, if you define a specimen of a given species as nothing more than an agglomeration of cells from the same species.

Also, the definition of a person is usually more nuanced than just a member of Homo sapiens sapiens. It is usually defined as an entity capable of making moral/ethical decisions and rational thought.

So then its ok to kill your seven year old, since it is not capable of making moral/ethical decisions or rational thought? I never said that. I said that the definition of a person is usually an entity capable of making moral/ethical decisions and rational thought. I never said you could kill children because they might not have the ability to think rationally (which I deny).

[The Grandmaster]

No, my words have been twisted into a Strawman argument. The Anti-choicers are attempting to claim my position of a functioning brain is that which is able to reason and play chess or something. No. A newbord certainly has a functioning brain. How else are their motor functions. What I mean, is to a point, the brain is not even wired, and the human EEG has not been aquired, because the development is not even in place for this up to a point. The neurological view of life is that which asserts the human life has begun when the human eeg has been aquired.

[The Grandmaster]

straw man wrote: Who says I don't object? Besides, what does this have to do with my comment? The only thing I was suggesting is that lots of things like plants can be alive without having a brain, and so a brain is not criteria for being alive.

No one claims a brain is required for something to be "alive." Merely being "Alive" does not entail something is "A life." Cancer is alive. Is it "a living being?" Your finger is certainly "alive." for it is not dead. Is it "A life?" these things are alive, despite having no brain. A "human life" however, is different. The neurological view of life posits that "A human life" begins with the acquisition of the human EEG, near the end of the third month.