I do not know how I missed it but in 2004, the Bush regency passed the unborn victims of violence act (UVVA). The UVVA codifies the assertion that life essential begins at conception it defines as follows:
“ d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”
-Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act)
This is some scary legislation at first glance. However, the frothing at the mouth anti-choice advocates seem to miss sub section c :
“(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.”
At the same time, the right to get an abortion is still firmly in the hands of a woman. So go ahead, define a mass of cells as an unborn child (in the US), define it as the damn Pope, if the woman wants it gone, it remains her right to have it removed.
Hopefully Obama can make some of this go away and soon.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
9 comments
June 16, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Neil
I’m surprised that people still use the lame “mass of cells” argument. You are a mass of cells as well, btw.
LikeLike
June 16, 2009 at 2:55 pm
The Arbourist
Indeed I am, however I am not in a parasitic relationship with anyone, impinging on their autonomy. A markedly different case that the mother/fetus (aka a mass of cells) relationship.
LikeLike
June 16, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Neil
I’m glad you at least conceded that your “mass of cells” argument is irrelevant. That’s progress!
LikeLike
June 16, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Katie
I may be a mass of cells too, but at least I have a complex CNS, a more highly developed brain, pain receptors, a highly complicated skeletal system, a full head of hair, working vocal chords…need I go on?
If you call me a baby killer, pro-abortion, or anti-choice, I may just have to kill you.
And yes, let’s hope Obama gets rid of this tiny problem for at least the next seven and a half years. :D
LikeLike
June 16, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Katie
Oops. meant anti-life.
And Neil, how did he imply that the “mass of cells” argument is irrelevant? It’s not. Ask me about abortion. I know, I’ve had one.
OH NO, NOW I HAVE TO GO TO JAIL. I’M A MURDERER!
LikeLike
June 17, 2009 at 6:55 am
Neil
He noted that he was a mass of cells as well, so that demonstrates that being a mass of cells doesn’t make one fair game for destruction.
Being more fully developed does not make a human being more intrinsically valuable — that is unless you are saying that it is ok to kill smaller or less educated people outside the womb as well.
You paid to have an innocent human being killed. Call it whatever you like, but that is a fact.
LikeLike
June 20, 2009 at 12:48 pm
The Arbourist
Being a mass of cells in certain contexts does make you fair game for destruction.
That context would be a fetus inside a uterus, that the fetus does not own.
Another key difference is that a fetus doesn’t just depend on a woman’s body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Persons, by definition, must be separate individuals who operate independently of others. They do not gain the status of persons by virtue of living inside the body of another person – the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.
The only objective scientific fact we have is that fertilized eggs are human (the adjective) – not that they are human beings (the noun).
So even though a fetus is biologically human, it’s definitely not a person (legally and socially), and it’s questionable whether it’s a human being (physically).
Claiming that a fetus has the same moral rights as a adult human being is specious.
LikeLike
July 6, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Three Loan Wolves » Blog Archive » Unborn Victims of Violence Act
[…] Fetal Rights: Wow, the thin edge of the anti-choice Wedge […]
LikeLike
July 7, 2009 at 3:55 am
Neil
The human fetus has a right to life, as do all human beings.
That is a non-serious argument. A human fetus meets the definition of human being.
A friend summarized the error of your “ownership” views this way:
“By that line of reasoning, a woman would be totally justified in killing her baby a day before its due date.
That absurdity aside, their analysis fails (at least legally, if not morally). While you are never responsible for keeping someone else alive, you are responsible for doing so if you created the situation in which they are dependent upon you. The classic example is a person who is drowning in the ocean. You, as a boater with a life preserver, are under no obligation to help them out of the water. If, however, you were the one who chucked her overboard, then watched her drown, you can bet that a jury would convict your immoral butt for murder, not for ruining her clothes by getting her wet.
Likewise, you are under no obligation to give a dying person a kidney to save his life, but, if you ripped his kidneys out of his body, you would be charged with murder if he died from those injuries. If the only way to avoid his death is to give him your kidneys, you can bet that your options are to fork over an organ or be charged with murder.”
Using your logic abortions are ok until he umbilical cord has been cut. And given your creativity with words I’m sure you could rationalize much more.
LikeLike