Who Gets to Choose?

[Dionysus]

Terms:

Man = A biological male with a penis
"Man" = A biological female with a vagina
Woman/"Woman" = Vice versa

Hypothetical: Suppose a federal law is promulgated that makes it so that people, including all elected officials and employees of the state, are legally bound to recognize people only in terms that align with that person(s) declared gender identity / gender expression. Ex: If a person with a vagina identifies as a man, then people are legally bound to recognize this person as a man. If a person with a penis identifies as a woman, then legally that person is a woman.

Now imagine a legally married couple: A person with a vagina, who identifies as a man ("man"), and a person with a penis, who identifies as a woman ("woman"). Now suppose that the "woman" impregnates the "man", and one of them wants to have an abortion.

Just for the sake of a single scenario: The legal "man" (the biological host) does not want an abortion. The "woman" (not the biological host) does.

In Roe vs Wade, the Supreme Court held that "the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects, under certain circumstances, a woman’s decision whether to carry a pregnancy to term."

In this scenario, it seems to me that the "man" could say that, as the biological host, they retain the right to choose. However, in order to overcome the legally recognized "woman's" wishes, they would have to either 1) use their biological sex to overwhelm the expressed gender of the "woman" or 2) declare that gender expression plays no role in retention of the right to choose what to do with their body, making it so that abortion is no longer a woman's rights issue, but rather, simply a human rights issue.

Discuss.

[Frank Apisa]

As I see it...

...the person who's body is host to the the embryo, zygote, or fetus...should be the one who makes the "decision."

The other party, whether man, "man", woman, or "woman"...and or the government...should have no say at all.

[SharmaK]

Terms:

Man = A biological male with a penis
"Man" = A biological female with a vagina
Woman/"Woman" = Vice versa

Hypothetical: Suppose a federal law is promulgated that makes it so that people, including all elected officials and employees of the state, are legally bound to recognize people only in terms that align with that person(s) declared gender identity / gender expression. Ex: If a person with a vagina identifies as a man, then people are legally bound to recognize this person as a man. If a person with a penis identifies as a woman, then legally that person is a woman.

Now imagine a legally married couple: A person with a vagina, who identifies as a man ("man"), and a person with a penis, who identifies as a woman ("woman"). Now suppose that the "woman" impregnates the "man", and one of them wants to have an abortion.

Just for the sake of a single scenario: The legal "man" (the biological host) does not want an abortion. The "woman" (not the biological host) does.

In Roe vs Wade, the Supreme Court held that "the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects, under certain circumstances, a woman’s decision whether to carry a pregnancy to term."

In this scenario, it seems to me that the "man" could say that, as the biological host, they retain the right to choose. However, in order to overcome the legally recognized "woman's" wishes, they would have to either 1) use their biological sex to overwhelm the expressed gender of the "woman" or 2) declare that gender expression plays no role in retention of the right to choose what to do with their body, making it so that abortion is no longer a woman's rights issue, but rather, simply a human rights issue.

Discuss.

I think you answered your own question - it’s the biological host that gets to choose. That’s why the movement is called the Pro Choice movement and not the Pro Woman movement.

The main problem with your hypothetical is that gender identity and physical identity/capabilities are two different things and you’ve conflated them to produce an apparent paradox where there is none. The former is really about recognizing people’s personal perception of themselves, which may be cis-male, cis-female, or other gender fluid, non-gender, non-binary, or whatever people want to invent. The latter, viz-a-viz your scenario of pregnancy, is about an individual having the power to say how their own body is to be used.

So there’s no real conflict unless you refuse to recognize the difference between gender identity and a physiological capabilities and that they can diverge.

I would imagine in future when a male can carry a child with DNA from both fathers, or even multiple parents, would make things even more complex. Even not so long ago it was thought horrific that humans from different races, religion or cultures should intermarry and we seemed to have mostly gotten over those ideas. So one may as well get used to the fact that things change and roll with it.

I’m not sure why there would need to be laws about the thing, these are just social conventions such as Ms vs Miss vs Mrs.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Dionysus]

I’m not sure why there would need to be laws about the thing, these are just social conventions such as Ms vs Miss vs Mrs.

I think your answer (which I sympathize with) is great as long as you ignore the conditions of the hypothetical. The language I used about law is relevant.

In Canada (disclosure: I live in the United States) they recently passed a bill called C-16 which extends legal protections to "gender expression" and "gender identity". I agree with the intent of the law, which is to ensure all people are treated as people. But this hypothetical discussion (I despise debate these days) is meant to explore potential unintended consequences of this law and/or laws like it (such as the one passed in New York).

Consider this article that says of the Canadian law "Authorities there now fine citizens up to $250,000 for the novel crime of “mis-gendering” — referring to people by any words other than their pronouns of choice (including newly constructed words such as zie/hir, ey/em/eir and co)."

That in itself warrants further discussion of the limitations of such protections, and whether such protections could ultimately result in more harm than good.

[SharmaK]

I think your answer (which I sympathize with) is great as long as you ignore the conditions of the hypothetical. The language I used about law is relevant.

In Canada (disclosure: I live in the United States) they recently passed a bill called C-16 which extends legal protections to "gender expression" and "gender identity". I agree with the intent of the law, which is to ensure all people are treated as people. But this hypothetical discussion (I despise debate these days) is meant to explore potential unintended consequences of this law and/or laws like it (such as the one passed in New York).

Consider this article that says of the Canadian law "Authorities there now fine citizens up to $250,000 for the novel crime of “mis-gendering” — referring to people by any words other than their pronouns of choice (including newly constructed words such as zie/hir, ey/em/eir and co)."

That in itself warrants further discussion of the limitations of such protections, and whether such protections could ultimately result in more harm than good.

Those laws are to prevent discrimination and harassment between employers, the government and individuals. I don’t think they’re meant for everyday use and are just to ensure that people are treated equally in law and business.

I’ve been following Peterson for a while now and he’s just annoyed because he’s a federal employee and he’s been unfairly painted by SJWs as being transphobic.

That said, my other points still stand - there is a difference between identify and physical gender that you’re not recognizing your in hypothetical. On a more practical level though, any contradictions, and clarity needed in law will just get fixed as problems turn up. I think your host has rights is going to be the best approach since personal autonomy trumps everything else.

(I despise debate these days)

I haven’t do so for ages since the Obama days when things became so partisan that the R’s were just insane. Now the D’s are just as insane about Trump. That said, having recently had to argue on Trump’s ignorance being an objective fact means that we are indeed in a post-fact, alternative-fact universe as far as US politics is concerned.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Dionysus]

On a more practical level though, any contradictions, and clarity needed in law will just get fixed as problems turn up.

Well, that's exactly my point. I'm turning up what I perceive to be a potential problem in a world where a person can be fined 250k for not using the appropriate pronoun.

I agree with autonomy and agency, and I think that's the way to have the discussion. But in the hypothetical I'm forwarding, the only way I see for there to be resolution is for one or the other person to sacrifice something associated with their identity - and I assume that there is a relationship between one's sense of identity and their sense of agency - in favor of their biological status. If the person has to sacrifice their gender identity in order to impose their will as the host on the "woman", then their free agency as a "man" is encroached upon to exactly the extent to which their right to choose as a woman is dependent on it (and vice versa).

[SharmaK]

Well, that's exactly my point. I'm turning up what I perceive to be a potential problem in a world where a person can be fined 250k for not using the appropriate pronoun.

I don’t think it would quite like that. The laws as written are sensible and for specific situations. In the Canadian law it was a fine for repeatedly and deliberately ignoring someone’s pronoun.

I agree with autonomy and agency, and I think that's the way to have the discussion. But in the hypothetical I'm forwarding, the only way I see for there to be resolution is for one or the other person to sacrifice something associated with their identity - and I assume that there is a relationship between one's sense of identity and their sense of agency - in favor of their biological status. If the person has to sacrifice their gender identity in order to impose their will as the host on the "woman", then their free agency as a "man" is encroached upon to exactly the extent to which their right to choose as a woman is dependent on it (and vice versa).

I think in your description here, it is the child-bearer that makes all the decisions. So even though some sacrifice is being made it is on that person’s own terms.

Once we’re really at that point, I think traditional gender roles and the conflation of identity/physicality will both evolve where the distinctions are as anachronistic as inter-race marriage. I think even the most staunch opponents of gay marriage are beginning to have to accept that they’re just imposing their religious views onto others at this point.

[MindTrap028]

The op definitely highlights a problem law has when it legislates certain language to people that ignores or contradicts how all other laws were written.
So in the case of the OP the court decision for a woman's right to choose, certainly had in mind a person with a vagina. So the conflict of the new law (to legally bind people to applying a specific term) creates problems due to the change in meanings of the words.

We see a similar historical precedent in regards to the term "persons". some country somewhere will DE-humanize millions of people and ultimately kill them, by ruling that, that group of individuals is not a "person".


So to answer the op, I think the person would argue that the intent of Rue vs wade was to protect peoples with vaginas, who housed babies in their womb. Not the word "woman" exclusively, and that the court was just bound by the language of it's time.
similarly people who were ruled non-persons, would demonstrate that they fulfill the meaning of the word.

[SharmaK]

So to answer the op, I think the person would argue that the intent of Rue vs wade was to protect peoples with vaginas, who housed babies in their womb. Not the word "woman" exclusively, and that the court was just bound by the language of it's time.
similarly people who were ruled non-persons, would demonstrate that they fulfill the meaning of the word.

The child bearer could be a post-op woman with no vagina at all and conceived via artificial insemination and finished up with a cesarean section birth.

I think host or child-bearer would cover all situations.

[Belthazor]

Terms:

Man = A biological male with a penis
"Man" = A biological female with a vagina
Woman/"Woman" = Vice versa

Hypothetical: Suppose a federal law is promulgated that makes it so that people, including all elected officials and employees of the state, are legally bound to recognize people only in terms that align with that person(s) declared gender identity / gender expression. Ex: If a person with a vagina identifies as a man, then people are legally bound to recognize this person as a man. If a person with a penis identifies as a woman, then legally that person is a woman.

Now imagine a legally married couple: A person with a vagina, who identifies as a man ("man"), and a person with a penis, who identifies as a woman ("woman"). Now suppose that the "woman" impregnates the "man", and one of them wants to have an abortion.

Just for the sake of a single scenario: The legal "man" (the biological host) does not want an abortion. The "woman" (not the biological host) does.

In Roe vs Wade, the Supreme Court held that "the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects, under certain circumstances, a woman’s decision whether to carry a pregnancy to term."

In this scenario, it seems to me that the "man" could say that, as the biological host, they retain the right to choose. However, in order to overcome the legally recognized "woman's" wishes, they would have to either 1) use their biological sex to overwhelm the expressed gender of the "woman" or 2) declare that gender expression plays no role in retention of the right to choose what to do with their body, making it so that abortion is no longer a woman's rights issue, but rather, simply a human rights issue.

Discuss.

The "right" to kill your own child seems so bizarre to me."
How is this a good thing?

Though being able to "decide" by virtue of thought whether one is male/female seems rather bizarre as well. What good is "language" if each person gets to decide the meanings of particular words. How to make a "dictionary" work in such a situation...
(If the definitions of words in the past changed in such a manner, how would we ever know what was actually meant when reading old/ancient text.....)

Sorry Dio, I guess that didn't comment on your scenario. I just don't see this scenario as "ought to come to fruition"...

If how you "feel" changes anything (legally), it changes everything, does it not?.....

[MindTrap028]

The child bearer could be a post-op woman with no vagina at all and conceived via artificial insemination and finished up with a cesarean section birth.

I think host or child-bearer would cover all situations.

Still the point is that they would argue that they have the required elements that the ruling were intended to reference.

[mican333]

Terms:

Man = A biological male with a penis
"Man" = A biological female with a vagina
Woman/"Woman" = Vice versa

Hypothetical: Suppose a federal law is promulgated that makes it so that people, including all elected officials and employees of the state, are legally bound to recognize people only in terms that align with that person(s) declared gender identity / gender expression. Ex: If a person with a vagina identifies as a man, then people are legally bound to recognize this person as a man. If a person with a penis identifies as a woman, then legally that person is a woman.

Now imagine a legally married couple: A person with a vagina, who identifies as a man ("man"), and a person with a penis, who identifies as a woman ("woman"). Now suppose that the "woman" impregnates the "man", and one of them wants to have an abortion.

Just for the sake of a single scenario: The legal "man" (the biological host) does not want an abortion. The "woman" (not the biological host) does.

In Roe vs Wade, the Supreme Court held that "the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects, under certain circumstances, a woman’s decision whether to carry a pregnancy to term."

In this scenario, it seems to me that the "man" could say that, as the biological host, they retain the right to choose. However, in order to overcome the legally recognized "woman's" wishes, they would have to either 1) use their biological sex to overwhelm the expressed gender of the "woman" or 2) declare that gender expression plays no role in retention of the right to choose what to do with their body, making it so that abortion is no longer a woman's rights issue, but rather, simply a human rights issue.

Discuss.

This is pretty much a non-issue. Obviously the Roe decision referred exclusively to "woman" based on the premise that only women can be pregnant. If someone who is legally declared a man got pregnant, he would have as much of a legal right to have an abortion as a pregnant woman and any legal challenge to that based on the notion that since he's a pregnant man he's not technically entitled to the same rights as a pregnant woman would not stand up.

Obviously the 14th amendment, what the Roe decision is based on, holds that men are entitled to the same legal protections as a woman. So clearly any court case regarding this would end up saying that men have the right to terminate their pregnancies as women do.

[SharmaK]

Still the point is that they would argue that they have the required elements that the ruling were intended to reference.

Sure, initially but our legal system is dynamic and learns and self-heals. Perhaps it will take a few cases where it was deemed unfair and it will be fought out in the courts and fixed.

That’s the beauty of evolution and the advantage of being able change over static moral systems that are unable to learn. The apparent discrepancies pointed out in the OP and the linguistic purity alluded to by others are easily dealt with and merely a temporary blip.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[PGA2]

Terms:

Man = A biological male with a penis
"Man" = A biological female with a vagina
Woman/"Woman" = Vice versa

Hypothetical: Suppose a federal law is promulgated that makes it so that people, including all elected officials and employees of the state, are legally bound to recognize people only in terms that align with that person(s) declared gender identity / gender expression. Ex: If a person with a vagina identifies as a man, then people are legally bound to recognize this person as a man. If a person with a penis identifies as a woman, then legally that person is a woman.

Hypotheticals obscure the definition of what a man is. A man is a male PERSON with the attributes and nature that identify that person as male.

Definition of male
1
a : a male person : a man or a boy
b : an individual of the sex that is typically capable of producing small, usually motile gametes (such as sperm or spermatozoa) which fertilize the eggs of a female
2
: a plant having stamens but no pistils

Under 'b' the female is not capable of producing sperm for a female does not have the function that a male does.

Now imagine a legally married couple: A person with a vagina, who identifies as a man ("man"), and a person with a penis, who identifies as a woman ("woman"). Now suppose that the "woman" impregnates the "man", and one of them wants to have an abortion.

Just identifying as something does not make you the thing you identify with. If I identify with being a dog, or monkey, or a table, that does not make me something I am not.
A woman identifying as a man does not make her a man any more than a person identifying with a dog does not make them a dog.

Just for the sake of a single scenario: The legal "man" (the biological host) does not want an abortion. The "woman" (not the biological host) does.

In Roe vs Wade, the Supreme Court held that "the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects, under certain circumstances, a woman’s decision whether to carry a pregnancy to term."

In this scenario, it seems to me that the "man" could say that, as the biological host, they retain the right to choose. However, in order to overcome the legally recognized "woman's" wishes, they would have to either 1) use their biological sex to overwhelm the expressed gender of the "woman" or 2) declare that gender expression plays no role in retention of the right to choose what to do with their body, making it so that abortion is no longer a woman's rights issue, but rather, simply a human rights issue.

Discuss.

I would argue that abortion is a human rights issue.

Abortion is a human rights issue...IF the unborn is a human being. I would like to see someone argue rationally and logically that it is not.

Peter

[Frank Apisa]

Hypotheticals obscure the definition of what a man is. A man is a male PERSON with the attributes and nature that identify that person as male.

Definition of male
1
a : a male person : a man or a boy
b : an individual of the sex that is typically capable of producing small, usually motile gametes (such as sperm or spermatozoa) which fertilize the eggs of a female
2
: a plant having stamens but no pistils

Under 'b' the female is not capable of producing sperm for a female does not have the function that a male does.



Just identifying as something does not make you the thing you identify with. If I identify with being a dog, or monkey, or a table, that does not make me something I am not.
A woman identifying as a man does not make her a man any more than a person identifying with a dog does not make them a dog.



I would argue that abortion is a human rights issue.

Abortion is a human rights issue...IF the unborn is a human being. I would like to see someone argue rationally and logically that it is not.

Peter

"The Unborn" sounds like a cheap horror movie title, Peter.

If you mean "human zygote" or "human fetus"...I would rationally and logically argue that neither is a human being...which is why they are called "a human zygote" or a "human fetus"...and not a human being.

Things to consider:

If you were to list a "human fetus" or a "human zygote" as a deduction on your tax return...do you think the IRS would accept it...or do you think that the US Government would rule that neither is a human being?

If you were to order lamb in a restaurant...and they served you a dish made from an ovine zygote or fetus...would you consider them to have met their obligation?

[SharmaK]

Ignoring all the virtue signaling that goes on whenever abortion is mentioned and the strange notion that words can’t change their meanings, the OP’s goal is to examine what *happens* when society changes and those changes conflict with existing laws. It isn’t to relitigate RvW and all this talk is derailing a topic that belongs in another thread.

The OP is a hypothetical on the verge of becoming real: there was indeed a trans-man who gave birth to his second child; the first born when he had a female body. And this wasn’t the first nor the last.

The question I see it is, given all (well, some of us) our best intentions to restore the right of people to self-identify and to give them agency over their own bodies, what are the arguments on both sides when these rights conflict. Does identity trump agency? Or vice versa?

There are similar battles going on in the non-LGBTQ world. We have to decide whether companies are people and have the same rights to free speech? Or whether an owner’s religious convictions should be applied to employees working for them. Or whether a religious person is allowed to discriminate (i.e. apply his religion) onto others in a role that is supposed to be non-religious. Or whether a child knowing only one country should be deported.

So let’s debate the matter at hand and assume that abortion is a legal right and that we should recognized people’s sexual identity and what happens is a trans-gendered situation regarding rights over whether a fetus can be aborted or not.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[PGA2]

"The Unborn" sounds like a cheap horror movie title, Peter.

I use that term rather than the term designated by science because I see the being as human being and those terms tend to hid what they really are, to lessen the impact of what we are speaking of.

If you mean "human zygote" or "human fetus"...I would rationally and logically argue that neither is a human being...which is why they are called "a human zygote" or a "human fetus"...and not a human being.

So you saying the human zygote is not a distinct, separate, individual human being?

What you are saying goes against numerous scientific and biological texts that recognize the zygote or fetus is precisely that - a human being. I think you have again allowed your illogical thinking to dictate what is true, Frank.

What you do is CONFUSE different STAGES of development with its humanness. If it is not a human being what kind of being is it, because it is alive and is a being.


“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo development) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”
Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

Scarr, S., Weinberg, R.A., and Levine A., Understanding Development, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1986. page 86
“The development of a new human being begins when a male’s sperm pierces the cell membrane of a female’s ovum, or egg….The villi become the placenta, which will nourish the developing infant for the next eight and a half months.”

http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...n-debate/page2

Things to consider:

If you were to list a "human fetus" or a "human zygote" as a deduction on your tax return...do you think the IRS would accept it...or do you think that the US Government would rule that neither is a human being?

Things to consider:
1) Does the human being (please establish it is not a human being) have the same nature that you and I do, if allowed to develop? If it does, then how does development determine a change of nature? Everything needed is supplied at conception - the DNA structure that determines what we are - human beings. Every quality that I will ever have is present at conception, when the chromisomes from each parent are received that form your genetic makeup.
2) If you work on the level of development, then why can't a mother choose to kill the newborn or pre-teen female offspring? Their development is not on the level of a mature woman reproductively. If you want to work on the size of the unborn, you are bigger than the unborn but you are not as big as some basketball players. Would it be okay to kill you because you are not as big?
3) You can't tax a human being until they are in the world and reach a certain maturity. Why would they count as a deduction until they are in the world?
4) A government can legislate rules but the question is whether those rules are just and righteous. Murdering unborn human beings, the most defenseless human there is, and most innocent, is not just or righteous. Kim Jong-Un can pass a law that kills you for whatever reason he may deem desirable to him, but just because there is such a law does not make it just. Of course we can develop this further if you wish, because we are getting into the subject of morality and ethics.

If you were to order lamb in a restaurant...and they served you a dish made from an ovine zygote or fetus...would you consider them to have met their obligation? [/B]

It depends on what I ordered, a cutlet, a roast lamb, a chop, a leg...

I would expect them to bring me what I asked for, not a different stage of development in the life cycle of the animal.

Peter

[Belthazor]

Terms:

Man = A biological male with a penis
"Man" = A biological female with a vagina
Woman/"Woman" = Vice versa

Hypothetical: Suppose a federal law is promulgated that makes it so that people, including all elected officials and employees of the state, are legally bound to recognize people only in terms that align with that person(s) declared gender identity / gender expression. Ex: If a person with a vagina identifies as a man, then people are legally bound to recognize this person as a man. If a person with a penis identifies as a woman, then legally that person is a woman.

Now imagine a legally married couple: A person with a vagina, who identifies as a man ("man"), and a person with a penis, who identifies as a woman ("woman"). Now suppose that the "woman" impregnates the "man", and one of them wants to have an abortion.

Just for the sake of a single scenario: The legal "man" (the biological host) does not want an abortion. The "woman" (not the biological host) does.

In Roe vs Wade, the Supreme Court held that "the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects, under certain circumstances, a woman’s decision whether to carry a pregnancy to term."

In this scenario, it seems to me that the "man" could say that, as the biological host, they retain the right to choose. However, in order to overcome the legally recognized "woman's" wishes, they would have to either 1) use their biological sex to overwhelm the expressed gender of the "woman" or 2) declare that gender expression plays no role in retention of the right to choose what to do with their body, making it so that abortion is no longer a woman's rights issue, but rather, simply a human rights issue.

Discuss.

It actually seems fairly clear.
The intent of the law was to provide the "mother" "relief" from being pregnant. The court at that time would never have considered that the "mother" could be a man, so they didn't wright "man" into the ruling, but of course they didn't say a man couldn't qualify as a "mother" either.


I guess, it's one of them, "intent of the law vs letter of the law" issues.

"Mother" pretty clearly is the person "hosting" this unborn person, so what difference would a male/female "host" make, regarding the law?

Only holding to the strictest sense of the "letter of the law", could/should a male or female "mother" make a legal difference in the ability to exercise this "relief"...

[Frank Apisa]

I use that term rather than the term designated by science because I see the being as human being and those terms tend to hid what they really are, to lessen the impact of what we are speaking of.

Thank you, PGA. Of course you are free to use whatever term you want for whatever reason you want. I was merely sharing my considerations of the term "The Unborn." To me...it does sound like the title of a horror movie. I much prefer to call a zygote, a zygote...and a fetus, a fetus. To do otherwise, in my opinion, is to disguise (for various reasons) what is being discussed.

So you saying the human zygote is not a distinct, separate, individual human being?

I am saying a human zygote is a human zygote.

It is.

What you are saying goes against numerous scientific and biological texts that recognize the zygote or fetus is precisely that - a human being. I think you have again allowed your illogical thinking to dictate what is true, Frank.

I am not indulging in illogical thinking...I suspect that you are. I don't have to...I have no agenda at stake in this issue. Whether or not the zygote or fetus is other than just a zygote or fetus...it is being hosted in a living human's body as a pregnancy...and in my opinion, no matter what else the zygote or fetus may be, the person bearing that pregnancy has the right to terminate it...without interference from you or the government.

You, on the other hand DO have an agenda that requires severely illogical thinking. You must make the zygote or fetus into a human being...and you must then posit a god that requires you to defend that human being under penalty of eternal punishment.

I'm not asserting, as you are, that illogical thinking is happening. But I am asserting that if you are correct that it is happening...YOU, not I, are the one doing it.

What you do is CONFUSE different STAGES of development with its humanness. If it is not a human being what kind of being is it, because it is alive and is a being.

I am not confusing anything. I am saying that the zygote or fetus is growing in the body of a living human being as a pregnancy...and if that living human being want to terminate that pregnancy, she should be able to do so without you requiring that she not.

I doubt we will reach agreement on this, Peter. Your need to do what you suppose your god requires of you in this regard prevents you from yielding to the obvious. A pregnant woman who decides to end her pregnancy...should have the right to do that without interference from you or the government.

[Dionysus]

PGA2 and Frank Apisa - You guys are off-topic.

Everyone else, thanks for participating. We're all on the same page insofar as the solution is concerned. I guess it's just less interesting of a question to most than it is to me. I don't see it as a huge conundrum so much as an interesting potential problem that - perhaps - could introduce unintended consequences that will need to be scrubbed out. I mean, I remember a time that if someone had said to me that there needs to be a law that says you're not allowed to engage in real-time, typed conversations while operating a motor vehicle on the highway, I would have said they were crazy; that such a law is nonsense. But, that's technology for you. With advancement comes changes, and with changes often come questions on how we should deal with those changes, morally, ethically, legally.

Anyway, thanks again.