Home | About | Donate

Purvi Patel Case Sets 'Cruel' Precedent for Reproductive Rights


Hi Trog. Most people believe in the soul. Many believe animals dont have one, and that, of course, is why what happens at an abbatior is not murder, and why we are allowed to eat meat.

At what moment is human flesh granted a soul? Immediately at conception? As soon as a foeticide gains conciousness after birth? Somewhere in between? If a soul is granted at conception then foeticide is murder. If the soul is granted at birth, then it is not. Which is it? and Why?


I live in the South Bend, Indiana area and my town of Walkerton got on the map recently when a pizza shop erroneously thought pizza would be appropriate for a wedding. Ms. Patel was over 24 weeks pregnant and if she did terminate the pregnancy herself, it was very risky. I don’t know who to believe as what was reported countless times was the fetus/ child was born alive and thrown in the dumpster. That triggered emotional responses. The woman would be better served to get psychiatric help.


Why psychiatric help? Her decision was perfectly rational because as a poor woman she had no options.


!!? I don’t know how poor she was. I know her family owned a restaurant, although that doesn’t mean a comfortable life, but this was kind of a big deal and she needs counseling and help. Don’t you think that would be kind?


This case represents a formal declaration of war on the left by the right.

If we continue to passively resist, they will simply incarcerate more of us for exercising inalienable rights of expression and privacy.

We should offer the court system a limited amount of time to address this grossly unconstitutional conviction and incarceration. The courts haven’t tolerated these in the past, and they must not be allowed to start now.
In the meantime, we should begin condensing citizens militia for our mutual defense, particularly in states where abortion rights are under siege. There are those who would deplore such moves, but our veterans know better. We call the enemy the Christian Taliban, we should respect ourselves and our common rights and recognize the threat for what it is.

I deeply regret that it has come to this, but there seems to be no other way. We cannot count on electoral victories to relax the nooses being tied about our necks, nor can we count on the courts, who have been engaged through endemic corruption in the plot to contain us. Acquiescence to libertarian arguments for independence of states, to the effect of abandoning those unfortunates who have been born in “Red” states or offered services to their citizens, is un-American and a dereliction of duty.

In the name of national and personal pride, it is time to stand up and fight.


This is rich indeed in a country that bombs babies and pregnant women abroad without any qualms, part of a sinister alliance of countries that bomb infrastructure deliberately to punish and destroy psychologically and physically the civilian population (Belgrade, Yemen, Afghanistan, Gaza, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan).


You should believe the story from the defense. The prosecution is psychotic and so was the judge. Don’t buy into dementia.


Who cares if they got a soul? If they aren’t outside the mother’s body, they are a part of it.


She needs nothing of the kind. She needs to be let alone to live her own life. She has the right to make her own decisions.


Time to get ready. And definitely time to stand up.


As far as I’m concerned, as a life-long child-free bachelor, and privileged white male, I have absolutely NO right to tell any woman what to do about pregnancy. Whatever a woman wants to do to end a “pregnasty” in an overpopulated World, up the moment she goes into labor, is fine with me. Leadership of the Catholic Church (more life-long, child-free, largely white, privileged bachelors) please take note - not that they ever will. I know that if I had been born female, I would be horrified at the possibility of being forced to have an alien invader take over my body for 9 months, and possibly dying for it to be born. I most certainly would have had myself permanently sterilized at 18 to make sure it couldn’t even happen through rape, because I also would have been a gold star lesbian.


The existence of a thing does not depend on the number of people who believe in it. And not everything that exists has legal standing. So far as I know, there is no legal definition of a soul in the U.S., (or maybe any Western country) nor are there any crimes or torts involving or pertaining to a soul.

For legal purposes, the standard which pertains to personhood has to do with the potential for brain activity as an indicator of prospects for a self-meaningful existence as a person, and where human organisms are concerned, we tend to have an expansive view of what could constitute a self-meaningful existence. (We don’t extend this consideration to other species, because we have rigged the definition of person so that only human organisms can qualify.) We define the termination of personhood when brain activity irrevocably drops below a level that we think could support sensation or thought. If the lack of brain activity is not irrevocable–as in cases of severe hypothermia, for example–we continue the status of personhood based on the potential for future brain activity. A fetus in fetu might have brain activity, but it would still not qualify as a person on the more fundamental grounds of having no prospects of a meaningful existence.

It seems fairly straightforward that a single cell or clump of cells is not a person. It has no potential for a self-meaningful existence. There are some who try to stretch the “potential” argument by saying it would eventually reach a stage of brain activity, but what they are really saying is that the clump of cells has the potential to develop into a very different organism, and it is that organism which would acquire the potential for brain activity. They are, in effect, trying to shoehorn in a “potential for potential” argument. The clump of cells would never have the potential for brain activity as it is. And if you open the door to potential for potential, then obviously individual spermatozoa and eggs have that as well.

But at the other end of pregnancy, the commonsense view is that a viable fetus with brain activity and the ability to respond to stimuli has reached the point of potential for meaningful existence, even while it retains an umbilicus. (All indications are that consciousness precedes birth–even to the point of having in utero wake and sleep cycles.) The carrier is still deserving of primary consideration so long as she or he is still a person, because actual personhood takes precedence over potential personhood. (A permanently brain-dead carrier with a living fetus loses primacy, and becomes, in effect, a piece of incubation equipment.)

Also, to be clear, feticide is simply the termination of a fetus. Whether it counts as criminal or legal depends on the circumstances of the case. But even criminal feticide is generally held to be something distinct from murder.


Thanks for the answer. I did not expect it.

Animals (mammals) also have brain activity. They dream when they sleep. They are driven by emotions. Should they not also have rights?


Like I said, we have rigged the definition of person so that only human organisms can qualify. If personhood were based on capacity for sentience and cognition, then there are non-human animals which would qualify at least as much as a newborn human. But I don’t see us going to that standard because it would introduce a graduated rather than categorical concept of person, and it would radically change our legal foundation and all the parts of the economy which utilize animals.

Where this is going to get messy is when we get into genetic engineering. We are inevitably going to be grafting human DNA into animals, and eventually we will start modifying our own DNA, and migrating away from “natural” human.

But maybe by then, the synthetic intelligence overlords will have taken over and the classification problem will be out of our hands anyway.


Well, if it wasn’t clear I do agree with you, my point being that if this law is taken to it’s logical end, they would have to lock up every woman in Indiana. Yes, the whole thing is psychotic, law, judge, and prosecution.


In the history of my life I have not heard of a woman being imprisoned as a result of a pregnancy: No grime tale, no religious practice, no movie, no book, no urban legend, and no daytime soap opera. Indiana, you do not know what pulsates in a woman’s heart and womb. Men and woman of Indiana, your heart does not beat and your body makes no warmth.