Quickening

[Archivist]

At Common Law--the law that was in effect at the time America gained it's Independence--abortion was legal until the time of Quickening, approximately 15 to 20 weeks into the pregnancy.

Why not return to the law as it existed at the time of the Founding Fathers--abortion is legal until quickening, illegal there after unless necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman?

Thoughts?

BTW, for more on Quickening you might appreciate this article: The "Quickening": Another Way of Looking at the Abortion Debate. - Being Libertarian

 

[dogs4thewin]

At Common Law--the law that was in effect at the time America gained it's Independence--abortion was legal until the time of Quickening, approximately 15 to 20 weeks into the pregnancy.

Why not return to the law as it existed at the time of the Founding Fathers--abortion is legal until quickening, illegal there after unless necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman?

Thoughts?

BTW, for more on Quickening you might appreciate this article: The "Quickening": Another Way of Looking at the Abortion Debate. - Being Libertarian

I think that abortion should be a state issue and that it should be permitted during the first trimester.

 

[redleghunter]

Thoughts?

Because we have modern science which tell us otherwise now?

 

[Archivist]

Because we have modern science which tell us otherwise now?

Does it?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Because we have modern science which tell us otherwise now?

We have modern science to tell us what?

 

[redleghunter]

Does it?

Well I think you are looking at this from a legal standpoint. Because back then, they probably did not know about zygotes and even embryos. Oh sure women knew by their cycle they may be pregnant but did not advertise it until the baby kicked or what you refer to as the Quickening. So if we go back to that, we are basically adopting a pre-Industrial revolution "old wives tale."

When we know now human life begins at conception.

Meaning, we can no longer go back to an ignorant era (not their fault of course).

 

[redleghunter]

We have modern science to tell us what?

That it does not take the Quickening to figure out a woman is pregnant and human life is already developing in her womb. We know that to be conception now.

 

[dogs4thewin]

That it does not take the Quickening to figure out a woman is pregnant and human life is already developing in her womb. We know that to be conception now.

Whether that is when life begins is really the point of the abortion debate.

 

[redleghunter]

Whether that is when life begins is really the point of the abortion debate.

Really? What is then?

We don’t kill human life. That is unlawful by God’s Law.

 

[Archivist]

Really? What is then?

Our Jewish brothers and sisters would say that life begins at the first breath.

We don’t kill human life. That is unlawful by God’s Law.

But we don't all agree on exactly when human life begins.

 

[redleghunter]

Our Jewish brothers and sisters would say that life begins at the first breath.



But we don't all agree on exactly when human life begins.

Ok to avoid several pages let’s cut through the mustard a bit.

It is a biological fact a distinct human life (from the parents donated sperm and egg) begins at conception. That’s the science of it. And as such we are human beings at conception due to the generic code inherited from the human being parents. If you want I’ll post up the pages and pages of evidence for this but we are truly talking about basic biology and embryology here. No surprises.

I think what you are getting at is when does personhood begin (a Philosophical inquiry)and where can there be a majority consensus legally for this subjective standard. That’s what I get at with your OP wanting some sort of compromise most can live with legally and by extension you offered a common law practice in the 18th century (quickening) So are we going to discuss/debate this or arguing over settled science?

Or did you mean this to be a theological discussion as you mentioned the views of the Jewish community?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Really? What is then?

We don’t kill human life. That is unlawful by God’s Law.

Various people feel that life ( for the purpose of abortion being illegal should begin at different points. For example, I, personally legally have no problem with a woman seeking an abortion during her first trimester. Some say at conception, others say at birth, some say at 20ish weeks. Anywhere in between here.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

At Common Law--the law that was in effect at the time America gained it's Independence--abortion was legal until the time of Quickening, approximately 15 to 20 weeks into the pregnancy.

Why not return to the law as it existed at the time of the Founding Fathers--abortion is legal until quickening, illegal there after unless necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman?

Thoughts?

BTW, for more on Quickening you might appreciate this article: The "Quickening": Another Way of Looking at the Abortion Debate. - Being Libertarian

As one who had an abortion at 17, I can only say that today at 58 years old, I have a thorn in my side that will never go away. So it does not matter how long a woman is with child, what matters is they chose to end a life.
Blessings

 

[redleghunter]

Various people feel that life ( for the purpose of abortion being illegal should begin at different points. For example, I, personally legally have no problem with a woman seeking an abortion during her first trimester. Some say at conception, others say at birthday, some say at 20ish weeks. Anywhere in between here.

Life has a concrete material meaning. That has been evidenced by science as conception for all mammalian life including humans.

I think you are advocating for the philosophical concept of personhood.

 

[SPF]

Various people feel that life ( for the purpose of abortion being illegal should begin at different points. For example, I, personally legally have no problem with a woman seeking an abortion during her first trimester. Some say at conception, others say at birth, some say at 20ish weeks. Anywhere in between here.

Your acknowledgment that people choose different times at which it’s morally acceptable to abort or not demonstrates the utter subjectivity of your position.

Either human beings are created in the image of God, and possess inherent moral worth and value or we don’t.

If we do, then abortion at any level of development is immoral.

We know scientifically that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization and spends about 25 years developing. At no point in our development are we not a human made in God’s image.

 

[redleghunter]

So are we going to discuss “personhood” and the dozens of subjective opinions on when “it” starts?

I’ll start. There is absolutely no difference between the term person and human being and thus personhood begins when human life begins. That is an objective as opposed to a subjective standard supported by science and Christian theology.

 

[redleghunter]

Your acknowledgment that people choose different times at which it’s morally acceptable to abort or not demonstrates the utter subjectivity of your position.

Either human beings are created in the image of God, and possess inherent moral worth and value or we don’t.

If we do, then abortion at any level of development is immoral.

We know scientifically that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization and spends about 25 years developing. At no point in our development are we not a human made in God’s image.

Excellent an answer! Thank you!

 

[dogs4thewin]

So are we going to discuss “personhood” and the dozens of subjective opinions on when “it” starts?

I’ll start. There is absolutely no difference between the term person and human being and thus personhood begins when human life begins. That is an objective as opposed to a subjective standard supported by science and Christian theology.

I only find it to be murder really if at the time of the abortion the baby was developed enough to stand a shot at making it out of the wound. If not developed enough to live outside the wound then well I would neither encourage another woman to seek an abortion, nor would I seek one for myself, but legally if a woman chooses to that should be an option.

 

[SPF]

I only find it to be murder really if at the time of the abortion the baby was developed enough to stand a shot at making it out of the wound. If not developed enough to live outside the wound then well I would neither encourage another woman to seek an abortion, nor would I seek one for myself, but legally if a woman chooses to that should be an option.

And your opinion is based on what?

 

[dogs4thewin]

And your opinion is based on what?

The fact that I feel that if the baby could not live outside the womb any now you cannot kill something that is not living.