The Pseudo-Logic of Heartbeat Bills

[IMPress Polly]

Several state legislatures are taking it upon themselves to define "personhood" as something that begins at one's first heartbeat, i.e. which is defined by the presence of a natural heartbeat. Okay well what about children, or any other people, with artificial hearts? I guess they're...not people then...right?

You see, people, personhood is so much more than just having a heartbeat, human DNA, or "potential". (Any egg cell or sperm has the "potential" to become a person, but that obviously doesn't mean it deserves legal rights, and we can all recognize that much.) Everything of value to human beings -- from our ability to perceive the world around us to our ability to form relationships -- is made possible by birth. Without these sorts of capacities, our's is but a shell of a life in comparison; a life only in a technical sense, not in a recognizable one.

[Lummy]

Several state legislatures are taking it upon themselves to define "personhood" as something that begins at one's first heartbeat, i.e. which is defined by the presence of a natural heartbeat. Okay well what about children, or any other people, with artificial hearts? I guess they're...not people then...right?

There has never existed an embryo with an artificial heart.

[Lummy]

I object to legal meddling on "moral" grounds in the morals of others but also reject a body parts industry, where Democrats apparently want to take this issue.

[Captdon]

Several state legislatures are taking it upon themselves to define "personhood" as something that begins at one's first heartbeat, i.e. which is defined by the presence of a natural heartbeat. Okay well what about children, or any other people, with artificial hearts? I guess they're...not people then...right?

You see, people, personhood is so much more than just having a heartbeat, human DNA, or "potential". (Any egg cell or sperm has the "potential" to become a person, but that obviously doesn't mean it deserves legal rights, and we can all recognize that much.) Everything of value to human beings -- from our ability to perceive the world around us to our ability to form relationships -- is made possible by birth. Without these sorts of capacities, our's is but a shell of a life in comparison; a life only in a technical sense, not in a recognizable one.

You are a pitiful excuse for a human being. Your arguments make no sense.

Personhood is a idiotic excuse for killing a human being. It is too make you feel better about the killing. When a woman doesn't abort the baby, she doesn't deliver a giraffe. I'm glad I don't know you personally.

[Chris]

Several state legislatures are taking it upon themselves to define "personhood" as something that begins at one's first heartbeat, i.e. which is defined by the presence of a natural heartbeat. Okay well what about children, or any other people, with artificial hearts? I guess they're...not people then...right?

You see, people, personhood is so much more than just having a heartbeat, human DNA, or "potential". (Any egg cell or sperm has the "potential" to become a person, but that obviously doesn't mean it deserves legal rights, and we can all recognize that much.) Everything of value to human beings -- from our ability to perceive the world around us to our ability to form relationships -- is made possible by birth. Without these sorts of capacities, our's is but a shell of a life in comparison; a life only in a technical sense, not in a recognizable one.

I agree, personhood arguments are illogically subjective. We can see even you do not know how to objectively define when a living human being becomes/is a person. I'll stick to medical/biological definitions of life and when it begins at conception.

BTW, an artificial heart beats or the person is dead.

[Lummy]

I agree, personhood arguments are illogically subjective. We can see even you do not know how to objectively define when a living human being becomes/is a person. I'll stick to medical/biological definitions of life and when it begins at conception.

BTW, an artificial heart beats or the person is dead.

Ultimately, that determination is the mother's -- or if I had my way, the parents'. Her morality is no one else's business, and society is not impacted by her decision except that they insist on meddling in all things that have nothing to do with them, only then making it to do with them.

[Chris]

Ultimately, that determination is the mother's -- or if I had my way, the parents'. Her morality is no one else's business, and society is not impacted by her decision except that they insist on meddling in all things that have nothing to do with them, making it to do with them.

Why's that? "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Even you start to extend the matter beyond the mere individual woman to her parents and we should add the husband, if married, and a doctor, and people around her...no man is an island.

[Lummy]

Please do make that case to the other 90% of the civilized world and 100% of the third world. Put your drive to meddle, control and make other men in your image to good use in, say, Nigeria or Somalia -- somewhere where they don't give a $#@! about your -- or anyone else's -- philosophy.

The father is half responsible, or so I read once. But screw it. Just give her a coat hanger and send her on her way.

About this issue especially, I do not care.

[Lummy]

I personally feel that the father should be involved in that decision, if for no other reason than he will be made aware of it.

[Sergeant Gleed]

I agree.

Heartbeat bills banning abortions of living human babies are wrong.

The baby was alive before it grew a working heart.

But I understand the need to move slowly and begin saving at least some lives before the nation can regain it's morality and stop murdering babies.

Why can't the incubator be responsible for it's actions and not get pregnant in the first place? Are they that stupid?

As for "personhood", what kind of National Socialist wants to parse that word so carefully it takes a judge to decide if a human is a legal person or not, when science settled that question more than 75 years sgo?

A person is a human being.

A unique human being is created at the completion of the fertilization of the ovum by the sperm, a process that MUST be complete before the new zygote can implant itself in the uterine wall.

Who are the science deniers here?