|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:53 am
In the UK atleast. Its only a matter of time before it reaches here. Think it won't? Look at the mentality of the folks in washington, and look at who will most likely be runing things come the next four to eight years.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2415979,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2415979,00.html
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:03 am
This is another reason I don't beleiv en the concept of personhood. This concept is even more intangebil then riligion. There is no code of conduct that is set in stone for this, it is what ever the government votes it to be. I beleiv ein equality for all of humanity. If it's human and has all sighns of biological life (meaning a tumor would not be counted stare ) then they are deservign of every right their government offers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:18 pm
Why are there two links? They both go to the same place.
This is an odd concept. I really have no idea how I feel about it. These are human born so premature that they cannot be saved, and so I sort of understand why some people feel that they shouldn't be issued all the paperwork of personhood (birth certificate and the like), but on the other hand, they are born alive...
I don't know what to think. I'm glad I'm not the person who has to make this choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:12 pm
Tiger of the Fire This is another reason I don't beleiv en the concept of personhood. This concept is even more intangebil then riligion. There is no code of conduct that is set in stone for this, it is what ever the government votes it to be. I beleiv ein equality for all of humanity. If it's human and has all sighns of biological life (meaning a tumor would not be counted stare ) then they are deservign of every right their government offers. The thing about legal concepts is that they don't go away when you don't believe in them (unlike religious concepts - I think you were trying to say religion, right?). The legal status of "personhood" exists for a reason. Origionally it was probably meant to differentiate (excuse my spelling) legal citizens of the new country of the US from everyone else. That is, white male adult humans living in this country from black humans, female humans, children, and white male adult humans living elsewhere. Since then, the term has been slowly expanded to include more and more groups, whereas now it includes all born humans living legally in this country (and maybe also illegally? I don't know who to ask about that...) and corporations. Maybe the term should be retired. Maybe you are right and it has come to the point where personhood is no longer needed. But the amount of laws and legal practices that would need to be changed (slightly or drastically) is vast and complex. And even with or without personhood, there is no current legal precident for any human (born or unborn) being able to use the body of another human without permission. I don't believe that doing away with the legal status of personhood would benifit the unborn humans any more than including them into the term. I'm not entirely sure how protection for unborn humans could be acheived without overturning many existing legal precidents...and maybe not even then...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:15 pm
If everyone was dead... that's true freedom of equality.
Don't know why I had to chime in like that... I'm just pissed off right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:28 pm
Tiger of the Fire This is another reason I don't beleiv en the concept of personhood. This concept is even more intangebil then riligion. There is no code of conduct that is set in stone for this, it is what ever the government votes it to be. I beleiv ein equality for all of humanity. If it's human and has all sighns of biological life (meaning a tumor would not be counted stare ) then they are deservign of every right their government offers. To me a person is the same thing as a human just a different name. If it was born then why does it matter if it was born at 22 weeks (prematurly). It's still a baby and was still born and it still existed. They should get a birth certificate and if they die then a death certificate just like all the rest. It's got to be sad to know that parents are going through a hard time, they lost a child and people seem to think like nothing has happened at all which would probly make them feel worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:17 pm
Oh, this was just ******** outrageous: Quote: acknowledging that these babies have been born alive, and having to register the births, causes unnecessary suffering to mothers who wanted an abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:20 pm
La Veuve Zin Oh, this was just ******** outrageous: Quote: acknowledging that these babies have been born alive, and having to register the births, causes unnecessary suffering to mothers who wanted an abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:16 am
Does this mean even if the parent(s) wanted a birth certificate they wouldn't be issued one? If so, I think that's incredibly unjust.
Personally, if my child were born that young I would want them issued a certificate, to give them their humanity, and dignity, as a human being. I would also want a burial/cremation because I wouldn’t want them thrown away into the trash, and I believe you need a birth and death certificate for that as well
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:26 am
WatersMoon110 Tiger of the Fire This is another reason I don't beleiv en the concept of personhood. This concept is even more intangebil then riligion. There is no code of conduct that is set in stone for this, it is what ever the government votes it to be. I beleiv ein equality for all of humanity. If it's human and has all sighns of biological life (meaning a tumor would not be counted stare ) then they are deservign of every right their government offers. The thing about legal concepts is that they don't go away when you don't believe in them (unlike religious concepts - I think you were trying to say religion, right?). The legal status of "personhood" exists for a reason. Origionally it was probably meant to differentiate (excuse my spelling) legal citizens of the new country of the US from everyone else. That is, white male adult humans living in this country from black humans, female humans, children, and white male adult humans living elsewhere. Since then, the term has been slowly expanded to include more and more groups, whereas now it includes all born humans living legally in this country (and maybe also illegally? I don't know who to ask about that...) and corporations. Maybe the term should be retired. Maybe you are right and it has come to the point where personhood is no longer needed. But the amount of laws and legal practices that would need to be changed (slightly or drastically) is vast and complex. And even with or without personhood, there is no current legal precident for any human (born or unborn) being able to use the body of another human without permission. I don't believe that doing away with the legal status of personhood would benifit the unborn humans any more than including them into the term. I'm not entirely sure how protection for unborn humans could be acheived without overturning many existing legal precidents...and maybe not even then... "Personhood" As we knwo it to day, is a tool of discrimination that NEEDS to go away. Most of every thing you just said lends to the problem of discrimination its self. "If, mabey, possibly" thats all I hear from you there. There is no reason for it to exist. We liv ein a world whe we are tryign to stop discrimination. Th eonly way that is going to happen is when we stop using personhood as a way to justify our existence. SO long as personhood exists thee will always be a race of humans outide the label and being descriminated against. No, there isnt. But why should one human be made to suffer for your actions? Wy should one human's coming nto existence by your dession for a single day of pleasure be snuffed out simply because ou don't want him? You put him there, he is not in controle of where he goes and grows. If he was, i can assure you no woman calling her self pro-choice would ever become pregnant. There is a diffrence between rape and pregnancy, a very vast one. One, a huma is using your body against your will and put himself there out side of your controe. Pregnancy ont he other hand, that human IS NOT using oyur body with out your consent. It is not in controle of where he goes, if he was you could say he was using your body with out consent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:30 am
Lady_Amalthea Does this mean even if the parent(s) wanted a birth certificate they wouldn't be issued one? If so, I think that's incredibly unjust. Personally, if my child were born that young I would want them issued a certificate, to give them their humanity, and dignity, as a human being. I would also want a burial/cremation because I wouldn’t want them thrown away into the trash, and I believe you need a birth and death certificate for that as well Most likely. As I said, personhood is a tool of discrimination. Every generation had our government in some way seen some one as a non-perosn or less then human. Racism is not dead and will never die. Any pro-choicer who says they don't discriminate against any human being is only lying to themselves. Whats horryfing now is that we are once again seeing the discrimination of born humans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:42 am
You have got to be ******** kidding me.
I'm about to lose my ******** s**t on someone. This is complete bull.Quote: BABIES born alive at less than 22 weeks gestation should be treated as if they had never existed,
Here's a ******** thought, if you feel guilty about it because there's babies being born alive at the same goddamn age that YOU killed YOUR child, than maybe you SHOULD feel some ******** goddamn guilt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:22 pm
Tiger of the Fire WatersMoon110 Tiger of the Fire This is another reason I don't beleiv en the concept of personhood. This concept is even more intangebil then riligion. There is no code of conduct that is set in stone for this, it is what ever the government votes it to be. I beleiv ein equality for all of humanity. If it's human and has all sighns of biological life (meaning a tumor would not be counted stare ) then they are deservign of every right their government offers. The thing about legal concepts is that they don't go away when you don't believe in them (unlike religious concepts - I think you were trying to say religion, right?). The legal status of "personhood" exists for a reason. Origionally it was probably meant to differentiate (excuse my spelling) legal citizens of the new country of the US from everyone else. That is, white male adult humans living in this country from black humans, female humans, children, and white male adult humans living elsewhere. Since then, the term has been slowly expanded to include more and more groups, whereas now it includes all born humans living legally in this country (and maybe also illegally? I don't know who to ask about that...) and corporations. Maybe the term should be retired. Maybe you are right and it has come to the point where personhood is no longer needed. But the amount of laws and legal practices that would need to be changed (slightly or drastically) is vast and complex. And even with or without personhood, there is no current legal precident for any human (born or unborn) being able to use the body of another human without permission. I don't believe that doing away with the legal status of personhood would benifit the unborn humans any more than including them into the term. I'm not entirely sure how protection for unborn humans could be acheived without overturning many existing legal precidents...and maybe not even then... "Personhood" As we knwo it to day, is a tool of discrimination that NEEDS to go away. Most of every thing you just said lends to the problem of discrimination its self. "If, mabey, possibly" thats all I hear from you there. There is no reason for it to exist. We liv ein a world whe we are tryign to stop discrimination. Th eonly way that is going to happen is when we stop using personhood as a way to justify our existence. SO long as personhood exists thee will always be a race of humans outide the label and being descriminated against. No, there isnt. But why should one human be made to suffer for your actions? Wy should one human's coming nto existence by your dession for a single day of pleasure be snuffed out simply because ou don't want him? You put him there, he is not in controle of where he goes and grows. If he was, i can assure you no woman calling her self pro-choice would ever become pregnant. There is a diffrence between rape and pregnancy, a very vast one. One, a huma is using your body against your will and put himself there out side of your controe. Pregnancy ont he other hand, that human IS NOT using oyur body with out your consent. It is not in controle of where he goes, if he was you could say he was using your body with out consent. I didn't (and don't) compare pregnancy to rape. Quote: Pregnancy on the other hand, that human IS NOT using your body without your consent. That isn't true. That human might not have been able to control how it came to be using the woman's body, but obviously if she were consenting to it being there, she wouldn't be (think of) getting an abortion (unless it was for health reasons which is really a different matter all together).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:20 pm
Tiger of the Fire personhood is a tool of discrimination. To me, at least, personhood is something that can include non-humans. To say that person should be removed because it discriminates against humans (in the case of legal personhood in the US, only unborn humans are not included), is (to me) discriminating against non-human lifeforms of near human-level intelligence, which should have or someday might have the legal status of "person".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:54 pm
WatersMoon110 Tiger of the Fire WatersMoon110 Tiger of the Fire This is another reason I don't beleiv en the concept of personhood. This concept is even more intangebil then riligion. There is no code of conduct that is set in stone for this, it is what ever the government votes it to be. I beleiv ein equality for all of humanity. If it's human and has all sighns of biological life (meaning a tumor would not be counted stare ) then they are deservign of every right their government offers. The thing about legal concepts is that they don't go away when you don't believe in them (unlike religious concepts - I think you were trying to say religion, right?). The legal status of "personhood" exists for a reason. Origionally it was probably meant to differentiate (excuse my spelling) legal citizens of the new country of the US from everyone else. That is, white male adult humans living in this country from black humans, female humans, children, and white male adult humans living elsewhere. Since then, the term has been slowly expanded to include more and more groups, whereas now it includes all born humans living legally in this country (and maybe also illegally? I don't know who to ask about that...) and corporations. Maybe the term should be retired. Maybe you are right and it has come to the point where personhood is no longer needed. But the amount of laws and legal practices that would need to be changed (slightly or drastically) is vast and complex. And even with or without personhood, there is no current legal precident for any human (born or unborn) being able to use the body of another human without permission. I don't believe that doing away with the legal status of personhood would benifit the unborn humans any more than including them into the term. I'm not entirely sure how protection for unborn humans could be acheived without overturning many existing legal precidents...and maybe not even then... "Personhood" As we knwo it to day, is a tool of discrimination that NEEDS to go away. Most of every thing you just said lends to the problem of discrimination its self. "If, mabey, possibly" thats all I hear from you there. There is no reason for it to exist. We liv ein a world whe we are tryign to stop discrimination. Th eonly way that is going to happen is when we stop using personhood as a way to justify our existence. SO long as personhood exists thee will always be a race of humans outide the label and being descriminated against. No, there isnt. But why should one human be made to suffer for your actions? Wy should one human's coming nto existence by your dession for a single day of pleasure be snuffed out simply because ou don't want him? You put him there, he is not in controle of where he goes and grows. If he was, i can assure you no woman calling her self pro-choice would ever become pregnant. There is a diffrence between rape and pregnancy, a very vast one. One, a huma is using your body against your will and put himself there out side of your controe. Pregnancy ont he other hand, that human IS NOT using oyur body with out your consent. It is not in controle of where he goes, if he was you could say he was using your body with out consent. I didn't (and don't) compare pregnancy to rape. Quote: Pregnancy on the other hand, that human IS NOT using your body without your consent. That isn't true. That human might not have been able to control how it came to be using the woman's body, but obviously if she were consenting to it being there, she wouldn't be (think of) getting an abortion (unless it was for health reasons which is really a different matter all together). I never said you did, I pointed that out incase some one (and already has) tryed to. "I consented to sex, not pregnency." That tried old argument. Sex leads to pregnency, its a gamble. If you consent to the gamble you agree to the out come, other wise you're being dishonoest and irrisponsible. Another tired argument. "Consentign to sex isn't consenting to pregnancy" COnsidering the only sure way to become pregnant is through sex, I'd say it pretty much is. Its a process of actions. One thing will always lead to another. This how ever is pure opinoin and is futile to argue. I can say the unborn isn't using your body with out consent just as much as you can say it is, either way neither one of us is going to be right or wrong. That is another reason why personhood should be removed for something else. For now being human should be enough to obtain legal recognition. One day another life form may come along that shows the same intelegence as us, with the capability to make rational thought out actions and the ability to act against their intincts to act in a more civilized (or what we call so) manner, untill then though the only being capable of such an action are humans. There are other mamals that show this, such as dolphines, some cats and dogs, and many species of apes, but in a time of stress and chaose this intiligence is replaced by that animals act to respond to it's instincts. This new recognition should cover any and all humans, not just the ones who show the ability to be productive to society. This would protect the mentaly handicaped and retarded and brain dead. I would rather not hear about a repeat of the eugenics program implimented by Nazi germany and the US before them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
