Rand Paul Working on Bill to Give Personhood to the Unborn - Polidicks

I see a fetus as a person when it has developed a brain. Having other organs doesn't mean shit because there is no identity. Soul or not, if it's void of personality or any definition of self then it isn't a person. [editline]25th September 2014[/editline] Also I feel like the term "Soul" holds too large of a religious connotation, and should either be medically defined, or disregarded all together

I for one cannot wait until we start shoving women in jail for having abortions. How dare they not want to reproduce.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;46077085]Totally stupid statement. Most people opposed to abortion do so because they think it is taking a life, not because of some drummed up idea that they wont to control people for the sake of doing so. Its disappointing to see how many agrees dumbass statements get on threads like these just because it is supporting the pro choice side of the argument.[/QUOTE] You'd be surprised. I'm willing to bet that the GOP wants to control people and their rights at the legal level, based on their history

"Yea, this one is sure to make it all the way through." -Paul, while finishing the bill.

[QUOTE=cqbcat;46074646]I would support this bill. People have plenty of options to prevent conception before they have sex. Why not promote these options and just be responsible? I just find abortion to be morally uneasy if not sickening.[/QUOTE] What if someone was pregnant from rape, incest, or the mother and baby would die if they did not abort? by not supporting abortion you're also supporting basically punishing mothers who were raped. That doesn't seem to be what you're saying at all as you talked about prevention. But it's a very serious reason why it's naive to call abortion "Sickening" it's also sickening to not allow people to choose what to do with their lives. Additionally, America is surprisingly ignorant about sex, considering all these idiots who try and push "Abstinence only education"

Next up: removing person hood for people that have been born Only corporations and unborn fetuses get rights

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;46077721]Next up: removing person hood for people that have been born Only corporations and unborn fetuses get rights[/QUOTE] Corperation entirely ran by fetus's

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;46074772]I'm so fucking sick of hearing this bullshit. Do you honestly believe this? Do you REALLY believe that "They don't want Women to have abortions because they hate women"? Not even as an "they aren't ALL like that", do you believe even the majority or a sizable minority think that way? It's an emotional reaction to the death of something that they consider a baby. It's religious beliefs passed on by the community and culture and by people that people with the beliefs respect. Even as someone who is pro-choice, it makes me absolutely sick that a post like this would get so many agrees. It's like a conservative saying people who are pro-choice hate babies, or people who are for the separation of church and state hate Christians, or hate God. Things are not going to get any better in this country if we continue to separate ourselves from reality by pretending that people we disagree with are solely motivated by evil.[/QUOTE] Well the difference is that shaming women for being women has historical precedence and culminates in the social and legal discrimination that we see in our culture today.

I remember reading an argument for abortion that I really liked. Basically, it went on about the concept of body autonomy. Basically, government and law enforcement can't FORCE you to, say, donate an organ against your will, or require you to give up an organ to save the life of another. So basically, if you were the ONLY person who had a kidney that matched another person and could save their lives, law enforcement/government can not arrest you for saying no, or force you in to giving up said organ. I think that fetal rights should fall under this same ruling. A fetus, up to a point, is basically just an organ. It cannot function outside of the person, and relies on nutrients from the host body to develop and function at all. Thus, it should not be up to the government whether that person should birth that child or remove it, because doing so should be an infringement on body autonomy. Just my two cents on the matter.

The shit you guys post here is fascinating. And to call a fetus an organ... that may be the dumbest thing I heard since I started using Internet almost 15 years ago.

if i don't have a soul am i not considered human?

[QUOTE=AntonioR;46078014]The shit you guys post here is fascinating. And to call a fetus an organ... that may be the dumbest thing I heard since I started using Internet almost 15 years ago.[/QUOTE] Care to dispute my argument or are you only capable of speaking in hyperbole?

[QUOTE=Jamsponge;46073272]It's bizarre that in every other sense, a person's life begins at birth, with this exception. For instance, if we decided that personhood began at conception, wouldn't a person's age technically be counted from that point, rather than birth? They would be fairly minor things, but if we're going to consider someone's personhood to begin as soon as their personal ovum begins to replicate, that raises questions which we would need to answer.[/QUOTE] Not entirely true, but it's easier to define the cases were an unborn child has some legal standing rather than cases where it doesn't. The institute of a nasciturus is a great example - in hereditary law a conceived child is considered someone who can inherit before it is born and this is then validated if it is born alive. Criminal law varies by country. Sometimes the murder of a pregnant mother is counted as a double murder in other cases it is counted as a specific form of murder (the murder of a pregnant woman). And an unwanted termination is often considered as murder as well. But again, it's easier to define the cases when it's counted as an entity rather than the oposite.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46078105]I've always thought this argument was stupid. If you do nothing to a fetus, it will develop into a human being. If you do nothing to your sperm, they stay sperm.. forever... Masturbation isn't "genocide" because without any further intervention, there isn't any human life there anyway; where as with a fetus, there is indeed a protohuman life, and if you do nothing to it it will eventually be born.[/QUOTE] If you do nothing with a growth on your neck, it'll indeed grow and prosper. But if that growth wasn't reliant on you, it wouldn't. You are being forced to do something that you wouldn't otherwise do - biologically support the fetus. You have no choice to "do nothing" in the first place. It's nothing like a seed growing into a flower in your garden - that's an example of something turning into life if you "do nothing".

[QUOTE=AntonioR;46078014]The shit you guys post here is fascinating. And to call a fetus an organ... that may be the dumbest thing I heard since I started using Internet almost 15 years ago.[/QUOTE] Read your posts out loud and get back to us then. You'll set a new record.

[QUOTE=Dalndox;46077934]I remember reading an argument for abortion that I really liked. Basically, it went on about the concept of body autonomy. Basically, government and law enforcement can't FORCE you to, say, donate an organ against your will, or require you to give up an organ to save the life of another. So basically, if you were the ONLY person who had a kidney that matched another person and could save their lives, law enforcement/government can not arrest you for saying no, or force you in to giving up said organ. I think that fetal rights should fall under this same ruling. A fetus, up to a point, is basically just an organ. It cannot function outside of the person, and relies on nutrients from the host body to develop and function at all. Thus, it should not be up to the government whether that person should birth that child or remove it, because doing so should be an infringement on body autonomy. Just my two cents on the matter.[/QUOTE]yeah but "separation" of church and state means we have to say a fetus that isn't alive on its own is somehow a living person with a mind and soul when it cant even say shit till its atleast 2-3.

[QUOTE=Dalndox;46077934]I think that fetal rights should fall under this same ruling. A fetus, up to a point, is basically just an organ. It cannot function outside of the person, and relies on nutrients from the host body to develop and function at all. Thus, it should not be up to the government whether that person should birth that child or remove it, because doing so should be an infringement on body autonomy.[/QUOTE]That's the most logical way to look at it, I think. I'd define the point at which a fetus is a person after it's brain has developed to the point of being considered an actual, thinking brain. I also think that the definition for what is and is not a person before birth should be across the board and apply to everything. I don't want to see a double vehicular manslaughter charge if some woman got hit by a car and they find out later on that she was four weeks pregnant. I'm not saying it's okay to hit people with cars, (in case anyone was thinking that) I just think it's bullshit that the fetus wouldn't count as a person if she wanted an abortion.

As far as I could find the common consensus on a definition of a "Soul" fits the description of a personality, which is only possible with the brain. --[I]a person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity[/I]. If anything the bill would heavily support the freedom of abortion pre-brain development, or until the brain develops far enough to warrant declaring presence of a "Soul" Which happens to be [B]around 6-7 weeks[/B] [editline]26th September 2014[/editline] I'm sure they would argue to the death that fertilization is the second a soul is born, but that's just a highly religious standpoint that I think could easily be countered with a dictionary. Also the period that it hits [I][B]Soul Status[/B][/I] is before it is medically defined as a fetus, so it'd be hard to really argue this without whippin' out the ol' bible and philibustering [editline]26th September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;46078105]protohuman life[/QUOTE] If learning about evolution taught me anything it was how awesome backtrack comparisons through embryonic development is. Before the embryo reaches the fetus stage it is strikingly similar to tons of other "ancestors," and in some cases indistinguishable. I think the actual "protohuman" isn't discernible until around 10 weeks if anything. (8 weeks you can still see the prenatal tail sometimes)

[QUOTE=willer;46077664]"Yea, this one is sure to make it all the way through." -Paul, while finishing the bill.[/QUOTE] It actually does, republicans are expected to retake both the Senate and the House in November. Voting against a Bill like this could be political suicide for any Republican.

[QUOTE=cqbcat;46074646]I would support this bill. People have plenty of options to prevent conception before they have sex. Why not promote these options and just be responsible? I just find abortion to be morally uneasy if not sickening.[/QUOTE] Disregard rape victims or dying mothers, because [B]cqbcat[/B] doesn't feel comfortable with the idea of abortion. That's really all anti abortion arguments boil down to "But but, muh feelings". Please, shut up and man up. Stop being a little bitch and actually think for once.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;46078014]The shit you guys post here is fascinating. And to call a fetus an organ... that may be the dumbest thing I heard since I started using Internet almost 15 years ago.[/QUOTE] The alternative is to call a pregnant woman a baby incubator. Your call.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46073210]This is both good and bad; we do need to actually; as a country, sit down and legally define when "life begins"; whether or not I agree with his actual definition is completely different; but this sort of thing is something that definately deserves attention.[/QUOTE] When life begins doesn't really matter whatsoever. Clearly an embryo is alive, but as far as we can tell, it is not actually a thinking, self aware being, thus it is not really an issue to kill it. Life does not matter. Sentience does.

Yeah, people usually don't care about the life or death of bacterias, so I don't see why they should be in an uproar about the elimination of the gatherings of cells that are embryos.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];46074416']So fetuses are people. So are fetuses citizens of the US? Are they provided the same rights and protections through the Constitution? Is an abortion a murder? Are fetuses citizens as of conception? If a foreign national conceives in the US, is the fetus a US citizen? If they have an abortion in the US, is it murder if the fetus isn't that of a US citizens'? If an American goes over to China and conceives there, is it a dual-citizenship fetus? Would an abortion overseas by a state government be the murder of an American citizen? What about dual citizenship folks who had an abortion in another nation? Do we start counting age at birth or at conception? Do we need to then change all laws to "vote at 18 years and 9 months" or "drive at 16 years and 9 months"? Is engaging in risky behavior, such as driving a vehicle, riding a bike, leaving the house, living in squalor, constitute neglect or manslaughter if anything happens?[/QUOTE] This really isn't an enormous quandary, the Unborn Victims of Violence act already treats fetuses as people for a number of crimes. Killing a pregnant woman can be considered a double homicide, but the child isn't considered a citizen until born. Defining that life begins at conception wouldn't change laws that use the word 'born', it just might require some clarification on existing law.

[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46080061]It actually does, republicans are expected to retake both the Senate and the House in November. Voting against a Bill like this could be political suicide for any Republican.[/QUOTE] For a political party supposedly obsessed with limiting government they sure do get off to controlling aspects of people's lives through it.

[QUOTE=Dalndox;46074271]I thought conservatives and libertarians were all about keeping government out of our daily lives, or am I just terribly naive for assuming they had integrity?[/QUOTE] Get out of our daily lives unless it means making people live like we want, then we need to do it.

Last guy that tried that in spain just quited politics.

I'm against abortion outside of for medical reasons, but this is fucking ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Pokeman493;46080896]I'm against abortion outside of for medical reasons, but this is fucking ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Why? (just out of curiosity)

[QUOTE=catbarf;46080505]This really isn't an enormous quandary, the Unborn Victims of Violence act already treats fetuses as people for a number of crimes. Killing a pregnant woman can be considered a double homicide, but the child isn't considered a citizen until born. Defining that life begins at conception wouldn't change laws that use the word 'born', it just might require some clarification on existing law.[/QUOTE] I agree that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act needs to be addressed. I thought Colorado had a pretty good bill floating around for a while that dealt with things more elegantly. I think [URL="http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/CLICS2014A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/FC818C2EE791CA3287257CBC004F2B9E?Open&file=1388_rer.pdf"]this[/URL] is the bill I read a while ago. Personhood bills are totes being weaponized against disenfranchised women in the states that have them, and that's shitty. God damn it why couldn't the gnostics/ekstatics been more influential than the puritans? Then our laws could be about punishing people for not guzzling enough cum instead of for bangin before they're married.