Fun Fact: President John Adams signed a health insurance mandate into law in 1798

Wow, this pretty much destroys the AG's case. It will be very hard to get around this precedent. I wonder what happened to this law, overturned, repealed?

I think this is really cool - fascinating from a historical perspective. It resolves the question about there being a precedent. But is Salon correct in stating it also resolves the constitutionality of a federal mandate? (Don't mistake me, I support the bill and oppose the nullifiers thoroughly. But, as we're debating a fine historical point, please permit me the question.)

The fact that it was passed into law does not make it constitutional. It merely means there was never a legal challenge to the legislation on constitutional grounds. Furthermore, executive signature by President John Adams does not lend great constitutional credence on its own either. President Adams was a Federalist, but he was not central to the drafting or passage of the Constitution.

The leading Federalist and number two man at the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton, was Adams's principal political rival. The number one man at the Constitutional Convention, James Madison, was the first lieutenant of the opposition, Jefferson's Republican party. The two biggest authorities and advocates of the Constitution would be the last men to have the president's ear.

And all those history books in Texas will have to be re-written. Again. Or maybe they'll just cut out the pages with mention of Adams.

(I hate to argue, especially when we agree on the concept if not the specifics. But I'm still not sure.)

Not being familiar with this exact issue makes it hard to gauge the amplitude of any hissy fit, were there one. Assuming there was at least a small one, I don't know if 18th century American citizens understood how to challenge legislation on constitutional grounds.

The test of the SCOTUS didn't come until 1803, with Marbury v. Madison (and that was a very elaborate maneuver on Justice Marshall's part). Before that, people weren't sure how to protest what they perceived as federal usurpation of the constitution. The whiskey rebels tried it one way and failed. I'm not sure the business interests of the young nation knew quite how to style a disagreement in the absence of any other precedent.

I'm just not convinced the mariner's relief act actually resolves a constitutional issue, otherwise it would have made it into more history books.

Our government is very apt at enacting laws that are unconstitutional. One example of this is the insurection tax, which was implemented as a way of penalizing those who sided with the south during our civil war. Those who sided with slavery had there property taxed, which they were required to pay in person or forfeit their property. When they showed up to pay the tax, they were taken into custody. General Robert Lee, who sided with the south, went to where the fighting was, leaving his wife home, who sent her son to pay the taxes. The government wouldn't accept payment from him. So they decided to take the property, which was later turned into Arlington Cemetery. Later the government decided that the Insurection Tax was unconstitutional and required the government to pay the family for their loss. So whether people believe it our not our Government can and does make mistakes, and even enacts legislature that is WRONG.

As for challenging the legality of legislation, many 21st century Americans do not know how to go about it. Many are working their ass off trying to put food on the table and don't have the time to invest in things that should be brought into being without question of the legality of each specific issue.

FUN FACT!

During the writing of the Declaration of Independence there was so much bickering between the sides that they stopped the whole process for three days to pray, worship and give God thanks for all that we had!

If everyone will agree to do that before they re-vote on the "healthcare bill" maybe I could be convinced to change my mind about it!

Good precedent was set there. A tax was levied and used by the Government to build hospitals. Can anyone say non-profit "Universal Care" for mariners?

Told ya it could be done......

Incredible find!

More than likely there have been other similar legislative precedents over the years.

The lawsuit was not much to begin with. In view of this precedent, and I am confident others yet to be found and published, the suit obviously is DOA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Hospital_Service

here's a link to info about the program

whether people believe it our not our Government can and does make mistakes, and even enacts legislature that is WRONG.

or simply does whatever it wants to do

point in case, the dept of interior and the bureau of indian affairs were supposed to be holding Individual Indian Monies in trust for them..........when in all reality, they were skimming off every penny they could get away with from resources such as oil, timber, gas, pasture etc from Indian Trust Land, then when Elouise Cobell sued them in 1996, they proceeded to destroy records as fast as they could......... google Cobell v Salazar for more info---so much for a fiduciary responsibility and TRUST huh?

The European concept of "socialized medicine" originated in the U.S. France got the idea from our Ambassador, Benjamin Franklin. I am not sure why they used our idea and we abandoned it for 240 years. It was our idea first, we are not copying them.

I'm not sure if it applied back then or at what date it started, but working on U.S. flagged commercial vessels requires you to be a documented merchant mariner, we had goverment funded health care until Reagan discontinued the program in the '80's. As a merchant mariner you could be called up to serve in declared emergencies or war. It hasn't happened in my lifetime, so I'm not to clear on all the regulations. That may have been where it started.

it was BS anyways.. it is a tax with a choice.
remember bush wanted to reform SS.
He wanted to give you the chance to invest 1% of it or some insane figure like that.
YOU WOULD BE FORCED INTO THE MARKET.
You couldnt choose to just keep that 1%.
You could choose to let the gov invest it or choose your investments, BUT YOU HAD TO PAY THE 1%.

This is nothing at all but direct tax like SS but instead of being earmarked for old age security, this tax is earmarked for healthcare and much like Bush's SS reform, you get to choose were to invest your tax dollars But you can not refuse the TAX.

It really is mind blowing the GOP think it is unconstitutional to make you pay for something when they have the right to tax you. Well i doubt they really think it is, they just want their base to know they are fighting it.

You know, if the government could force everyone to buy a new GM car every 4 years, the economy would be much better too! Hope this one catches on... Oh, oh, oh...and a new house every 10 years...or face jail time. Now THAT would boost the housing market! Great ideas...I just hope Pelosi and Reid can rush it through before November! Go, go government arms!

Luke Wright

If everyone will agree to do that before they re-vote on the "healthcare bill" maybe I could be convinced to change my mind about it!

Luke, that's healthcare LAW to you and me.

The absence of a protest movement, of judicial challenges, of the sort of hissy fit we're seeing from the right today suggests that the founding fathers themselves did not understand the Constitution to prohibit either the interference of the federal government in the insurance market nor the government's requirement that private citizens purchase such insurance.

It's a heavy blow against the legislative challenges now pending.

I'm not so sure the conclusion you're drawing is all that accurate. Since this legislation, (from what I gather from your seed) can be distinguished in that it applies to a particular group and especially that they are in the navy, there is a big difference between them and the population as a whole. Also, I don't think that it will be that big of a blow against the challenges because even though it is an example, it is very old, easily distinguishable, and mainly, there is no Sup. Court precedent upholding it as constitutional. Therefore, it could only be used as a starting point and even then only if it itself was also passed under the commerce clause and not the authority to raise an army and navy. It's interesting, but there is a real constitutional issue here, because if by merely existing, you have a substantial cumulative effect on commerce, which then can be regulated by congress, then there is no longer a goverment of limited power. And even if you think this healthcare is perfect in every imagninable way, you should try to be a little less myopic and see the potential problem in such a theory and how it will play out in other aspects of your life that you may not be so willing to have the government usurp.

It's a heavy blow against the legislative challenges now pending.

They do not have a leg to stand on anyway and the AG from Florida was a member of the firm they used to bring the suit Only way the win is how they won in 2000 send it to the phony suprem court we have now. e left off intentionally

Ships arent states, and the act was directed towards merchant ships. See maritime law.

http://open.salon.com/blog/paul_j_orourke/2009/07/22/our_founding_fathers_socialist_healthcare_system

I actually want the AGs to push the case about forcing American's to buy private health insurance. It will do a great deal to help push the concept of Medicare-for-all.

Luke, that's healthcare LAW to you and me.

Um, not quite Skippy. They have to vote on it again, or didn't you hear?

Just a little aside.

Brian wrote . . .

. . . that's healthcare LAW to you and me.

You're correct. Basically, what's going back to the House from the Senate is a vote on student loans as part of the reconciliation process.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/health/policy/26health.html?hp

Although nothing is certain in this world, this part of the reconciliation process is predicted to pass. But the bulk of what was once a healthcare reform bill is now law.

Now back to the topic at hand. . .

Yep! I'm sincerely beginning to like history more and more. It's interesting to know just how far back in American history healthcare concerns were discussed/debated at the governmental level.

During the writing of the Declaration of Independence there was so much bickering between the sides that they stopped the whole process for three days to pray, worship and give God thanks for all that we had!

Would you still be willing to change your mind if this was changed to "pray, worship and give thanks to [the god/gods of their choice] thanks?" I only ask because not every member of congress is Christian, nor should they be.

On a secondary note, if you prayed about this yourself, wouldn't Jesus tell you, you know, that helping the needy and healing the sick are good things?

Apologies for the second aside. . . but. . .

Captain Amazing, you're bring up an important issue. Thank you.

There are many different religions found in the United States. And just as there are many different religions found here, there exists many different Christian denominations. Many! So when a Christian person suggests that some prayer and worship to God, by congress during the legislative process, might change the minds of some legislature's vote against any one bill before congress, which Christian denomination's values should be represented?? As stated in other posts on this particular bulletin board, I've seen the Christian community increasingly divided over the past 10+ years as effort is being made to bring down the wall between Church and State. For the sake of unity, Christian unity, and the general unity of the United States, it really is BEST to keep that wall between the Church and State well preserved.

When I pray to the Christian God, and I do hold prayers to God, I feel that passage of the healthcare reform bill into law was a correct course of action. But that's between me and God. I would NEVER force my religious views down anyone's throats. There are many reasons why I don't. But in context to "Church and State" matters, I don't force my religious views simply because I recognize and respect the differences that exist between religions and Christian denominations.

Captain Amazing, your point is well taken.

(Now. . . back to the topic at hand. . . )

Wasn't forced upon everyone, only one industry and only some of it.

On July 16, 1798, in Philadelphia, at that time the nation’s capital, John Adams, second president of the United States, signed into law the Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen. This was the beginning of the Public Health Service in the United States. A year later the Act was extended to cover every officer and sailor in the U.S. Navy. By this Act, twenty cents each month was deducted from the wages of every merchant seaman. Unfortunately, it did not cover the seamen aboard whaling ships who were paid a share of the profits at the end of the voyage. Sick whalers in Lahaina were left in the care of American consuls and either cared for locally, shipped to hospitals in Honolulu or returned to the United States.

Wow, I didn't know that John Adams was such a ... wait for it...."progressive".

;-)

On a secondary note, if you prayed about this yourself, wouldn't Jesus tell you, you know, that helping the needy and healing the sick are good things?

I'm sure he would, but would he also say that this is the only way to do it? I doubt it. Would he also subscribe to false dilemma that if you are against this health bill you are against helping the sick and needy? I highly doubt he would support such fallacious reasoning. Just as the left in this country said they could support the troops and not the war, it is just as possible to support the health and needs of others and not the legislation or the government doing it.

John Adams; our 1st socialist president

8)

John Adams also signed the Alien and Sedition Act, so I don't think this proves anything.

Treaty of Tripoly

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

In June 1797, the Senate unanimously ratified this treaty, which President John Adams immediately signed into law.

He also believed in Separation of Church and State

This is from Slate.com

The 10^th Amendment states that "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The federal government, however, can claim two Constitutional justifications for mandating health care. One is the right to regulate interstate commerce, which includes any business that operates across state lines. (Even if not all health insurance companies operate in more than one state, Congress can still regulate them as long as that regulation is part of a comprehensive interstate scheme, according to the Supreme Court.) Congress also has the Constitutional right to tax. Just as Congress taxes polluting companies for imposing a burden on other people, it could tax Americans who don't buy health insurance for doing the same. As if to emphasize the point, the fine for not buying insurance is levied by the IRS.

Just gnashing of teeth from the right.

Ask a Native American how US promised health care agreement on reservations has worked out for them. "Don't get sick after June" will most likely be their advice. One-third more is spent per capita on health care for felons in federal prison, according to 2005 data from the health service. Oh yeah bring this Obamacare on, the Federal Government has had over 200 hundred years to make good on promises they made to people they took this country from. Did they succeed? HELL NO! Stupid little people! ---{{-@

Apparently this bill had been changed and modified several times, first being in the mid 1800's; it was apparently the precursor to the Public Health Agency. My source is "Commissioned Officers Association of the USPHS Inc". Hope this sheds some light...

Killfile

Fun Fact: President John Adams signed a health insurance mandate into law in 1798

Another fun fact as long as you aren't Native American. U.S. has an obligation to provide health care to reservations, based on a 1787 (12 years before your fun fact) agreement between tribes and the government. After over 200 years you would think the government would work out the problems. Yep they have over 200 years of health care incompetence to base their fine service on. Looking pretty good to ya eh!

So did those Americans who chose not to be seamen also have to pay the stipend for medical care? Had the government attempted to levy a tax across the republic for those seamen there would have been another revolution, in my guesstimation.

FUN FACT!

During the writing of the Declaration of Independence there was so much bickering between the sides that they stopped the whole process for three days to pray, worship and give God thanks for all that we had!

I wonder what they gave their slaves during that time? The founding fathers came up with a great thing, but I fear that the people that idolize them have no idea what kind of people they were.

If everyone will agree to do that before they re-vote on the "healthcare bill" maybe I could be convinced to change my mind about it!

So the whole reason you're against this bill is it's lack of God?

both iraq and afghanistan have totally free government healthcare provided by us.

This article seriously lacks information. As this mandatory health insurance is no longer in effect, nor does the article state when the legislation stopped being law, I am very suspicious of this "evidence" that requiring Americans buy health insurance is valid.

I wonder if a Court overturned this law as unconstitutional.

I am going to investigate this because I may be able to find something to overturn what happened. Thanks.

The Dept of Health and Human Services says that this law STARTED THEIR DEPARTMENT.

GREAT.... Who said this wasn't going to be government run health care?

http://www.hhs.gov/about/hhshist.html

This law DID NOT REQUIRE AMERICANS TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE.

This law was created in the matter of public health because seamen were bringing home nasty diseases from far away lands. This law is more of an argument to DEPORT ILLEGAL ALIENS as a matter of public health.

Here is a much better article from the MarineHospital.Org:

http://www.marinehospital.org/publichealth.htm

Poor John Adams he will probably be stricken from Texas text books now and replaced with Pat Robertson.

Article 1, Section 8,......... Third paragraph authorizes Congress,

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; "

That Section of Article 1 gives the Congress the authority to impose the Tax on the sailors because it was part of Interstate Commerce.

The current Congress did not/does not have the authority to enact a law that doesn't meet the requirements set forth in Article 1 Section 8.

Health insurance is not sold over State lines, thus not Interstate commerce.

Just a little glitch of Constitutional Law, some what of a History lesson for those which think the article the seeder posted is Ironclad, and a valid argument. John Adams had the authority Vested by the Congress thru the Constitution to enact/sign a bill from the Congress that provided for healthy private seaman and Naval sailors. Private seaman would be pressed into Naval service in the event of War, so the country had a vested interest in the health of it's merchant mariners, and members of the US Navy. Totally different circumstance and authorization.

What makes you think insurance is not sold across state lines? My insurance is a nationwide company.

Just a question, are you an expert on the constitution, because if you are, I have a question about the document I have not been able to find an answer to.

Health insurance is not sold over State lines, thus not Interstate commerce.

Good point Asleigh

Indeed SHE IS CORRECT. While Nationwide may be on your side, each state office must follow the insurance rules of that particular state.

One of the Republican's ideas was to allow insurance to be sold across state lines. My sister is the president of investment services for a major federal credit union and she informed me that insurance can not be sold across state lines but she thought that should be changed to increase competition and thus provide cheaper insurance to Americans.

(#1.27) "Wow, I didn't know that John Adams was such a ... wait for it....'progressive.'"

It didn't take me long to conclude we have the Federalists wrong in our crude approximation of who were the "conservatives" and "progressives" in the late 18th century. Few people have thought about it, but the consensus in textbooks (high school, freshman level college courses) is that the Federalists were conservatives, even quasi-monarchist. The basis for this conclusion is Hamilton's bank and regular passage of legislation that levied federal protection for business.

The problem is that 20th and 21st century definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" draw different boundaries than they did at the end of the 18th century. It isn't as simple as saying "the Federalists were the equivalent to modern Republicans/Democrats." But modern Democrats and Federalists share one essential belief, the utility of a strong state to provide for the public welfare. It boils down to identifying problems and arranging for their systematic solution.

The states seemed then (and now) pathologically incapable of acting in the national interest. If they were not actually inadvertently destroying themselves, they were at least disrupting one another. In some cases, they provoked outside forces. To control all this, and defend the states against external as well as internal threats, the Federalists invoked constitutional powers to standardize policies, regulate trade, and raise revenues. Nothing unconstitutional there, but it sounds very much like what Democrats pursue as a platform today. In contrast, the Republicans (then and now) preferred scaled back central government. Historically, this leads to greater instability than when energetic, intelligent measures are taken.

The reason why the Federalists get called "conservative" is that they seemed to prefer the interest of business and capital over the interest of the common citizen. In contrast, the (Jeffersonian) Republicans promoted greater civil liberties (among propertied, adult, white males). This is true. Which proves that one cannot simply equate 18th century parties with an equivalent 21st century one.

But when you compare what really makes one "progressive" or "conservative," the measure is normally action versus inaction. Jefferson's Republicans were the first "party of no." Even though Jeffersonians score points on civil liberties, Hamilton's Federalists can claim the true mantle of "progressivism" because they were constantly looking ahead, surmising the problems not just in the foreground but extending as far as the horizon.

regarding my previous post, I found myself to be wrong about insurance across state lines. Now I am reading the pro's and con's of allowing it, and whether the new legislation allows for it.

The problem is that 20th and 21st century definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" draw different boundaries than they did at the end of the 18th century.

One must always beware of semantics! In France a libéral is someone who favors no-holds-barred-capitalism...

@Karen in Los Angeles

This law is more of an argument to DEPORT ILLEGAL ALIENS as a matter of public health.

Weird pseudonym you've chosen, Mr. Dobbs.

douglasq

The most STUPID think CNN ever did was to let Lou Dobb go and keep Anderson Cooper.

Anderson Cooper is rude and condescending to fellow CNN staff and knows ZERO about anything but likes to pretend that he does. I write to 60 Minutes to complain every time they let that loser on their show.

If Lou Dobb ran for President, I would vote for him. By the way, most people in CA WANT TO DEPORT ILLEGAL ALIENS. Just the other day, the Exec Dir of the So Cal Hospital Association complained that his hospitals have to serve ILLEGAL ALIENS. He called them illegal aliens on the radio. LOVED IT!

Steve Poizner, our CA Insurance Commissioner, running for Governor, wants to deport illegal aliens too.

regarding my previous post, I found myself to be wrong about insurance across state lines. Now I am reading the pro's and con's of allowing it, and whether the new legislation allows for it.

Putnam - it takes a big man (or woman) to admit when they are wrong and I applaud you for it. It makes you more respectable than a person who continues to argue even though they are proven wrong.

I can assure you that you won't find that people can buy insurance across state lines. If that was in the bill, it would be more palatable to Republicans, but if you prove me incorrect, then please let me know. I have not read the bill and hope it gets flushed down the toilet.

WTF? Where is the connection between employer health care required by Adams (which btw only extended to ships in American Waters,) and a individually mandated health gun to your head imposed by tyrannical government? There is NONE!

Also you are imposing your religious Government worshiping views when you force people to betray their own religion by making them pay for the mass murder of innocents. There is nothing holy about that.

AntiObama

To let you know, abortion is LEGAL. Please get that through your head and stop calling it murder.

There are legal definitions of murder (varies by state but usually, premediated killing with malice). Even the definition in the Merriam Webster dictionary follows the LEGAL definitions.

GET OVER IT.

Main Entry: ²murder

Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mur·dered; mur·der·ing \ˈmər-d(ə-)riŋ\
Date: 13th century
transitive verb 1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly : slay
3 a : to put an end to b : tease, torment c : mutilate, mangle <murders French> d : to defeat badly

Karen in LA. ......... You can state the abortion is legal, and it is, Legalised Murder.

No matter how it's ......... Sliced .......... Diced .......... Chopped ............. Mutilated........ Mangled ........ Dismemberd and then thrown away,............. the act of having an abortion is selfish, self centered, premeditated killing of a human being for personal gain.

The personal gain part is that women kill the life inside of them for the life they are living, Cars, House's, Educations, Financial Gain (the future life without a child), A new and better male in their life, etc, etc, etc.

The above paragraph is undeniable, its the ugly truth.

You can call it what you want, and the other half of the country knows exactly what it is MURDER !

The number one cause of death in the USA is abortion, 22K a month. There have been over 15 million deaths by selfish self centered women since Roe v. Wade. This law can too be overturned at some point. It may never happen, yet it is soooo wrong.

My views have absolutely nothing to do with any Religion.

It used to be legal to kill your slave. Did that mean it wasn't murder? Hitler made it legal to kill Jews, gays, and Gypsies. Did that mean that Hitler DIDN"T murder millions of people? In any case abortion falls under the dictionary definition 2, "wanton slaughter".

and technically:

c : mutilate, mangle

....unless it goes to near full term and removed intact...

Questions:

At what moment does the zygote / fetus become a person? Why do you choose that moment rather than any other?

Before that moment, an abortion would be eliminating a mass of cells, but not a person, so there is no moral dilemma at all. After that moment, an abortion would be eliminating a person, so there must be a balancing of the mother's needs and the child's. So... the "moment of personhood" is critical to deciding rules governing abortions: when, and under what conditions.

Throughout human history, the "moment of personhood" has been defined in many different manners: from before conception, to some event (walking or talking) long after birth.

That historical variety demonstrates (to me, at least) that there is no "automatic" answer... and yet it is impossible to put intelligent limits on abortion without a clear definition of the "moment of personhood".

Killfile: If you don't want this off-topic excursion, feel free to delete.

Everyone else: I'd like to chat... calmly. I'll disengage the moment the tone goes up.

At what moment does the zygote / fetus become a person? Why do you choose that moment rather than any other?

Personally I pick the moment the egg becomes fertilized. Up until that point, the future person has not begun to exist. Once the egg is fertilized, a future person will come into being unless Man or Nature intervenes. In a perfect world there would be a place for every child but we are far from perfect. A young child impregnated unwillingly by a family member should not be forced to carry to term because of possible genetic complications of the fetus and the emotional scarring of the child for life. Since I must allow for this out of compassion for the mother, then I must accept that for others, their decision must also rest with them. I personally do not agree with people who have unprotected sex and abortions on a regular basis when so many options exist to prevent it. On the other hand, those who practice safe sex and become impregnated anyway, they must decide what is best based upon their personal lives.

Personally I pick the moment the egg becomes fertilized. Up until that point, the future person has not begun to exist. Once the egg is fertilized, a future person will come into being unless Man or Nature intervenes.

So you believe that birth control pills are abortion?

The typical pill works 3 ways: prevent ovulation, prevent fertilization and when that fails prevent implantation (of fertilized egg)

CK,

Please excuse me. I didn't clarify my question as I should have.

In order to define a "moment of personhood", one must first define "person".

What distinguishes a "person" from any other living thing? From a mosquito? From a sequoia? From a gorilla?

Also: What distinguishes a "person" from a corpse? Or, less brutally, what is "death"? What is the end of "personhood"?

I think we need to be clear on these questions at the same time as we clarify our thoughts on when "personhood" begins.

Your thoughts?

jedipunk,

May I suggest that, at least at first, we solicit other people's opinions, as gently as possible? For example, your question could have been phrased to encourage discussion:

A typical pill works 3 ways: prevent ovulation, and when that fails prevent fertilization and when that also fails prevent implantation (of fertilized egg). In the first two cases, since there is never fertilization, there is never "personhood", under your definition.

But in the third case, fertilization does occur. The zygote is prevented from implanting, and thus does not develop. Would you consider that not-yet-implanted zygote to be a "person?

A subject like "moment of personhood" is both complex and emotional. If we want a conversation to be civil and stable -- not escalating into name-calling -- then we must be particularly careful not to aggress anyone.

I am convinced that "pro-life / pro-choice" is a subject that is 90% visceral and 10% intellectual. That is a really bad basis for law. We very much need to raise the portion of "intellectual" in the mix! To do that, we must succeed in talking long enough for our brains to absorb our words. If we allow ourselves to go off into a name-calling spiral, our brains will get saturated with adrenalin... instead of ideas!

Thanks!

;-))

Well, I meant to have the word "do" in there after "so," but he stated quite clearly:

Personally I pick the moment the egg becomes fertilized.

You're right: just that little word "do" would change the tone completely...

Wouldn't change the answer though. Yes I consider the birth control that interferes with the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall a form of abortion. Death is the cessation of life and the beginning of decay. Granting that hair and nails continue to grow after the rest of the body has died, you can toss that red herring if you want but I refuse to pick it up.

As` far as what distinguishes the moment "personhood" from your examples is the potential to become a person at any point in their development. If mosquito's could become people, I wouldn't swat them.

Now just to be clear in case I wasn't before; I do NOT favor abortion but I am a male. This is a decision that should be left to the woman as she is the host of this life within her. So maybe you can see the quandary I am in when I enter this discussion: Anti-abortion Pro-Choice. I have no more right to tell someone else what they should do with their own body than they have to force me to cut off the wart on my finger. Live and let live and let die. It is called individual Freedoms of which I am a champion and until someone can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt at which point life "begins" in humans I am content to leave the question alone.

Granting that hair and nails continue to grow after the rest of the body has died, you can toss that red herring if you want but I refuse to pick it up.

They don't. It just appears that way due to shrink back.

This is a decision that should be left to the woman as she is the host of this life within her. So maybe you can see the quandary I am in when I enter this discussion: Anti-abortion Pro-Choice.

You are not alone. Personally, I have never met a pro-abortion pro-choice person. Meaning they all have reserved abortion as a last option (although none would consider birth control pill abortion). You next sentence is what pro-choice is all about to me.

It is called individual Freedoms of which I am a champion and until someone can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt at which point life "begins" in humans I am content to leave the question alone.

Well put!

That is precisely why I am fascinated by the "moment of personhood".

------------------

As far as what distinguishes the moment "personhood" from your examples is the potential to become a person at any point in their development.

I understand what you're saying, I think... but I don't see how it can be practically applied.

It is only a matter of time before biologists learn to create a clone from any tissue sample. Any clump of cells -- a swab of bucal cells, for example -- will then have the "potential" for personhood. What then?

Sometime in the future, Artificial Intelligence will exist. What then?

What is the "personhood" difference between a very smart chimp and a severely limited human?

Please don't misunderstand -- I'm not trying to "trap" you -- I truly do not know how to handle these problems, myself. I think about them often... but never manage to conclude anything!

Death is the cessation of life and the beginning of decay.

This is as tough as the beginning! What are the clinical signs of "cessation of life"? It used to be "heartbeat". Then we learned how to re-start a heart. Now what? Electroencephalogram? MRI? What about a cryogenically preserved body? Are we coming to a time when "bringing someone back to life" will be a commonplace reality?

Some day, we will be able to "copy" memories and personality from an organic brain onto an electronic brain. How will we then define "death" or "person"?

If we arrive, for "moment of personhood", at a mystical motivation for our choice -- and let's be honest, fertilization is more of a mystical choice than a rational one -- then we must ask, "Are 'clinical signs' adequate for defining 'death'?"

The subject is vast, complex, and evolutive. It generates immense emotion... and very little rational discussion. I do not understand...

Bob the problem we have here is trying to determine a blanket action when it is necessary to judge each and every situation on its merits. An abortion by a crack addicted streetwalker with AIDS and syphilis living on the streets or in crack houses would probably be best for the baby as we know the terrible birth defects linked to the continued use of these drugs and the short life expectancy of the AIDS child in such an environment. On the other hand, the woman who aborts simply out of vanity (doesn't want to lose her body shape), I have a problem with when she is financially stable and healthy.

CK,

Yes, of course -- any particular case may present either mitigating or aggravating circumstances. That is quite true. I did not mean that there could ever be a "one-size-fits-all" answer to such a vast subject.

But still... if we are ever to come to any sort of consensus on abortion, we must find a "baseline".

Try this for a base line:

Do you want this child?

If the answer is "No", then the problems will begin. If the answer is "Yes", the solutions will always present themselves.

An unwanted child will always suffer.

A wanted child will always be loved.

If the answer is "Yes", the solutions will always present themselves.

No they won't.

I went through a year of invasive fertility treatments before finally getting pregnant. Although the fertilized egg implanted, it never developed into an embryo. But even though there was no way that it was ever going to develop into a human being, my doctors couldn't terminate the pregnancy until I was nearly in my second trimester--and only then because of a stroke of fortune. For several weeks it looked as though my only option would have been to have had an "elective abortion."

There was nothing "elective" about it.

I wanted that pregnancy to go to term and produce a baby more than I can possibly explain. But it didn't and was never going to. Because of the same conditions that forced me to have the fertility treatments in the first place, my body didn't expel the nonviable tissue. And because of asinine laws and policies that assume that policymakers know better than women and their doctors, I went through weeks of medical limbo.

Was that fertilized egg a human being? Did I murder my baby?

This isn't about whether or not a woman wants a child. It's about her right to make a choice.

Try this for a base line:

Do you want this child?

I think I understand what you are saying but... when must this question be answered? Is the prospective mother still free to make her answer eight months after conception? Is the prospective mother still free to make her answer a year after birth?

There must come a moment when the zygote/fetus/baby/child is no longer subject to termination at the prospective mother's discretion.

That is the moment when society considers that this zygote/fetus/baby/child has attained "personhood".

but... when must this question be answered?

The moment she opens her legs. There is an inherent risk and if they aren't willing to accept it there are other ways to have sexual gratification without risking impregnation.

Courts,

This isn't about whether or not a woman wants a child. It's about her right to make a choice.

Allow me to direct your attention to the comment above I made at 1.60 and 1.66

That is the moment when society considers that this zygote/fetus/baby/child has attained "personhood".

As a society, we have determined that moment to be a live birth. That is the beginning of legal personhood.

Allow me to direct your attention to the comment above I made at 1.60 and 1.66

So what you're saying is that I murdered my child. I terminated the existence of a fertilized egg which, according to your definition, was a person.

though there was no way that it was ever going to develop into a human being

You must be just looking for a fight. If so, take it elsewhere since I have plainly stated that the choice is yours to make and that each case must be judged on it's own merits by the woman involved. Whether I think it is "murder" or not shouldn't and doesn't matter as I also plainly stated several times.

I also stated that my belief is that "personhood" starts, and I repeat myself here:

the potential to become a person at any point in their development.

Now according to your statement above, that was not possible. So, in short, you aborted a mass of cells the same as a tumor might be removed. Once again proving each case must be judged on its individual merits and that a "blanket policy" banning abortion on demand isn't worth a damn.

CK,

I don't think I understand...

There is an inherent risk and if they aren't willing to accept it there are other ways to have sexual gratification without risking impregnation.

Does that mean you consider that abstinence is the only legitimate means of prevention?

As a society, we have determined that moment to be a live birth. That is the beginning of legal personhood.

Yes. In America. Today.

Elsewhere and at other times, other rules have applied.

So... My question is "what moment should apply and -- much more importantly -- why? What is the ethical or biological or religious or whatever basis for choosing that particular moment rather than another.

Whether I think it is "murder" or not shouldn't and doesn't matter as I also plainly stated several times.

Actually it does matter.

Your position here makes no sense whatsoever. You see, if the government in this country decided to legalize murder for a specific segment of the population--for example, teens--I'd dedicate my life to stopping it.

Now, I'm not opposed to abortion because I believe that personhood is attained at birth. But you believe it is attained at conception.

You believe that abortion is murder. And yet you are willing to stand idly by while women murder their children, going so far as to advocate such an action in some cases (as you explained with reference to incest above). The only logical conclusion one can draw from your position on the issue is that you aren't opposed to murder. Is this the case?

you aren't opposed to murder

No I'm not if your definition of murder is the taking of a human life. If it is, then I support murder. Some call it Capital Punishment, Self-Defense, War, and Abortion.

Your position here makes no sense whatsoever

I know, personally, how confusing it can be so forgive me if I choose not to expound any further upon it....

Bob Abstinence from vaginal intercourse is the only foolproof guarantee of not risking impregnation. This does not preclude other forms of sex including oral, anal, or masturbation and their various forms.

CK,

OK.

Abstinence is an effective (well... with lots and lots of provisos!!) means for avoiding conception, and thus avoiding the whole question of personhood. Today.

Tomorrow, biologists will know how to create a clone from undifferentiated cell tissue. What then?

The day after tomorrow, cyberneticists will create an Artificial Intelligence. What about the "off" switch?

I don't think we can avoid that "moment of personhood" forever...

Courts,

I believe that personhood is attained at birth. But you believe it is attained at conception.

You have summarized the situation perfectly. All we need now is one of the Native American tribes that only recognized a child when it walked/talked or passed some set of tests.

(A post-birth rule had a very real utility in a primitive society. A severely handicapped child would be an unreasonable burden on everyone. If the child failed to pass whatever test the tribe imposed, then everyone, including the child, is "spared" a lifetime of hardship.)

There are any number of "reasonable" milestones in the development of a zygote/fetus/baby/child.

Personally, I find that the milestone that best covers natural birth, in vitro, cloning, and even AI... is the moment of self-awareness.

For the notion of "personhood" to have any sense (IMHO), the being must have a notion of "I / me". Without self-awareness, there is only sensory input and reflex action.

A housefly detects motion nearby and flies away. Detection / reaction. There was no "I -- my existence -- am in danger!" phase.

There are problems, of course.

First, in the case of humans... a baby is self-aware only after birth, at around three or four months...

Second, the smarter animals seem to have a degree of self-awareness...

(A post-birth rule had a very real utility in a primitive society. A severely handicapped child would be an unreasonable burden on everyone. If the child failed to pass whatever test the tribe imposed, then everyone, including the child, is "spared" a lifetime of hardship.)

Primordial kinship communities, most of which have a post-birth ritualized rite of passage relative to the conferral of personhood status, are not necessarily primitive. I understand your meaning but the categorization of these people and their practices as "primitive" has justified their annihilation for centuries.

I think, therefore I am. ... I think...

I understand your meaning but the categorization of these people and their practices as "primitive" has justified their annihilation for centuries.

OK.

What would be a proper blanket term?

They are referred to as primordial kinship communities in political anthropology.

Oh... ...

... I won't promise to remember that. They could have used something simpler!

;-)))

ok guys there is a happy medium here..both sides are wrong in my opinion..and according to science..

first off personhood does not technically start at fertilization...that is when the cell becomes fertilized like an egg..

However before there is actually any life, you have to have a heartbeat and blood...thus at the moment of heartbeat according to science and according to law viability is when personhood is obtained..but that is after life actually begins. Viability is important because clearly abortions are limited and even prohibited after 20 weeks...and children do survive after a 21 week gestation birth.

My opinion is that at the point of implantation there is clearly what can be defined as life, but not before that. At fertilizaton there can be no life until it implants...that is why a vast majority of miscarriages occur because implantation never happens.....thus the egg passes on and dies and is passed with little noting.

lx,

I'm afraid you oversimplify. In several ways.

"Life" is always present, from the mother through the ovum and from the father through the spermatozoids.

Viability is a totally arbitrary notion. With the right support, a five-month fetus can survive. Without care a two-year-old child is not viable. In a few years, equipment will exist that will provide all the support needed from fertilization to birth... and "viability" will have no sense at all.

... nor will implantation...

It seems to me that there is no "biological" answer. I like to think about Artificial Intelligence because in the case of an electronic "person" there is no biology at all. If we can decide how we would manage such a being, then we may have a clearer idea of how to handle humans!

My opinion is that at the point of implantation there is clearly what can be defined as life, but not before that. At fertilizaton there can be no life until it implants...that is why a vast majority of miscarriages occur because implantation never happens.....thus the egg passes on and dies and is passed with little noting.

And many miscarriages occur after implantation. They're often aborted miscarriages. The fertilized egg will never develop into a viable fetus but it has implanted and often has a heartbeat.

By the time the egg implants itself in the uterus it starts to receive nutrition and shows a particular stability in development....at fertilization you can also come up with things that are never compatible with human life..such as a hytatidiform mole. It is a clinical marker for the development of the primitive streak. Implantation is significant because it is the point after which twinning does not occur. Implantation, then, is α defining moment of a human since it marks developmental individuality.

Miscarriage is much less likely to occur once there is a heartbeat, but at the point of implantation there is still no heartbeat. However, systems to sustain itself occur at that time and the risk of miscarriage is much less...of course if the mother has hormonal issues, a systemic disorder, or if the zygote has chromosome issues it is likely that a miscarriage could occur..but where the systems are normal...miscarriage is not likely to happen at this stage.

Implantation, then, is α defining moment of a human since it marks developmental individuality.

I do not understand "developmental individuality". The newly implanted zygote is inert, sensorially inactive, brainless, ... and basically in a parasitic relationship with the mother. How can this be a "person"?

Bob, at that point all of the systems and twinning is determined and cannot be changed..the only thing that will occur from that point forward is growing..technically a child depends on its parents for survival until age 18 if you want to get technical...the zygote doesn't share blood or systems with the mother the systems are independent of each other...the only thing the zygote does is use nutrients in the mother's system and no harm comes to the mother from this action.

A pregnant body prepares itself for the extra demand..the mother loses nothing..think about this a mother produces breast milk at birth of a child...for 1 year the mother uses her body to feed the child...is the child a person or not?

... for 1 year the mother uses her body to feed the child...is the child a person or not?

I really do not know.

Many primitive societies primordial kinship communities did not consider a child to be a person until some task/test (walking, talking, ...) was accomplished, quite some time after birth. Their reasoning -- that a child must demonstrate its capacity to survive by itself before being accepted as a person -- seems to me to be more "logical" than any arbitrary "biological development" milestone.

Is a severely retarded adult -- incapable of eating, dressing, ... -- a "person"? Is a very smart bonobo -- capable of hundreds of words in sign language -- a person?

Is a Turing Machine a person?

I tend to think that we are a bit more advanced than societies that murdered children ala Hitler...personhood is clearly during the time in the womb as well as outside...the crap you are advocating is like saying that it is ok that Susan Smith murdered her two children by drowning them in her car in John D Long lake...thank heavens most of society does not agree with you.

Ix,

Have a nice life.

Bob, at that point all of the systems and twinning is determined and cannot be changed..the only thing that will occur from that point forward is growing.

Bull@!$%#. I don't know where you get the idea that implantation means viability but you're wrong. There are many things that can happen after implantation that result in an nonviable pregnancy. Hell, implantation doesn't even mean that the fertilized egg is going to develop into an embryo, let alone a child.

Um courts where did I say it is yet viable? I said the systems are independent of one another...where did I get it?Well from the Medical Science books that I have studied for so long..that is where...actually it does..the only way that is stopped is miscarriage...the fertilized egg becomes a zygote at implantation. If you are going to comment at least make sure that you do not make false accusations against me next time..what I said is after implantation there is nothing left to occur but development ...twinning cannot occur after this stage, the circulatory system is independent of the mother, DNA is already established..can you show me where any DNA or twinning has occurred AFTER implantation?I dare you to show me that because it would be a miracle since it occurs during the dividing of cells BEFORE implantation.

All of this and you don't even know what my position is on abortion....oops...

after implantation there is nothing left to occur but development

THIS is what I have a problem with. It's not true. There are many things besides "development" that can occur after implantation.

I don't care about your position on abortion. You are misrepresenting implantation, pretending that it is this monumentally significant event when it's not--it's nothing but one more step in the process.

So what happens beyond development after implantation Courts..please by all means indulge us...like I said if you can prove that genetics and twinning is not in place when implantation happens...please prove it. The cell divides as it travels down the fallopian tube...when it implants it is already determined what the genetics are and whether this willl be one child or more. That cannot and will not happen after implantation..nothing genetically changes after that point.

But that doesn't mean that a baby will develop.

Your entire argument is that implantation is a critical moment, one that should at least be considered as the moment of personhood, because nothing beyond development (your words, not mine) happens after implantation. You're representing implantation as though it were birth--the creation of a human being that will do nothing but develop from that point further.

I had a miscarriage after implantation. Was the thing inside of me that I had surgically removed a human being? Was it a person? Equal to a living child? Should it have had the rights accorded a human being? Should I have been investigated to ensure that I did not contribute to its death? And, if not, why not?

You're the one that drew this arbitrary line in the sand. Now you're trying desperately to defend it with talk of twinning and genetics (which are in no way relevant to the matter at hand). What's so special about implantation that it confers upon a thing which may or may not develop into an embryo (let alone a fetus or a child) the status you wish to afford it?

the crap you are advocating is like saying that it is ok that Susan Smith murdered her two children by drowning them

If I'm reading correctly, Bob isn't advocated the actions of these "primordial kinship communities", but merely addressing the fact that there have been multiple accepted definitions of "personhood" throughout history. To that point, we are a constantly evolving people. Using such an argument as "we used to do it", in my opinion, is really only useful in demonstrating said evolution of humanity. There can never truly be an answer to "when are we a person?" for the simple reason that we don't know what a person is. We can speculate, and we are very good at that.

Also, I believe lx chel is saying "nothing beyond development" in the same way a car will do "nothing beyond being driven" after you crank it. There are other things that can occur (i.e. miscarriages; a car accident) but development is the only thing that's supposed to happen. Therefore, implantation would be a significant point in a "perfect" pregnancy.

That is, of course, only how I understand these two conversations, and I have almost no knowledge, myself, of primordial kinship communities or implantation and its significance in pregnancy.

I can speak to the role of ritualized rites of passage in assessing personhood primordial kinship communities (it's one my areas of professional expertise) but I have no clue what implantation has to do with the issue. What you're saying about a "perfect pregnancy" makes sense but it doesn't answer the central question: was the thing inside of me that I had removed at 9 weeks (after implantation) a person with full rights and privileges? If the answer is no, we must acknowledge that implantation is nothing but another step in the process toward personhood rather than the defining moment some apparently want it to be.

Let me say that first it depends on how far along you were..and to me there is a difference between a natural interuption and an artificial one. Natural interuption in pregancy is natures way of repairing errors.

Also, like I pointed out you do not know my position on abortion so don't assume as to what it is...I also am not christian so don't assume again there. I am speaking from a scientific view of what life is..and life is more than just thinking...because plants are alive.

Now was it human? well yes..even human cells at the point of implantation or before are human as it is human genetics that makes them up. Once it is joined is it human..of course..it sure isn't martian.

I had a child when I was in my sixth month of pregnancy..he is today almost 17 years old...was he alive and a human...and is he..you bet he is and was. This isn't about abortion though it is about science..is it a living cell? yes...and I asked you to show me how anything beyond development occurs after implantation..you haven't done that..now you are dancing around about abortion...we aren't speaking about abortion we are speaking about development of a pregnancy....to me pregnancy begins at implantation...because that is when everything is already determined..and the only thing that interupts it is genetic errors, hormonal imbalance, or artificial means at that point. Your conduct or what you think about abortion is your business it isn't mine...nor is it your business what I think about it or what my conduct is on it. So shall we discuss development? You said that something beyond development happens after implantation..please enlighten me as to what it is.

Actually we're not talking about the development of a pregnancy. If you read the thread, you'd know that we are talking about the moment of human personhood. And I'm telling you that the thing they cut out of me--the thing that had implanted--was not a human person.

I don't give a damn about your position on abortion or your religious views. Neither is at all relevant and I'm not making assumptions one way or the other.

You're the one who is making a huge deal out of implantation as though it were something special rather than one step of many along the way to personhood. But if you're argument isn't that implantation confers personhood then you're entire "contribution" to the discussion has been pointless.

LOTNorm,

Good summary.

My (unexpressed) underlying purpose was of course to invalidate the notion that there is any obvious "correct" definition of the moment of personhood.

I don't have any firm opinion on the subject, so I enjoy discussing it with people who do. I want to find out what the reasons are for their opinions. I want to understand, and perhaps learn...

Lx,

Let me say that first it depends on how far along you were..and to me there is a difference between a natural interuption and an artificial one.

... sounds very situational to me. It sounds like you're making up the criteria as you go along, in order to "intellectually justify" what is in fact a visceral reflex.

I find your obduracy all the more curious because you recognize the distinction between "living" and "person". As you say, "plants are alive".

May I make a suggestion? The baby you bore became a person... because you willed it to be so. Responsible parents make tough choices, from the moment they decide to have a child, and many, many times thereafter. Surely the doctors told you of all the risks -- for you, for the baby, for your entire family, ... -- involved in such a premature birth. You -- perhaps not alone -- chose to take those risks.

Another woman, in other social/financial/familial/... conditions, might have made a different choice.

I had a child when I was in my sixth month of pregnancy..he is today almost 17 years old...was he alive and a human...and is he..you bet he is and was.

Certainly, at six months, he was alive and he was human. Certainly, at some time -- perhaps before his birth or perhaps after his birth -- he became a person, as well.

If he had been born at three months, would he have already been a person? At one month?

If he had been conceived in vitro and had grown in an incubator without even having been in a human womb, would he still be a person?

I think these questions are important.

What risks would those have been? How would I know that watching my first husband be murdered would send me into labor at six months? Sorry but your crass assertion that I took unwarranted risks in having such a pregnancy or allowing my child to live is crazy. I went into labor and had him three hours later.

Person is different from viable...it is indeed a person from the moment it is implanted..why?> Because being human is not necessarily the same as viability.

Ix,

Where did I say "unwarranted"? I said "risks", without any adjectives. Do you now say that there were no risks involved with a six-month birth? Did your doctors not tell you that there were risks?

Where did I make any "crass assertions"? Where did I make any assertions of any kind?

Breathe deeply... count to ten... slowly...

I'm sure that your experience was traumatic... but that does not justify your insulting me.

Bob, actually no they hadn't..it was 1994 then and I had absolutely a normal pregnancy until three hours before he was born..of course he is normal and healthy and huge now...but no one knew that there were ANY risks till he was already on the way..actually when I was in labor they told me he was going to not survive the birth period because of his early gestation..but they were wrong. It seems to me that I wasn't insulting you, but I was insulted because the way your post reads to me is that you were judging that I had done something wrong in having my child.

I was 22 years old when he was born and yes it was traumatic...but having him was why I survived.

... your post reads to me is that you were judging that I had done something wrong...

I do not see anything of that nature in my text. Nothing. Not a single word. I spoke of risk, but certainly not of "unwarranted" risk. I am not responsible for your imagination.

Are you saying that a six-month birth carries no more risk than a full-term birth? C'mon!!

It sounds to me like you went through a horrible trauma that provoked the "loss" of your baby... but that you and the baby were fortunate enough to have some very competent medical people around you, who succeeded in keeping the baby alive and well. It is wonderful for you and your son that it ultimately worked out well.

Your particular case is -- thank God -- hardly typical of most women's pregnancies. Most seriously premature births are foreseeable and foreseen. There is time to evaluate the risks involved, both for the mother and for the long-term well-being of the baby. The mother -- or both the prospective parents -- must evaluate those risks and decide what to do.

That decision is -- in my opinion -- much like the decision that mother / those parents had already made when she / they decided to have a child in the first place. She / they must evaluate the economic and social context, the medical context, the genetic context, the family context... to decide whether to procede or not.

In sad fact... there are many mothers / parents who unfortunately do not make that pre-conception decision. They have sex despite never having seriously considered the consequences. So then they are forced to make that decision after conception.

------------------

At some point in time, society must recognize a newcomer and must confer on that newcomer the protection that it confers on all its members. Before that point, there is no newcomer. There is nothing, under the rules of the society.

Before that moment, the mother / parents have all authority to decide to stop or to continue. After that moment, the newcomer has benefit of protection -- like all members of society. If necessary, that protection may be extended against the mother / parents.

In your case, you decided to continue. Because of your decision, your son exists. He is "normal and healthy and huge", and your decision is vindicated.

Perhaps a different woman, in similarly terrible circumstances, might decide that it is too much... that she can not handle it all... The son would never exist.

... never exist...

If a young woman decides not to have children, and therefore takes the pill... her potential children ... never exist...

So that is my quandary: at what moment does that newcomer exist?

The problem you have with the concept of no status before birth is that even the law recognizes that this is a living person..why? Look at Scott Peterson who was convicted of murdering not only his wife Lacy Peterson, but their unborn son as well. Evidently one of the most liberal states in the country recognized that this baby, even though unborn, was alive and unjustly his life was taken from him.

Like I said in my case before that point there were no risks...my pregnancy was normal until my husband was murdered...at the point of his murder three hours later I had a child. I had two children before him and they were normal 9 month pregnancies so this was also deemed to and would have most likely been normal if not for extenuating circumstances. Yes, it did work out...but you assume that your words are how you are thinking them...look at the words from the perspective of the person who is reading them and who has experienced what you are talking about..you might see a whole new emphasis on words. Now I accept, because you said..that you didn't mean anything negative..but it was the way I took it.

Yes, they worked out because of incredible doctors..not because of incredible insurance...I didnt have any. I paid for my son's birth out of pocket and spent the next 5 years paying for his care for 1 month in the hospital. Victims funds did assist me with the burial of my husband, but that was it.

Lx,

I have re-read my #1.108 again and again. I still see no notion of "unwarranted" risk.

... and I still insist that at the moment of a six-month birth, there were far greater risks (if only for the baby) than there would have been at nine months.

No matter...

I know what the law says... in the US. Elsewhere, it says other things. The law is arbitrary -- a choice. The law has evolved enormously over time... while the biological process has never changed.

The technological means for caring for preterm births continues to improve, with the youngest survivors now being about five months. And I am sure that some day the technology will exist to nurture a test-tube baby from conception to birth without implantation in a living womb. At that point, the moment of birth will be completely arbitrary, at the convenience of the parents.

So I find "birth" to be a very unsatisfactory "moment of personhood". "Birth" is already highly variable, and will grow more so over time.

I really do not know what the best "solution" is... and I have yet to hear a convincing argument for any particular moment.

Bob, I tend not to get involved in what another person decides for themselves when it comes to abortion..for me personally I would never do it unless I were going to die if I don't...but that is me personally...yes, of course at the moment of birth there were risks...we didn't know though previous to birth that there was any risk...my risk came from emotional trauma which isn't predictable....other things are predictable previous to them happening...which I guess is where the difference is.

However, I prefer to believe that a pregnancy actually starts from when implantation happens...it is the point in which the only thing left is development...I don't say growth because that would be incorrect...development is different. However, if we want to establish standards..I would establish it at the point in which there is brain activity, heart beat, and a nervous system capable of feeling pain...

Pain sensory is difficult to tell when ..but we know that development starts a few weeks after pregnancy. However, I tend to think that there is a cutoff to when you have made your choice on whether you are going to be pregnant or not..I tend to stop at 8-10 weeks..beyond that people should not be getting purely elective abortions and preferably it would be before that with morning after pills or the abortion pill. Those two sources of first emergency contraceptive and a chemical abortion are reasons why later abortions should be much lower...and perhaps regulated. After 8-10 weeks you know by that point whether you do or don't want to continue and you have to make a choice. I do reserve for medical reasons the right to an abortion later..but even the tolerance for me on that is 16 weeks...and even then only with anesthesia and with a second doctor opinion if it is for medical reason such as down's syndrome or hydrocephaly.

Like I said..personally because of my experience I am against abortions..for me. I respect the court's decision though in Roe V Wade...and therefore respect that the decision rests with the physician and the patient. Do I want my tax dollars paying for them? No, I don't...that is what choice is about..it is your choice others don't pay for it. Why? Because I also respect other people's strongly held belief that abortion is murder...and at a certain point in pregnancy I also agree it is the taking of a life. However, since I respect both strongy held beliefs...I believe we should respect the courts opinion and that at the same time respect other's strongly held beliefs and there should be no tax covering any abortion not meant to save someone's life.

lx,

I don't mean to be negative... I'm searching...

Criteria like: feel pain, brain activity, heartbeat, ... aren't particularly "human".

---------------

After 8-10 weeks you know by that point whether you do or don't want to continue and you have to make a choice.

I like this approach. It doesn't really relate to any "event" in the fetus's development. Rather, it concerns the mother, who has had enough time to think things through. Meanwhile, the fetus is still primitive enough that it cannot be considered a "person" except by "mystical/religious" criteria.

Yes, this is a pragmatic, workable approach to the question.

Glad you feel that way and yes I agree that pain isn't always human but it is real and I hate the thought of anything suffering...I used to be the kid that brought all the strays home...

Now I have one obnoxious kitten named 'lio' that is spanish for trouble, and a chihuahua dog named Mango...they keep me very occupied now that I have teens that forget I exist sometimes. I am certain that they can perceive pain.

Yes, there has to be a medium and I am glad you like the idea...and I am not particularly religious so it helps when it comes to rationalizing the position.