Abortion foes are now changing the focus of their legislative actions to the granting of "personhood" to embryos. Initiatives are in the works, or planning stages, in at least half a dozen states; if the embryo is considered a person, it would then be murder to abort.

This is going to give birth to an entire new field of law, meaning more lawyers. What claims will the frozen embryo have on the property of the mother should the mother die unexpectedly? Whose rights take precedence in a fight between mother and embryo? To what extent must the embryo/person be protected, and at what cost to the mother? How will tax codes need to be rewritten to accomodate dependent care for frozen embryos?

I have never taken a position on abortion for the simple reason that I am unable to become pregnant. I do take a position now with this drive to grant personhood to embryos though, and that position is to laugh at the ridiculousness of these people. The tactics of the anti-abortion side are just as repugnant to me as the actions of those women who have multiple abortions rather than take responsibility for protection, and having safe sex.

It'll never pass.

A person is something that is conscious of itself as persisting over time.

Many tactics at work. Since the last few years have failed to net an amendment against abortion or the overturn of Roe v Wade, abortion foes have been trying to nickel and dime that right into meaninglessness. This is a newer tactic, and either they haven't thought through the ramifications of it at all, or they have and simply don't care. L2, it doesn't matter how you or I define a person; what laws may be passed need not be dependent on science, reason, or any other controlling factor but constitutionality.

It'll never pass.

A person is something that is conscious of itself as persisting over time.

Like a coma victim.

In the Roe vs Wade decision the court declined to define when life begins, but also stated that the word "person", as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn. This says to me that until born, there is not a person, from a strictly legal standpoint.

Bioethicists cannot agree on when personhood begins. The courts have been unable to decide with any agreement. The only time we seem to be able to see any strong agreement is when we are dealing with a specific group with specific religious beliefs. And, separation of church and state once again becomes a part of the discussion.

Until America rewrites it's Constitution to accept a sole state-sponsored religion as being THE ONE, with appropriate lip service given to respecting the rights of those practicing something different, issues like abortion will always be on the agenda. And, as soon as America does adopt one sole religion, watch out for Taliban-like fervor on the part of many.

So a baby is a person the second it passes out of the vaginal canal? What was it 30 seconds before that?

That is about all I have to say on this subject :)

So a baby is a person the second it passes out of the vaginal canal? What was it 30 seconds before that?


That is where the courts have found so much disagreement. Many states will consider it a double murder if a pregnant woman is murdered; I am not sure if there is any set length of the pregnancy that is required to consider it an unlawful death. At the same time, if that same woman had chosen the option of abortion, she would not have been charged with homicide.

Three separate positions were mentioned by Judith Graham (Chicago Tribune) in her article: when the embryo can no longer separate into twins (14 days approx) it has achieved personhood; or, when the nervous system begins operation (42 days approx); or, when the fetus can live indepently outside the mother's body. If those considered to be experts in Bioethics are unable to decide which of the three positions consitutes an individual person, then how can the courts which are charged with interpeting the laws going to be able to do better?

Again, it all comes down to one's religious faith, and the degree to which that faith influences decisions.

So a baby is a person the second it passes out of the vaginal canal? What was it 30 seconds before that? A fetus.

A fetus.

What about if it is half way out? Like in partial birth? What is it then?

What about if it is half way out? Like in partial birth? What is it then?

im going to go out on a limb here and say Tiger.

What about if it is half way out? Like in partial birth? What is it then?

There is no such thing as partial birth. Either a birth has happened (all the way out) or it hasn't.

Kind of like the difference between alive and dead. There is no "mostly dead" or "partially alive" no matter what you might have heard otherwise.

There is no "mostly dead"......

Inconceivable!

im going to go out on a limb here and say Tiger.

Hahahaha. You win.

Partial-birth abortion is a buzzterm coined by Republicans in the Congress to expand their oversight on procedures they deem morally reprehensible, often beyond the realm of IDX procedures which partial-birth abortion is supposed to be relegated to.

Wein you've been at American too long. You're becoming a liberal.