Now there’s nothing more wearisome than a discussion of “rights”; and having one on a Monday may be unforgivable. But I beg the reader’s indulgence as last Friday’s New York Times piece of the same name as this post (sans question mark) by lawyer Lynn M. Paltrow and sociologist Jeanne Flavin somehow “gained traction”. Best to see why.
“Rights” as these ladies use it is of course a synonym of “I want!” or “Gimme!” We post-Christians are nothing if not all deserving, and, dammit, somebody must give us what we want. It’s our right. New “rights” are being discovered faster than San Francisco (and now Westminster, Mass) can find things to ban.
“Briggs, you fool. You uttered a contradiction. You say post-Christians want to be given whatever they want. Yet you also claim they happily ban other citizens from having what they want. Get it straight.”
But I do have it straight: there is no contradiction. If I want that cheeseburger and you want that cheeseburger, only one of us will be satisfied. And because I am 6’2″, 210 pounds, and mean, I’ll get my “right” and you won’t. San Francisco bans because they believe they have the “right” to live apart from whatever it is they are banning this week.
“Rights” always clash. There is no resolution in any dispute where both sides only have “I want!” as an argument. Might makes rights is the only solution.
Let’s hear from Paltrow and Flavin:
WITH [sic] the success of Republicans in the midterm elections and the passage of Tennessee’s anti-abortion amendment, we can expect ongoing efforts to ban abortion and advance the “personhood” rights of fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses.
Paltrow and Flavin demand the right to choose to kill and they recognize that their enemies want to take that “right” away. They correctly fret that since their enemies are now mightier, their enemies could have their “right” granted to them and that the “right” to choose to kill will go unsated. They exaggerate only to the extent that their perceived enemies really are enemies.
Talking solely or mostly about “rights” is why the abortion debate goes nowhere. It is why it can only be settled by might. And since the mighty are often fallen, it is why the predominate “right” changes.
If you’re unconvinced, read the rest of Paltrow and Flavin’s article. They side-step the one philosophical question of any interest right at the beginning, by putting scare quotes around “personhood”, and go on to describe the horrors which await pregnant women once the “right” to choose to kill is replaced by another right.
For example, “In Iowa, a pregnant woman who fell down a flight of stairs was reported to the police after seeking help at a hospital. She was arrested for ‘attempted fetal homicide.'” But this is only the scare-quoted “personhood” in other words. Another:
Anti-abortion reasoning has also provided the justification for arresting pregnant women who experience depression and have attempted suicide. A 22-year-old in South Carolina who was eight months pregnant attempted suicide by jumping out a window. She survived despite suffering severe injuries. Because she lost the pregnancy, she was arrested and jailed for the crime of homicide by child abuse.
This at least shows the enemies of Paltrow and Flavin recognize what the philosophical question is. It also proves Paltrow and Flavin know it but choose not to discuss it.
Is the living creature in the mother’s womb a human being? If so, killing it for the sake of convenience, because it is the wrong sex, because the woman has some shopping to do or a “career” to pursue (we really need more women in offices gazing lovingly at spreadsheets 60 hours a week) , or whatever is murder. End of story. There is no “right” to murder, even for hysterical women, or even for a feminist.
And, of course, the only answer consonant with biology—with Science itself!—is that, yes, the living creature is a human being. It isn’t a fish, nor a Buick, nor even a “lump” of tissue. Once people recognize that, the depressing talk of “rights” can cease and we can go on to better things.
Footnote: I am saddened to report that Flavin, author of Our Bodies, Our Crimes, is a sociology professor at Fordham University, a once Catholic university that found the cross it had to bear too burdensome.
Excellent example, the pregnant, suicidal woman who’s arrested for attempted homicide, for showing that the US of A is now a Post-Christian society.
Let’s take another example—the pregnant drug addict who does mountains of coke and estasy while pregnant. She gives birth to a damaged child, who is damaged as a direct result of her not taking care of the “lump of tissue” she had in her. If it’s really just a lump of tissue, then the mother is completely innocent in the child’s damage—it just came out that way. Are we arguing that doing drugs and/or drinking during pregnancy holds absolutely no responsibility on the mother’s part? If it’s not a human being, it’s not her fault. It cannot be. The answer would be yes, she is innocent and society should pay to take care of the damaged infant because it’s no one’s fault. If you call it a lump of tissue, you can never hold anyone responsible for damage to the lump before breathes and becomes human. Nor can you add on penalties for assault of pregnant women. It’s just a lump of tissue. It is not special. Said assault is no different than any other.
Briggs, your sanity shines through as an example to us all as usual. Unfortunately we live in an age where many you people (anything under the age of 40 nowadays) have been completely and utterly brainwashed into none-thinking misandry. Only the other day, after i had commented on the republicans sweeping the board in the elections (I’m from the UK), the immediate response from an american female colleague was along the lines….well now we will have some middle-aged white males telling us what to do with our bodies….They also expect to get it for free here in the UK on the NHS. There are around 200,000 a year. And being the moderately well off single middle aged white male I am of course expected to help foot the bill to the extent that I pay 4 to 5 times more towards it than the average female. Justice indeed.
Not to fear actress Ellen Barkin will clear up this issue by defining personhood for all those silly people with outdated christian ethics and morals.
“Actress Ellen Barkin: ‘Fetuses,’ ‘Infants’ Not People Because They ‘Cannot Talk’ ”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/katie-yoder/2014/11/08/actress-barkin-fetuses-infants-not-people-because-cannot-talk#sthash.eyFAdV4a.dpuf
Bert: Concerning Ellen Barkein—You can’t fix stupid. You just can’t……sigh………
so stupid it burns
Theocrat.
JMJ
The belief that conception begin at fertilization is just that a belief. , and it is a belief that is religious in nature. Thus you wish to impose your religious belief unto someone who do not share them.
First, 80% of fertilized egg do not start fixed themselves to the uterine wall. Second, some pregnancy are extra uterin and unsurvivable by either the foetus or the mother. Following your logic these are murders even thought the woman as no control over it. This also proves that conception does not start at fertilization but much later. Third, even if a child is desired miscarriages are frequent about 10-20% of time and 80% before the 12th week.
With such a large number conception cannot be considered before the 12th week.
Sylvain: Guess that means the woman “hosting” the fetal mass can drink and do drugs for the first 12 weeks, then she has to stop. An interesting position.
JMJ: You’re very popular with the “drink and merry crowd”. Drink, do drugs and whatever else you want because if you don’t think you’re carrying anything other than a large tumor, it matters not. Yes, the popular winner here!
Note: Abortion from the pro-choice side is NOT about babies—it’s entirely about women behaving as sexually “free” as men. It’s about biology being really unfair to women and we can fix this by just removing the annoying side effect women are subjected to. There’s no concern about babies whatsoever in any of this.
Which is probably why there will never ever be agreement. Pro-lifers are talking about babies, pro-choice are talking about promiscuity without consequence.
What unphilosophical/ unscientific nonsense is this? Conception does indeed begin at fertilization. The lie you’re prompting is not that conception doesn’t begin at fertilization, but that pregnancy begins at implantation. Further, a belief is not per se religious in nature at all, it is simply a belief; here, scientific in nature.
Sheri, you are a theocrat too. Like Briggs, only removed by degree from any other theocrat throughout the world and through history. Shame on you both. Theocracy is a horrible, stupid, terrible idea.
JMJ
Thank you, JMJ, that’s one of the nicer things I’ve been called. Actually, though, I checked several definitions of “theocrat” and none seem to apply to me. However, if it makes you feel better to apply the term and then tell me “shame on you”, go for it.
There is an automatic belief here that if one is pro-life, it’s due to religion. That is not the case here. I wrote an anti-abortion paper in college for philosophy and never introduced religion or when life begins.
Another thought I have on this—women can use abortion to remove that nasty side effect of sex when they want, but men cannot require a pregnant woman to have an abortion and if she does not, he is required to pay for her choice until the side effect is 18. How unfair is that? Seems very sexist and cruel on the part of society to make men pay and not women.
Sheri, the man was presumably free not to have sex with her .
Dover,
If life began at fertilization all fertilized egg would implant in the uterus and there would not be any miscarriage.
Conception begins when the foetus is safely secured within the uterus giving it a fair chance to come to term viable.
With so much ‘takers’ in the US why do you want to force poor people to have children they can’t support.
Eck, it cost at least 10k to deliver a kid at the hospital, how do you want poor non insured people to cover that cost.
ad: And the woman was forced to have sex with the man???? Only applies to rape, for both men and women. The woman spread legs willingly—if she gets pregnant, then why can she just remove the unwanted side effect? If no one forced her, and in MOST cases, that is true, then she could have just said no.
btw — After the Gosnell horror show, Tennessee thought it would be a good idea for abortion clinics to have health inspections like all other “healthcare” providers, and doctors with hospital privileges, and be located where emergency personnel could get to those ‘patients’ whose abortions left them in desperate need of an ambulance. The abortion industry screamed bloody murder and the lefties dominating the state Supreme Court said that the state constitution contained a right to abortion so special that no state regulation of any kind whatsoever could be imposed on abortions. The amendment which just passed merely allows for the health inspections etc. to be passed by the legislature.
It really hasn’t taken long to expand from fetuses to infants. If they can’t talk, they can’t say “No!”
Evolutionary Psychology
and Our Mythical Dark Nature
Morality too abhors a vacuum
It takes an honest scientist indeed to acknowledge that all discussion about rights is irrelevant. Rights are, by definition, granted. As zoologist Paul Shepard admits, “‘Rights’ implies some kind of cosmic rule prior to any contracts among users, legislation for protection, or decisions to liberate. It refers to something intrinsic or given by God or Nature…. Wild animals do not have rights; they have a natural history.â€
http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/rcq/issues/8-4.pdf
“Note: Abortion from the pro-choice side is NOT about babies—it’s entirely about women behaving as sexually “free†as men. It’s about biology being really unfair to women and we can fix this by just removing the annoying side effect women are subjected to. There’s no concern about babies whatsoever in any of this. ”
Sheri, particularly well expressed.
If life began at fertilization all fertilized egg would implant in the uterus and there would not be any miscarriage.
Conception begins when the foetus is safely secured within the uterus giving it a fair chance to come to term viable.
Again, the above is just nonsense. Life begins at conception, what else would be implanted in the uterine wall other then a living individuated human being? Further, miscarriages occur post-implantation as well so your further claim makes no sense. I’m sorry, Sylvain, but your attempt to redefine conception is bust.
Theocracy, by the way, is clerical rule. Neither Briggs or Sheri has promoted any such thing.
Corrected:
Again, the above is just nonsense. Life begins at conception, what else would be implanted in the uterine wall other then a living individuated human being? Further, miscarriages occur post-implantation as well so your further claim makes no sense. I’m sorry, Sylvain, but your attempt to redefine conception is bust.
@dover_beach
Both the sperm cell and the egg cell are alive before the conception, are alive at the time of conception and the fertilized egg is still alive after conception. So no new life is created. What does happen is that the egg cell is now capable of growing into a human being.
All the other sperm cells die. Which means that al the other possible human beings that those other sperm cells with that particular egg cell could be, do not come into existence. Hence, every successful conception results into the non-possibility of all those other human beings.
If human beings are that important, then the fertilized egg is a bigger killer of humans than any abortion doctor.
Stan: Are you saying there are not safe, clean abortions provided by our loving government?! I am shocked! (sarc)
Rich, Dover_beach: Thank you.
Sander: You’re losing it here. You’re arguing that if people die naturally, then murder is acceptable. How insane is that? (If sperm die naturally due to no eggs to fertilize, the eggs are killers? That is complete nonsense. )
Oh no! I awoke “moderation”!! Bummer!
The above is a good example of people who don’t have a #@#$%$#! clue about what they’re talking about:
The article is about the [unintended] consequence of anti-abortion laws that deprive pregnant women — who WANT to give birth & many of whom also OPPOSE ABORTION — of basic rights of liberty and medical decision-making. As the article states in the 3rd paragraph (4th sentence):
“Such [anti-abortion] laws are increasingly being used as the basis for arresting women who have no intention of ending pregnancy and for preventing women from making their own decision about how they will give birth.”
To read Briggs’ commentary, and most of the comments, one would think the topic was something else entirely.
The point of the article is that law has been used to force one course of medical action over a woman’s choice where both the court and the woman desire to achieve live birth. The law has also been applied retroactively when a woman desiring to achieve live birth didn’t follow the course hindsight said to others would have been more successful (e.g. where a woman was prosecuted for delaying a cesarean, with the alleged choice of delay causing one of the two infants to die; in another where a judged ordered a cesarean expected to, and which did, kill the mother & the child died anyway — even the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t mandate such extraordinary precautionary measures on behalf of a fetus).
Consider the example given of a forced & failed cesarean & detention during what appeared to be a miscarriage that found to have been illegal. That clearly illustrates the article’s point is NOT one of women making the childish & self-serving “I want” as asserted, it’s one of women striving to retain what most of us can take for granted — “don’t take away the rights we normally have.”
Would true equality be achieved when women are purposely rendered sterile—and need to undergo expensive procedures to accomplish what nature used to do for free?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827111/Sex-exist-purely-fun-2050-fertile-women-turn-IVF-start-families-claims-inventor-Pill.html
Rights are, by definition, granted.
At least they are in totalitarian regimes.
“Everything within the state; nothing outside the state; nothing against the state.”
— B. Mussolini
In the Western tradition, however, a right to a thing is “a moral or legal authority to possess, claim, and use a thing as one’s own.” It does not mean exclusively special favors bestowed by the Prince. There are two sorts of rights: the natural and the positive (acquired). The inability of the Late Modern to make useful distinctions leads many to suppose that either all rights must be natural or all must be positive. A natural right is one which, as the name indicates, possessed by humans by birth as humans. These are rights to things the defense of which is seen as justified by one’s fellows. William of Ockham mentioned three in particular: the right to one’s own life (and bodily integrity), the right to liberty, and the right to acquire and possess property. Even a murderer facing execution is entitled in justice to defend his life, and even those seeking to take it must acknowledge that he is not wrong to resist his own demise.
Positive rights are those bestowed by a gracious Prince or Leader; such as the right to vote or the right of Cromwell’s soldiers to seize the land of Catholics in Ireland.
Wild animals do not have rights
Of course not. They don’t have rational souls, so the concept of “right” does not enter into matters. Neither do they have philosophy, mathematics, art, language, physics, and other such things.
####
Both the sperm cell and the egg cell are alive before the conception
No, they are not. At best, like skin cells or muscle cells, they are living tissues. But a living thing is one that unfolds immanently, and none of these things can survive naturally once separated from the actual living thing: the organism. No sperm cell has the natural potential to unfold into a mature organism. Only the union of a sperm with an egg possesses the genome of a new and distinct organism and will, mutatis mutandis, develop from its own immanent powers. The minimum powers of living things are the digestive-reproductive powers: metabolism, growth/development, reproduction, and homeostasis. Neither sperms nor eggs ingest, digest, or reproduce themselves.
All the other sperm cells die… al the other possible human beings … do not come into existence.
Germ cells are no more “potential human beings” than are skin cells. It is of no matter that lots of skin cells die.
Ken: “413 arrests or equivalent actions depriving pregnant women of their physical liberty during the 32 years between 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, and 2005.” is probably not writing an article about women who do not want to end a pregnancy but are forced to. It’s a back-door attempt to rile up people about the injustice of making abortion illegal. Surely you can see that, can’t you? How many times does the New York Times publish pro-life articles? This is not one.
Your argument also may be similiar to the Obamacare argument—we have a few uninsured people so let’s revamp the entire health care system and fix that tiny problem. The items in the article can be addressed in ways other than legal abortions. The writers just want to keep abortion legal, not help these 413 women. If that were their intent, they would have provided a solution that outlawed abortion on demand but protected the 413 “victims” of such a change.
Thank you moderation for quickly releasing my comment!
Katie: True equality would be achieved when we reach “Brave New World” where no one is pregnant, except the savages.
“With so much ‘takers’ in the US why do you want to force poor people to have children they can’t support.” Listen carefully here. Think deeply. This is how they think. Notice the word “force”.
If there is “no abortion” then poor people are “forced” to have children they can’t support. Think about it. Mull over it. Carefully. The person making this statement wishes to be taken seriously. I think. Maybe.
Sander, YOS has amply answered the errors above. It is almost perverse, nay, it is perverse, the lengths pro-abortionists go to deny simply facts: firstly, that conception occurs at fertilization; secondly, that pregnancy itself begins at fertilization; thirdly, that the now fertilized egg is an newly individuated human being; fourthly, that a zygote, fetus, infant, child, and the like, are simply different stages in the development of a human being and thus categorically different from skin cells which are simply a part of the former, and so on.
dover_beach, if your best argument is semantics, you sir may not be a theocrat, but you are a sophist.
JMJ
JMJ: So you’re calling me a theocrat was just picking a word you thought was cool and using to mean whatever you wanted it to? I am so disappointed……
Dover,
What do you call it when an egg is fertilized but does not implant or implant outside the uterus?
Personhood bills makes murderer of woman who have unprovoked miscarriage. And your definition of conception means that a woman murder a child every time a fertilized egg does not implant.
Okay, this is getting scary. Sylvain and Sander have both gone off the deep end here. “Unprovoed miscarriage” implies there was no cause. It is, to put it as clearly as possible, entirely crazy to make the argument you are making. There are other words, but this a family blog.
Again, the argument here is: There are instances in nature where fertilized eggs fail to implant, so the woman is a murderer because she was there at the time of the “crime”. This is somehow equal to a women hiring someone to physically remove the undesire tissue lump she no longer wants in her body. There is absolutely NO similarity and you’ve veered into the twilight zone here. Give it, please, your desperation is showing.
JMJ:
Who said it was my best argument? Nevertheless, you used ‘theocrat’ incorrectly, and in order to defame Briggs and Sheri. Now that is typical of the sophists, always engaging in demagoguery.
Sylvain:
Fatal for the human being.
No, no. Murder requires intent which is absent where spontaneous miscarriage occurs, and personhood bills do not criminalize women who suffer a miscarriage. And, no, it is not my definition, it is the standard definition used by every general, and ,medical, dictionary.
Sheri,
It is the Personhood bill that makes women murderers not me.
Dover,
“However, nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.”
This is what the bill says. Where does it accuse women of murder?
(from the congress.gov site)
One more question, Sylvain: If women can just will an end to a pregnancy, why do we need abotion clinics?
Personhood bills makes murderer of woman who have unprovoked miscarriage.
No more than it makes a murderer of anyone else who did not have the necessary mens rea to take the life of another. The key word in your sentence is “unprovoked.” Murder (in the US) requires intent.
How can a woman prove that a miscarriage is not willingly caused?
She doesn’t have to. In US (and English) law, the State must demonstrate mens rea. I don’t know about French law. Perhaps in Francophone jurisdictions, a person is assumed to be guilty and must prove his innocence.
Seriously, do you folks know anything about law?
Guys, all your disappointingly sleazy avoidance aside, the bottom line is what you want is to impose your religious beliefs on people around you. That makes you theocrats – or, perhaps, “religious fascists.” You may not personally be clerics, but you want to force people to observe your religious rules. You’re by no means alone with that position. It is a very dangerous thing.
JMJ
Sheri,
This is the amendment that Colorado had to vote on this election:
“Life at Conception Act – Declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being beginning at the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being. Prohibits construing this Act to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.”
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1091#summary/libraryofcongress
And this is not the worst.
Where did you get the idea that woman could will a miscarriage . The point is chemical abortion create miscarriage and you can’t differentiate between an intended miscarriage and an unintended one.
YOS,
Criminal law in Quebec is common law. Civil law is different.
Language in laws is everything and the intent of the legislator does not matter.
With personhood any woman can be brought to justice if a problem occur.
JMJ:
No one has made an argument dependent on any religious beliefs. People have made moral arguments and referred to relevant scientific facts. Why would you then raise religious beliefs other than to avoid having to make an argument yourself? Seems rather intellectually dishonest and morally coward by any measure.
JMJ: You insist on stating this is about religion for all commenters when it is not and that has been clearly stated by said commenters. How is it any better that you slap on labels and motivations and then just blow off reality when it doesn’t suit your version of what things should be? What does that make you?
Sylvain: Again, the words “Prohibits construing this Act to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.” What is not clear about that? No woman can be prosecuted due to this legislation. It is aimed at abortion providers. You are making things up and it’s annoying.
If you can’t tell the difference between a chemical abortion and an unintended one, then you have no case to prosecute. End of story.
You guys are only fooling yourselves. Take the religion out of the issue, it would take on complete different parameters. The issue is promulgated by the religious right, and anti-abortion interest groups and activists are supported by or directly are religious right groups and institutions. You two are making the same argument from the Kitzmiller v Dover case. You can pretend all you like that religion has nothing to do with this, but only an idiot would believe you. From Judge Jones, “The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.” Swap out “ID Policy” for “Pro-Life Policy” and you can see how poor your argument looks.
JMJ
JMJ: Wow, you just cannot accept that people are not the way you declare them to be. I can’t tell if it’s arrogance or ignorance. I suppose it doesn’t matter—neither are curable. I guess only an idiot would actually believe the words coming out of someone’s mouth—which obviously means I should not believe a word coming out of your mouth. Oh well, some people just live in their little fantasy world and never see the light.
Your example of ID is only relevent if I believe in the fantasy of the “Evil Far Right” and all the conspiracy theories and nonsense therein contained. Fortunately, I have a brain and can actually use it.
You have now reached a point where rational discourse is impossible, since you simply make up both sides of the conversation and ignore everyone’s input. Therefore, you are wasting my time.
Sheri:
It is a common problem for a person who, if he dislikes both X and Y, will ascribe to believers in X a belief in Y. The cognitive fault is to suppose that “the set of all things I disbelieve in” forms a scientific genus. Since “all those people look alike,” he ascribes a homogeneity of belief to his opposition that simply does not exist in the real world.
For example, it is becoming more common for advocates of abortion to freely admit that a fetus is a human life, but contend that the mother’s life is “worth more.” Some advocates extend the eligible pool to newborns and infants (so-called “fourth trimester”), but others do not. Human beings, especially if their positions are not principled but adopted ad hoc for political ends, can hold even contradictory positions on matters.
Sheri,
Here is an example. A woman is fired from a job for being pregnant, which happens often in the USA even though there are laws against it. (you can read this: http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/04/05/epidemic-of-pregnant-women-getting-fired-legal-loopholes-to-bla/).
After being fired the woman has a miscarriage. Personhood law requires that the state records all the pregnancy to make sure they come to terms, after all, the foetus is a person and the state has to intervene to protect it. If she goes to the hospital the doctor has to call the police because a human being is dead, and the police has to investigate all suspicious death, and miscarriage are part of these since they can be abortion, which in this case would be murder.
After investigation the prosecutor determine that the foetus was murdered because the woman didn’t have the healthiest lifestyle and losing her job gave her a motive to abort. Under that law the woman would be guilty and could even be sentence to death in state that have the death penalty.
You often claim that you hate big government yet this is the biggest intrusion any government could impose on anyone.
BTW, I hope that this makes you realize that the sentence you highlighted matters very little.
Sylvain:
Here’s the history of Dorland’s on conception:
So far as the law and personhood is concerned:
Notice the bolded?
Notice the words, “A chemical abortion…”
We are talking about the intent of the accused.
No, it’s clear that you are having a problem following this issue. The Act above “prohibits construing this Act to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.” That sentence is clear as crystal.
JMJ: blockquote>You guys are only fooling yourselves. Take the religion out of the issue, it would take on complete different parameters…
There are atheists who are/ were anti-abortion, Christopher Hitchens, for instance. It wasn’t that hard to expose the feebleness of your argument.
Dover,
1) For the legal limit of the sentence that start with prohibit see the example above.
The law prohibit firing woman while pregnant yet pregnant woman are fired everyday in the US because they are pregnant.
2) My Dorlands is the 28th edition. The change for the word viable push the conception closer to the 20th-21st week where some feotus are rescued by medical prowess. Before that there is no way to know if a feotus is viable or not. A feotus can be well in 12th week yet be miscarried by the 16th week.
YOS, “when does life begin” is a religious question. I don’t care about that silly, pointless question, asked by and for dumb people. What I care about is the rights of women to their own bodies. Like all rights, there are limits, and in this case, given that another life is involved, at what point does the one life take precedent over the other? There. Now that’s an adult question. Well, most reasonable people agree that the time occurs a safe distance before the second being, the fetus, develops a modicum of sentience, or if the life of the mother is at stake, or if the fetus is mortally deformed or ill.
That is a reasonable, rational stance. What you guys want is theocratic.
JMJ
Dover, there are few arguments more feeble than the odd anecdote or exception. Few atheists are “pro-life.”
JMJ
YOS: I see the phenomena you describe in global warming advocates also, though often phrased as an ad hominem. If you believe in UFOs and not in global warming, you are a conspiracy nut and your skepticism is due to that, rather than actual study. You hit it spot on with the holding of contradictory ideas even. It’s a truly remarkable ability to ignore reality.
Syvain: If you cannot understand what you are reading or simply don’t care if you make any sense at all, I see no point to this. The proposal clearly states a woman cannot be prosecuted for fetal death. Are you really so stupid you cannot understand the meaning of those words or what? You are making the most ludicrous and uninformed argument out there. And NOW you want me to ignore the sentence that proves you wrong? You are hopelessly lacking in any understanding of reality. Innocent people are convicted of murder all the time and your solution is to make killing okay so no innocent person goes to jail. That is complete insanity. Pointless to continue the discussion.
JMJ: I suppose at this point the appropriate thing to do would be to start ad hominems such as your insistence that we are all lying about our stances but even then I doubt someone with no principles and all politics could ever understand a bit of logic. However, if you like to continue the “you’re all liars” game, I switch to you’re a political left wing idiot who wouldn’t know a logical argument if it bit in the part of his anatomy he is making of himself. It’s your call, but I’m not wasting any logic with you. Your game is calling people liars because you don’t like what you think they believe. The only response is to do the same to you–all else is wasted. One atheist who does not approve of abortion proves religion is NOT the only reason to disapprove. Or is the atheist lying and is a closet atheist in your world? It’s purely and completely irrational—you have yet to form a rational argument.
When does life begin is a religious question? Wow. Is it still a religious question if ‘life’ means an individuated human being? I don’t think so. But like you, although I don’t think it is a religious question, I do take it to be a rather uninteresting one given that it is well-established that an individuated human being appears once fertilization has occurred.
As to your ‘adult’ question, it seems to me that her right to bodily integrity does not also involve a right to deliberately destroy the unborn child. She certainly has a right, if medical complications ensue that present a clear and present danger to her life, of engaging any reasonable treatment that may incidentally kill the unborn child.
Now, I have to say I’m stunned by your claim that ‘most reasonable people’ agree that this “occurs a safe distance before the second being, the fetus, develops a modicum of sentience” given the ambiguities involved in ‘safe distance before’ and “modicum of sentience”. And if mortal illness is a sufficient reason for killing the infant at any stage of pregnancy whether or not they are sentient, what prevents our killing of human beings at any other stage of life? Maybe we should have a show of hands at the local bar?
What evidence do you have of this being exceptional? But even if it was, so what? If there are atheists that provide reasons for their ‘pro-life’ position that are not ‘religious’ your argument, such as it is, is bust. It really is that simple.
Sylvain:
I’m finding it hard to follow you here. The 28th Edition does not use the word ‘viable’, it uses ‘visible’: The definition describes conception as the “onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation of the blastocyst in the endometrium; the formation of a visible zygote.â€
There is a tension in this definition. The first part of the definition clearly describes the implantation in the lining of the uterus (endometrium). On the other hand, the definition’s reference to the “formation of a visible zygote†probably refers to the syngamy or fusion of the two gametes (male and female) to produce a zygote. Whatever was meant precisely, this second part of the definition of conception is based not on implantation but on earlier events.
Either way, a woman is pregnant well-before the 20th-21st week.
To be honest, I’m find your argument here just incredible.
As to the personhood laws, your argument is just silly. The Act prevents the mother from being prosecuted as a matter of law; this could never proceed through the courts.
Dover,
1-) Other than for the case of in vitro fertilization you would not be able to see the zygote for at least 5 weeks. But being visible doesn’t make it viable there are still many things that can go wrong. When it reach 21st weeks medical prowess will rescue about 60% of the new born with severe damages but none before the 21st week.
The changes of the word from visible to viable push the moment of conception farther in time. Yes a woman is pregnant earlier but than the 20th but still 10-20% of pregnancies are not viable and ends in miscarriage. After the 20th week it becomes a preterm deliveries.
Your definition of life beginning at fertilization is religious in nature and is not supported by science. Fertilization is only one part of conception.
Dover, Sheri,
2) At the moment that the fertilized cell is defined as being a human being the woman becomes liable to what happened to that human being if it die. Of course, unwilling miscarriage can happen without the woman faults but it is really easy to find a motive for a woman to get rid of a pregnancies and thus pursue her in justice. So after a miscarriage the life of the woman goes under the microscope and if anything point to that she did or might have caused the miscarriage or simply took a drug that caused the abortion, then she will be pursued and has to be pursued for murder.
The simple reasoning is that the right to life of the fetus comes before the rights of the mother to terminate her pregnancy even if unwillingly. There are many unintended consequences in law, and such a phrase as little if any meaning at all other than confuse those who know nothing about law. What best example than the law that was used by the court to justify giving religious belief to companies.
Sylvain:
Sylvain, you are all over the place. You are pretending that the zygote is invisible and thus not there, for the first five 5 weeks; then you suggest that even if it is or becomes visible this does not make it viable, which suggests that whether or not it is ‘visible’ is irrelevant so far as your concerned. I’m beginning to wonder that your continual shift from visible to viable, this to that, etc. is just a pea and thimble game.
So what? What relevance does this have in respect of what we are disputing? In fact, looking back at your original claim, that conception occurs at implantation, which occurs within the first two weeks of conception, you now seem to be pushing back the appearance of life to sometime in the 2nd trimester. Notice, also that what is implanted in the uterine wall is called the conceptus, which is genetically distinct from the mother, and constitutes an individuated human being.
Not at all. You have offered an incoherent account whereas I can identify a conceptus, that is genetically distinct from the mother, and is identical to the child that later appears at birth. They are one and the same thing. Your attempt to deny that they are one and the same thing is unsupported by any scientific evidence, and is, frankly, incoherent.
As to your continued claim that mothers will be criminally liable, the Act specifically prohibits this from occurring. The fact that you’re ignoring this seems to be an case of invincible ignorance.
Simple reasoning? How about no reasoning? Again, you are advocating we remove murder laws because innocent people are sometimes convicted—that’s your argument. The law could be abused. How utterly ridiculous can you be—and I’m sure you’ll prove you can go ever further. Your argument is complete insanity.
(In case you can’t understand, you are saying the law can be abused so don’t pass it. Rape, murder, theft—all laws can be abused. By your logic, all laws go and anarchy is the name of the game.)
My comment is addressed to Sylvain, in case that is not clear.
JMJ: There is a religious view that would allow abortion. Would you reject it because it’s religious?
No, it’s a biological question or, at a deeper level, a philosophical one. At what point does an agglomeration of cells become a self-organizing system? This is easily seen as the combination of the two cells with half-DNA into one with full-DNA.
And here it was asked for you!
Another “religious question”! What about their rights to someone else’s body?
Obviously when the Other is an Untermensch, and thus a lebensunwertes Leben.
Distance? And what is sentience, and how much is a modicum? Is someone in a coma sentient, or does she become fair game? What about a newborn? Singer says a mother may abort her child up to two years after birth. (He later backed away from this and said he could set no limit.)
Nah. What we want is humanistic.
But in your world of “conclusions first!” one often winds up denying all sorts of blindingly obvious stuff.
Sheri,
I’m against personhood laws because they create a new category of murderers. Abortion is legal and a choice in the US up to the 20th week, after the 20th week it requires a good reason to abort. A doctor who perform late abortion 35th week was recently convicted of murder without any personhood law.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/13/18232657-abortion-doctor-kermit-gosnell-convicted-of-first-degree-murder?lite
Even strong pro-choice activist considered that verdict fair.
Such law redefines what constitute a person which would remove any control by the woman over her own body and make them murderer which they are not at the moment.
The sentence you pointed too is an add-on to make a bill palatable to more people. The problem reside in the fact that once you established that the fetus is a person, it then has all the same right as any other person provided by the constitution. All law must abide by the constitution which is why some part of obamacare are not applied anymore. You can not decide that part of your population can commit murder without prosecuting the offender. You have the possibility to invoke self-defense, but how could a woman make such a claim if the fetus is a person.
The sentence you highlighted is irrelevant because it would be unconstitutional.
Gosnell!? You would defend that butcher? (He was right down the highway in Philadelphia.) Regardless what you think of the unborn babies, he killed a few mothers along the way.
Sylvain: Wow, I had not idea you had personally replaced the Supreme Court of the US and are now qualified to determine the constitutionality of a US law. I wonder if I could determine whether Canadian laws are valid?
YOS,
Actually it is the opposite.
Sheri,
I have correctly predicted most of decision given by Scotus in the last few year, to the exception of the hobby lobby case. I agreed with most of them and disagreed on some like the hobby lobby case and the one about the voting right act.
What, the babies killed the mothers?
Sylvain: So now you’re a psychic, too. It’s interesting you missed the one in the area you are now claiming to know so much about. Oops, sorry, never argue with a psychic.
Sylvain: Did you predict Robert’s would call Obamacare a tax and let the IRS run healthcare?
Here’s your chance, psychic. Will the Supremes decide to eliminate subsidies on the federal exchange, exactly as the Obamacare law demands?
Sheri,
The one I miss is called one of the most ridiculous decision render by a Supreme Court. The kind of decision seen in fanatical religious countries, which I guess the USA are.
With that court and the tea party the U.S. are the laughing stock of the world.
And yes I predicted that Obamacare would be maintain on the post Briggs made before the decision.
The subsidies will be maintain.
It is kind of funny that everything that American complain about health care in other countries are actually things that happens daily in the US .
A nurse in my family, who followed her husband for a 2years contract in the usa is appaled by how people are treated in hospital, unless they are filthy rich.
Sylvain: Nice try. You missed and to call it a rediculous decision is a cop out. You were wrong—and you admitted it. Stop back tracking.
I will be watching on the subsidies. If the president can just disobey parts of his own law, that would mean we have a dictator. Hope you’re wrong.
Sheri,
Obama delayed the employer mandate something the republican wanted hardly a dictatorship.
Bush/Cheney committed war crime, they can hardly go out of the USA for fear of being arrested. They even ousted a CIA agent putting her life and the life of her asset at risk.
It is journalist/lawyer/judges outside the U.S. that called the decision ridiculous and compared it to the law system seen in the Middle East.
Who is the victim of the subsidies?
So, Sylvain, your idea of how to run a country is like that of Gruber–lie, lie, lie and break the law. Wow, you are a real gem. Lover of dictatorships, lies and theft. The victim of the subsidies was the American taxpayers. Of course, you’re all for as much cruelty and revenge as possible on the people who hate because you are a failure (only failures hate success and you hate success). You are just too bad and wrong and ignorant to continue this discussion with. People like you create dictators and ruin lives. Bye, bye.
I’m finished with you—I cannot talk to someone as uniformed and selfish as you. I will no longer follow this post and will henceforth ignore everything you comment on. I have tried and tried, but you are incapable of independent thought. It’s typing to a myna bird. I can’t do it.
1) Where is the lie in that Obama delayed the employer mandate.
2) have you watch reaction on Canadian and European tv to the decision about Hobby Lobby. There is no lie in there.
3) Bush doesn’t give many conference outside the U.S. because he has an arrest mendate against him because of his torture position. Again no lie.
Perry in Texas indicted, McDonnel once a VP hopeful in jail, Christy in NJ under inquiry for bridgegate, Walker in Wisconsin under inquiry (with help in jail) for election fraud, etc. All republican governor, most tea party enthusiast.
Republican won the last election with the lowest turnout since the 1940s when there was less than 100 million less people in the US.
And who is the victim with the subsidies
2) have you watch reaction on Canadian and European tv to the decision about Hobby Lobby. There is no lie in there.
Who even cares how Canadian or European TV received the reasonable decision re Hobby Lobby.
Who even cares how Canadian or European TV received the reasonable decision re Hobby Lobby.
Dover,
It is things like that that render the U.S. ever more irrelevant on the international map.
I noticed often when I was in Europe an utter incomprehension of the US on their part.
The Hobby Lobby decision was entirely sensible, and every sensible Canadian and European understood so.
YOS,
Who can understand why people voted for an increase in minimum wage everywhere it was on the ballot and yet voted for republican who are even opposed to the concept and want to do anything to prevent the increase.
Sylvain: The problem with minimum wage laws is that unless the economy is growing, it will always result in greater unemployment for those who receive minimum wages: viz., entry-level, low-skill workers. No one can afford to hire people at wages that exceed their production value, so chronic unemployment among the poor and marginalized is the structural result.
But yeah, people will always vote to give themselves more money.
YOS,
A huge flaw in your argument is that the states that have the lowest or no minimum wages are all among the worst in state in the unemployment data
Sylvain: You obviously feel that a minimum wage adequate for Montana is also adequate for New York City, despite the difference in cost of living.
Funny choice of state since the minimum wage in NY and Montana is $0.10.
Yes, there are different cost of leaving but at $10.10 the guy in Montana will hardly scrape by a little bit better than the guy in New York.
The average wages in this growing economy was $10.32 per hour. This means that the vast majority of job created are below $10/hour and people will work less than 40h/week. Low enough that they they need food stamps.
You still have the slavery mentality in the US
Is this the sort of case that frightens Sylvain witless? Will British Appeals Court Defend Rights of Unborn?
Nope.
The pregnancies was brought to term and alive then the person who is alive can have claim to have been hurt during the pregnancy. Also this is not a criminal case.
Ideally the woman would have had access to abortion the earliest possible.
You still have the slavery mentality in the US
No wonder no one ever risks their life to come here.
Yes, they love the myth that the U.S. are. The reality is far from the dream. My two relatives that went to the U.S. on a two year contract for a nuclear agency can’t wait to come back. She is appaled at how the patient are treated at the hospital and the level of racism she is witnessing. And they are Caucasian.
But, according to you, what has been ‘brought to term’ was not ‘alive’ or a ‘person’ when the harm occurred? What gives?
Dover,
No it was not alive when the woman was drinking but it is alive now. That the offense happened before she was alive does not matter, what matter is that she is alive now.
Sylvain, that makes no sense. You cannot injure something that is not alive, and you could not have owed it a duty of care if it were not alive or a person then, which could be the only ground for any subsequent civil or criminal penalty.
Dover,
It make perfect sense. If the drinking mother had had a miscarriage the fetus who is neither alive nor a person would have no right and there would be no crime.
Once the fetus is born and alive, it acquires the the full right of any human being, and it can now sue the person that hurt its growth, wether it be the mother, a pharmacist that would have given the wrong medication to a pregnant mother, a company, etc.
But a personhood bill makes a fetus a full human being before it is born and alive. So if the drinking mother had a miscarriage is a state that has a personhood law, then her drinking having caused the miscarriage would make her a murderer.
No, no, Sylvain, you are not making sense. Read again what you said:
Try again: No, no, Sylvain, you are not making sense. Read again what you said:
How can whatever is not alive have its growth hurt; and further, the fetus and the infant are the same thing that is why they suffer the same injury. The cause of action, for pity’s sake, is for an injury the child suffered as a fetus. Do you not understand this?
The British case doesn’t involve personhood legislation, it simply involves the possible acknowledgement at law of what we already know, that the unborn child is alive and a person.
Sylvain, I can’t help but conclude that you have established an incoherent but nonetheless self-serving account of the status of the unborn child for some mysterious reason.
Dover,
If the woman had aborted or miscarried the fetus would have never came into being and wouldn’t have suffer any consequences, since it was not alive to begin with.
Since the mother acted badly during her pregnancies, which cause damages to the person being born then she can be held responsible. Even if the person was not alive when the damages were caused. If you follow up on this case you shall see that the court decision shall follow a similar line argument.
By the way, prosecutor will often include the fetus when a woman is murdered while pregnant.
Also, to be self-serving I would have to benefit from my point of view.
1) I’m a male
2) I never got a woman pregnant
3) if I ever geta woman pregnant I hope that she will keep the child, but the choice will be all hers to make.
The child is already “in being”; that is precisely what is being aborted.
Of course the person is ‘alive’; that is precisely what is being killed.
This is a religious belief dominated by male and supported by no evidence. Even in the most conservative state personhood measure have been defeated by more than 60% of the population. Meaning that these people don’t share your belief that the fetus is a person.
The reality is that the fetus as the potential to be alive once born. Until then it is not a person and it is not alive.
What is a religious position, that the fetus is alive? No, it isn’t. Just ask a doctor if the unborn infant at 1, or 3, or 6 months is alive and they will say, of course. Its body and internal organs are developing and you can hear its heart beat as early as 10 weeks. If this isn’t alive what is it?
I’m sorry to say but you’ve mumbled your whole way through the comments; presented an incoherent argument; and made a claim I’ve never come across before, that a fetus is not alive. What a nonsensical position.
The Supreme Court of both Canada determined on based on both constitutions that a fetus is not alive and that life begin at birth, and in Canada we have in the charter of rights and liberties embedded in our constitution.
If a fetus was a person and alive then it would have had all the same right that you have which would prevent all abortion and the ruling of Roe vs Wade in the US and Tremblay vs Diagle in Canada would have had different ruling.
Having studied in nursing we never referred to a fetus as being alive but as being healthy.. We also referred to it as a fetus and never as a person.
When it reaches 21 weeks the potential to be born alive is much greater so an abortion has to have a good reason to happen and are very rare., less than 2% of abortion are done after the 21st week and usually for health reason or in arable decease.
Tremblay vs Diagle decided that a fetus does not enjoy the legal status of a person, in much the same way that the US Supreme Court in Dredd Scott v Sanford decided that African-Americans, whether slave or free, did not have standing in federal law. The Court in Tremblay specifically avoided saying anything about the fetus’s biological status, so I’m not sure why you boldly state that the Court decided that the fetus is not ‘alive’ when it did no such thing.
Something can be ‘healthy’ but not ‘alive’? Are you serious? Further, referring to the child in utero as a fetus does not exclude it also being a person. BTW, its nonsense and/or an exaggeration to say that nurses never refer to the child in utero as a person when they continual say ‘baby’, ‘healthy baby’, ask whether the parents want to know the baby’s sex, when they conduct prenatal tests in order to determine whether the fetus/ person will develop this or that abnormality, and so on. Phenomenologically, no doctor, nurse, or parent, thinks of the child in utero as anything but a person.
Tremblay vs Diagle decided that a fetus does not enjoy the legal status of a person, in much the same way that the US Supreme Court in Dredd Scott v Sanford decided that African-Americans, whether slave or free, did not have standing in federal law. The Court in Tremblay specifically avoided saying anything about the fetus’s biological status, so I’m not sure why you boldly state that the Court decided that the fetus is not ‘alive’ when it did no such thing.
Something can be ‘healthy’ but not ‘alive’? Are you serious? Further, referring to the child in utero as a fetus does not exclude it also being a person. BTW, its nonsense and/or an exaggeration to say that nurses never refer to the child in utero as a person when they continual say ‘baby’, ‘healthy baby’, ask whether the parents want to know the baby’s sex, when they conduct prenatal tests in order to determine whether the fetus/ person will develop this or that abnormality, and so on. Phenomenologically, no doctor, nurse, or parent, thinks of the child in utero as anything but a person.
Sure, the viability of the fetus born early has made dramatic improvements over the last 30 years but the investment in doing so makes no sense if, according to you, they were not considered persons or alive.
Here are some excerpt from the Supreme Court ruling in Tremblay vs Daigle.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/515/index.do
This one apply to an argument I made that you called incoherent and can be related to the link you cited above:
” To summarize: the various articles referred to by the respondent do not support his argument: rather, they provide grounds for the opposite conclusion, that a foetus is not a juridical person under the Civil Code. This conclusion is consistent with the few cases which have considered the status of the foetus under the Civil Code. Most of these cases are concerned with pre‑natal injuries. The respondent relies heavily on the leading decision of Montreal Tramways, supra, where this Court allowed a suit to be brought under art. 1053 of the Civil Code on behalf of a child born with club feet. The deformity was allegedly caused by an accident which occurred during the pregnancy. The following quote from p. 463 of the judgment of Lamont J. is offered by the respondent in support of its position:
To the Company’s contention that an unborn child being merely a part of its mother had no separate existence and, therefore, could not maintain an action under article 1053 C.C., the answer, in my opinion, is that, although the child was not actually born at the time the Company by its fault created the conditions which brought about the deformity of its feet, yet, under the civil law, it is deemed to be so if for its advantage. Therefore when it was subsequently born alive and viable it was clothed with all the rights of action which it would have had if actually in existence at the date of the accident. The wrongful act of the Company produced its damage on the birth of the child and the right of action was then complete.
In our view this quotation supports the appellant’s position. Notice, first, that it would not have been necessary for Lamont J. to say that a foetus is “deemed” to have civil rights if a foetus actually enjoyed such rights. Second, in stating that a foetus is granted those rights “it would have had if actually in existence at the date of the accident”, Lamont J. is accepting that a foetus does not exist as a juridical person. Third, in the last line of the quotation Lamont J. states that the damage occurred and the rights were realized “on the birth of the child”. It is also worth reiterating that it is in this judgment that Lamont J. speaks of deeming a foetus to be a person as a “fiction of the civil law”. Thus, while this decision does recognize the possibility of a claim for pre‑natal injuries, it does not recognize a foetus as a juridical person.”
This is according to the civil law in Quebec were the fetus is found to not be a juridical person.
“For all of the foregoing reasons we conclude that the articles of the Civil Code referred to by the respondent do not generally recognize that a foetus is a juridical person. A foetus is treated as a person only where it is necessary to do so in order to protect its interests after it is born.”
The court was quite clear that to be a person or “human being” a fetus has to be born alive and viable.”
” The authors use this description to argue that the foetus has always been protected to some extent in our law. On the other hand, however, from this historical survey it could be argued that abortion has not generally been considered equivalent to murder in our laws and that, therefore, a foetus has not been viewed as having the rights of a person in the full sense.”
A number of Anglo‑Canadian courts have considered the status of a foetus in cases which are similar to the present appeal. These courts have consistently reached the conclusion that to enjoy rights, a foetus must be born alive. In the leading British case of Paton v. British Pregnancy Advisory Service Trustees, [1979] Q.B. 276, Baker P. refused a request for an injunction from the husband of a pregnant woman who intended to obtain an abortion and made the following comments, at p. 279:
“The first question is whether this plaintiff has a right at all. The foetus cannot, in English law, in my view, have a right of its own at least until it is born and has a separate existence from its mother. That permeates the whole of the civil law of this country (I except the criminal law, which is now irrelevant), and is, indeed, the basis of the decisions in those countries where law is founded on the common law, that is to say, in America, Canada, Australia and, I have no doubt, in others”
According to The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom:
“7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”
The court simply rejected the argument, meaning that it does not consider the fetus a person or human-being has you do.
Sylvain, I’m not doubting that the Court denied that the fetus was a legal person; I stated that the judgment said nothing about the biological status of the fetus which remains true. Maybe you think you’re answeried my claim that no where in the judgment do they deny that the fetus is alive? That is correct, they don’t.
Dover,
For you a fetus is alive and a human being. For me for me a fetus is composed of living cell that can become a human being. By it’s own the fetus is not alive as we are. It is only potentially a human being.
True, I see no philosophical or scientific reasons for concluding that the fetus at 8 months, say, is any more or less alive, or more or less a human being, inside or outside the womb. In fact, the decision in Tremblay vs Daigle is entirely designed to maintain the legal fiction, as reflected in the the Civil Code that the fetus is indistinguishable from the mother (a position contrary to English but apparently not Canadian law) and thus not a legal person, and that whatever damages may occur during the period in utero can only be actionable if the child is actually born, excepting, of course, any damage that is caused by the mother which is never actionable even if the child lives.
I see the fetus more like a vessel in wait of its command or soul which happens once the fetus is born alive and viable. A bit like a computer is nothing with its operating system.
Why would God ensouled a fertilized egg when there is great chance that it would not come into being.
But you’ve given no reason to think the child at 8 months though still in the womb is any different to a child at 8 months that was just delivered. Even the analogy you provided is inapt because the ‘operating system’ is already operating in the ‘computer’, i.e. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141027085217.htm
The soul just is the form of the body. It has a soul from conception when the DNA from its respective parents combine and it becomes an individuated human being. It is from this point on already in being and undergoing continuous development. Moreover, we know it is in being because that is precisely what an abortion destroys or what is lost in a miscarriage.
The child is very different. He is breathing by himself. When he takes his first breath he comes to life. From one second to the next there is a huge difference.
The soul is not physical and is not included in the DNa. Just like sexual orientation and handedness are not genes