No. Provide substantiation that the facility where she carries out the abortion has to be a licensed medical facility.
Abortions NOT performed at a medical facility have a statistically high risk of causing catastrophic internal bleeding.So while there may or may not be some LEGAL impediment to self-mutilation, THERE IS A VERY PRACTICAL IMPEDIMENT.
I know. But we're obviously not discussing de facto impediments, but de jure impediments. A woman can abandon a baby in a dumpster in Atlanta, but if she were to successfully relocate to North Korea, she could practically escape the legal responsibility to her infant without issue. The point is she has a responsibility to her infant dictated by the descriptions of the State. If she were truly her own sovereign territory, she would not have to abide by State dictates and she could abandon an infant much in the same way she can abandon her fetus.This is the reason I continue to argue that the pro-life arguments generally are more consistent than those of the pro-choice. The pro-life position argues this responsibility persists from conception to mid or late adolescence (though, I don't deny that cut-off is arbitrary as well.) The pro-choice position however arguse that there's no responsibility (zygote/embryo/fetus) then responsibility (infant-->late adolescence) then back to no responsibility (late adolescent-->adulthood.) The main difference is the pro-life argument is a function of dependence. The pro-choice, however, is one neither of dependence, nor of "gyno-sovereignty." It's an inconsistent argument. The only way to reconcile is to completely remove the obligation a parent bears its child, regardless of its age.
RESPONSIBLE AT CONCEPTION + NOT RESPONSIBLE UNTIL IMPLANTATION + RESPONSIBLE DURING GESTATION + RESPONSIBLE (CITIZENSHIP) AFTER BIRTH + ARBITRARY DEADLINE OF 18 YEARS.And, PRO-CHOICE = NOT RESPONSIBLE AT CONCEPTION + NOT RESPONSIBLE DURING GESTATION + RESPONSIBILITY (CITIZENSHIP) BEGINS AT BIRTH + ARBITRARY DEADLINE OF 18 YEARS.IN THIS PARTICULAR LIGHT THEY ARE EQUALLY COHERENT. THEY BOTH HAVE ARBITRARY START AND ARBITRARY END DATES.
What is the Pro-life position regarding In Vitro Fertilization?From a pro-life viewpoint, IVF is not permissible given a proper respect for human life. The process is far too wasteful of human life, resulting in thousands of embryos which are destroyed, either by chance in the womb or on purpose when they are no longer needed for the treatment.
The process also encourages a mentality which views people as things to be bought or sold as wanted which is inconsistent with a proper pro-life view. No pro-lifer should ever view another human being as merely instrumental to the satisfaction of another’s desires.
ALL MISCARRIAGES SHOULD BE TREATED AS POTENTIAL MURDER/MANSLAUGHTER CASES, AND ALL HUMAN PRIVACY SHOULD BE ERADICATED,
HE STATE SHOULD BE NOTIFIED EVERY TIME TWO PEOPLE COPULATE IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THE POSSIBLY RESULTING EMBRYO IS NOT MALNOURISHED OR MISTREATED OR INTENTIONALLY OR UNINTENTIONALLY KILLED, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE DOES NOT END AT BIRTH AND ALL HOMES SHOULD BE MONITORED BY CAMERAS AND MICROPHONES IN ORDER TO DETECT CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT.
AND MORE THAN THAT, ALL LIVING MASSES OF CELLS WITH 100% HUMAN DNA SHOULD BE KEPT ALIVE AT ALL COSTS INCLUDING CANCER CELLS AND GENETICALLY MODIFIED PIGS. LETTING ANY LIVING MASS OF CELLS WITH 100% HUMAN DNA DIE IS MURDER AND OR MANSLAUGHTER.
FOR PRO-CHOICE TO BE TRULY COHERENT, ALL CITIZENS SHOULD HAVE THEIR RIGHTS AND PRIVACY RESPECTED BY THE STATE.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------YOUR OBJECTION TO RELEASING CUSTODY OF A CHILD IGNORES THE CITIZENSHIP OF THAT CHILD.BEFORE THE BLASTOCYST IS GRANTED CITIZENSHIP, IT HAS NO HUMAN RIGHTS.A CITIZEN MUST BE ABANDONED AT A SANCTIONED FACILITY BECAUSE A CITIZEN HAS HUMAN RIGHTS.
YOUR OBJECTION TO RELEASING CUSTODY OF A CHILD IGNORES THE CITIZENSHIP OF THAT CHILD.BEFORE THE BLASTOCYST IS GRANTED CITIZENSHIP, IT HAS NO HUMAN RIGHTS.A CITIZEN MUST BE ABANDONED AT A SANCTIONED FACILITY BECAUSE A CITIZEN HAS HUMAN RIGHTS.No. For it to be coherent, all citizen sovereignty should be respected, period.
AND MORE THAN THAT, ALL LIVING MASSES OF CELLS WITH 100% HUMAN DNA SHOULD BE KEPT ALIVE AT ALL COSTS INCLUDING CANCER CELLS AND GENETICALLY MODIFIED PIGS. LETTING ANY LIVING MASS OF CELLS WITH 100% HUMAN DNA DIE IS MURDER AND OR MANSLAUGHTER.Except their (cancer cells, sperm cells, etc.) genome isn't distinct.
THE STATE SHOULD BE NOTIFIED EVERY TIME TWO PEOPLE COPULATE IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THE POSSIBLY RESULTING EMBRYO IS NOT MALNOURISHED OR MISTREATED OR INTENTIONALLY OR UNINTENTIONALLY KILLED, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE DOES NOT END AT BIRTH AND ALL HOMES SHOULD BE MONITORED BY CAMERAS AND MICROPHONES IN ORDER TO DETECT CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT.Now, you're delving into de facto measures rather than de jure measures which merely ascribe accountability.
ALL MISCARRIAGES SHOULD BE TREATED AS POTENTIAL MURDER/MANSLAUGHTER CASES, AND ALL HUMAN PRIVACY SHOULD BE ERADICATED,Not all deaths have cases made out of them. If there's no cause for suspicion, usually determined by an initial medical examination, then the prospect of a case is scrapped. If she forgoes this examination then there's nothing the pro-lifers can do. (Not that I would suggest they do anything to begin with.)
What about twins and clones? Their genome isn't distinct.
How does a distinct genome make something worthy of life?
Pick one and stick to it.
Most of the pro-choicers claim god told them not to kill teeny-tiny fish-like cell masses because they are the same as newborn babies.
Because if we are going to prevent every teeny-tiny fish-like cell mass from dying, we need to register them as citizens. Every single one.
Then there should be a medical examination (investigation) of every miscarriage to determine if there is cause for suspicion.It should be treated exactly like if a child dies in someone's private residence.Did that child die of natural causes? Was that child's death preventable?Personal privacy goes completely out the window. Refusing to be examined would be considered obstruction of justice.
Pick one and stick to it.I already did. My arguments focus primarily on accountability.
If the argument is that every person is responsible for the welfare of their offspring, whether it be sustaining custody or transferring custody to another, and "citizenship" creates accountability, then yes, registration would be necessary.
But not legal accountability?
Are we in agreement on this?
How would any public entity know of her miscarriage without the medical examination in the first place?
But not legal accountability?Where did you get that?
Are we in agreement on this?No. I'm not arguing that citizenship creates rights or accountability. Rights are axioms which are immediately embodied in all interaction, not successive of one particular form (citizenship.)
How do they enforce this?By making copulation reporting mandatory.
If an unregistered copulation results in a pregnancy, then appropriate fines and or other punishments and or sanctions would be levied.
Directly below. You seem to be bouncing back and forth between legality and some sort of intrinsic "moral responsibility".
Axioms immediately embodied based on what exactly?
#1 the "first-phase-of-human-development" seems to be ignoring the prerequisites (sperm and egg and healthy parents and copulation opportunity).And given that the zygote marks the first phase of human development, they're "claims" that they are more like newborn babies is more consistent than claims they are not.
Axioms immediately embodied based on what exactly?Based on nothing else; they're axioms.
What about twins and clones? Their genome isn't distinct.
Seem is not an argument; and they're not being ignored. Copulation these days isn't a prerequisite. And even assuming copulation, development doesn't start until the egg is fertilized by the sperm.#1 the "first-phase-of-human-development" seems to be ignoring the prerequisites (sperm and egg and healthy parents and copulation opportunity).
#2 the blastocyst and zygote and fetus development stages are virtually identical to that of monkeys and mice.
If DNA is your primary guiding light, then all mammals should be protected with 97% of the fervor that humans deserve.
The key hypocrisy of "pro-lifers" is when they say "all human life is precious" but then they support the death penalty, they support deporting humans into life threatening situations, they do nothing to protect vulnerable homeless people and they are very often gung-ho supporters of military action which by its very definition does not support the axiom "all human life is precious".
...development doesn't start until the egg is fertilized by the sperm.
Twins and clones may have variations (errors) in their genetic coding.But the same it true for all cells in your body.Not all sperm have identical genetic coding.Not all eggs have identical genetic coding.Tumors also contain genetic variations (errors).How much variation constitutes a "distinct-genetic-organism" in your opinion?Do all "distinct-genetic-organisms" deserve equal rights?
Development of the blastocyst begins when a sperm and egg are selected for fertilization.Genetic selection is pre-requisite and therefore integral and inseparable from the "development-process".
If DNA is your primary guiding light, then all mammals should be protected with 97% of the fervor that humans deserve.DNA makes it its own person. I never said that Rights were commensurate to DNA content. My mention of the genome was in response to your statement that zygote/embryo/fetus was akin to sperm cells, and the like, where the former has its own genome, and the latter is an extension of another.
Stopping the selection process de facto stops development.No one's arguing against the necessity of a selected egg and sperm. But that doesn't mean that the development starts when they are selected. You should already know that this is tautological.
Then the description of the genome needs expansion to include that which constitutes one's person.
And do sperm cells, egg cells, tumors have different genetic coding or different genetic expressions?
And once again, it's not about "deserving rights"; it's creating a distinction between the zygote and its mother. If we were to consider your statements earlier, then your claiming that the blastocyst is 99% its mother is completely meaningless.
I don't see how the statement "all human life is precious" contradicts the death penalty.
Those who are on death row (usually) have committed horrendous crimes typically involving homicides.
In order to create a deterrent, they take away what's most precious: life. It doesn't undermine it at all.
In fact, it informs it. If the motto instead were, "no life should be ended," then you'd have a point, assuming they sustain both a pro-life and pro-death penalty position.
The deportation point doesn't make sense (it's not that their lives aren't precious, it's that they want to submit them to the same legal paradigm in which they are subject.)
You don't know that they don't help the homeless,
...and military is seen as a means of defense.
A child's genome is an extension of another.(IFF) DNA determines if a being is "its own person" personhood is determined by DNA (AND) legal (or moral or axiomatic) Rights are determined by personhood (THEN) DNA determines Rights.So by the law of excluded middle, DNA determines Rights (at least in your proposal).
Stopping the selection process de facto stops development.
In the same way, if I sterilize you, then I am de facto killing your unborn children.
What is your suggestion?
Genetic coding contains errors. Every time you copy 725 megabytes of data, single bit errors are prone to occur. Also, environmental toxins and cosmic radiation can cause errors (mutations) in a human's genetic code.
The fact that a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus is 99.99999% biomass of the mother does not change in either scenario.
The fact that a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus is 99.99999% biomass of the mother does not change in either scenario.We weren't talking about biomass. If that's what you meant, then that's another matter.
