Does Personhood Start At Fertilization?

Amanda Marcotte of RH Reality Check discusses whether personhood should be described as beginning at fertilization.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• pro-choice
• pro-life
• reproductive
• rights
• abortion
• contraception
• pill
• fertilization
• conception
• pregnancy
• personhood
• colorado
• amendment

[carmel350]

WELL TWINS ARE SEPERATE, JUST TELL ME WHY EACH INDIVIDUAL HAS THEIR VERY OWN UNIQUE FINGERPRINTS!

[breemystic]

Hehe, we can have tampon or pad funerals. There should be a law that every woman must submit her used pads and tampons to make sure that embryo or excuse me person got a right to a funeral.

If a woman's body naturally prevents implantation and thus the killing of a person, should all women be in jail. Oh wait that's why our monthly cycle is so dirty and in the Bible men have to avoid a woman during and up to 7 days after her period and that women are property because we're natural murderers.

[BenjaminWirtz]

How dare you impose your belief that rape is wrong on me, if you don't like rape then don't rape anyone but don't tell people what they can and cannot do.

[nomyturn]

Well your point of view is definently pro-choice. Although through most of the video you stuck to the personhood arguement, but At 3:12 you stated that no one thinks that life begins at conception. This is wrong. I am a biology grad student and I have a pro-choice professor major. I asked him if I was correct in believing that according to biology a new life began at conception and he agreed. But just like you he believes that not all human life should get thre repect of personhood.

God Bless

[SheepeXero]

@teton99 From that same premise I should be entitled to senior benefits from the get go. Because it is a biologically inevitable change from conception and not a change in essential nature.

I do not consider fetuses "People" until they can act like one. Usually around 3-ish

[SheepeXero]

@teton99 From that same premise I should be entitled to senior benefits from the get go. Because it is a biologically inevitable change from conception and not a change in essential nature.

I do not consider fetuses "People" until they can act like one. Usually around 3-ish.

[teton99]

Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. writes: "The underlying premise in the arguments pro-abortionists give against fetal personhood is that non-persons can change into persons. They are saying that a living being can undergo a radical, essential change in its nature during its lifetime. But there is a logical problem here. If the change was biologically inevitable from conception, given time, then this change is not a change in essential nature. This is because if the being naturally initiates the change,

[teton99]

It must be in its nature from the beginning to do so. If it is in its nature to do so, then despite any changes in such characteristics as independence, place of residence, physical development, or demonstration of mental ability, what the being is in later life is what the being is from the beginning of its life. This means that if we are persons with the right to be free from aggression later in life, we are persons even at conception." "A False Assumption," Libertarians for Life,

[FREEAMERICANOW69]

@Orjahlian

nice cop-out, but anyone who can read the 13th amendment can see that it supports abortion after roe vs wade.

why couldn't you? oh, it was because you didn't want to.

thank you for conceding.