Should a woman's bodily autonomy be disregarded when it comes to pregnancy?

[1robin]

If I understand your question, I don't think there's anything "inherent" to human life. We, live, we do stuff, we die.

That does not at least suggest a category of nihilism to you? Regardless laws assume these rights. So as I was saying atheists assume their selves way beyond what atheism it's self grounds and so do not actually live as if it was true. I consider it both a necessity and a virtue. If we could only act within the bonds of what atheism would justify I would not like to live in that world. The one we have is quite vexing enough. To quote "Oh brother where art though", the other would be the most fiendish instrument ever devised to bedevil they days of men. I always love that line, but they were describing women not exactly a world. Anyway no offense intended. I know many great atheists but I think they are great in spite of their atheism.

 

[Revoltingest]

That does not at least suggest a category of nihilism to you?

It is nihilism.

Regardless laws assume these rights. So as I was saying atheists assume their selves way beyond what atheism it's self grounds and so do not actually live as if it was true. I consider it both a necessity and a virtue. If we could only act within the bonds of what atheism would justify I would not like to live in that world. The one we have is quite vexing enough.

We live according to human nature & culture. Atheism itself doesn't determine anything about values or morality for me. But religion doesn't seem to determine much either. Pick any of the major religions, & you'll find people justifying any number of things from one extreme to the other....some are peaceful, & some are vicious terrorists.

To quote "Oh brother where art though", the other would be the most fiendish instrument ever devised to bedevil they days of men. I always love that line, but they were describing women not exactly a world. Anyway no offense intended. I know many great atheists but I think they are great in spite of their atheism.

I take no offense whatsoever. You've been most civil. Btw, I know many believers who are fine people in spite of their religion. It seems that the individual is the determining factor in the magnanimity of the individual, eh?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Only if these people believe abortion is killing a life. For people like me, I don't see it as killing a life, but terminating a pregnancy.

I believe in the protection of innocent life in conjunction with protecting bodily autonomy.

For instance, my husband and I agreed in our 30s that to prevent any unwanted pregnancies for us, he would have a vasectomy after he turned 40. Once his 40th birthday came and went, I approached him with what we agreed on concerning a vasectomy.

He responded, "You know, when I think about it now, I just don't want that for my balls."

No argument from me. Absolutely none. It's his body, and he alone decides what is to be done with it. I supported him then, and I support him now. There is NO way I'd ever give him a hard time, harass him, shame him, or somehow give him any indication that a vasectomy was something he promised to or owed me in any way.

I know you see when "life" begins in a very different way than I do. I go by the Roe vs Wade court opinion of fetal viability as determining the legal definition of "personhood." I stated my opinion earlier in the thread regarding how anti-choice people need to change tactics if they are to restrict or criminalize abortion (which doesn't change abortion rates anyway) by showing how personhood must be established differently than the gestational age of viability at roughly 23-26 weeks.

Legislating morality, especially morality based on a religious tradition, is highly problematic. Anti-choice activists ought to go in another direction and look at the legal aspects of bodily autonomy and the definition of personhood.

I think that pro-abortion people tend to play semantic games, such as over the definition of what "life" is and over concepts of "bodily autonomy". Whatever you want to call a fetus, it is an individual human being (or human being in development) with a unique and unrepeatable DNA code, i.e. they are a unique person (or person in development) who will never exist again. That's their one chance. Abortion takes that chance away - forever. In this post, you seem to have made a false equivalence. Abortion and a vasectomy are nowhere near the same. An abortion ends a life and a vasectomy doesn't. Sperm cells and eggs on their own are not human beings and you're not killing a creature when you don't allow them to meet, so sterilization and abortion are galaxies away from each other.

Also, I didn't say anything about making abortion illegal. Making it illegal won't make it go away. The problem is the culture and until there's a revolution in morality, it's not going away. People are too selfish.

 

[pro4life]

I would not expect to be able to debate a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy with you. Your answers demonstrate that you would force women to endure pregnancies even when the foetus is dreadfully incapacitated through Spina-Bifida, Hydracephalus and club feet. Even then you would sentence such a woman to a lifetime of great sadness and toil to suit your own extreme ideas. So the best I can do is identify your extreme lack of reason and leave it at that.
To debate a woman's right to choice in everyday situations would be hopeless.
That's alright....... as long as people with extreme views such as yours are never allowed anywhere near power over women's choices.


............ which is why specialist advisors were employed to guide desperately sad parents towards 'feed on demand only'. Of course, today these dreadful situations happen much less often because early scanning and blood tests can identify SB and the mother be guided towards termination.
Such countries need to save Health-Service time and money for conditions which can be cured.
.
The three conditions are often found together. My example included all three, but don't pretend that club-foot is often treatable.
.
Treatable? I'm talking about ending perpetual pain, suffering and immense costs before birth, through intelligent decisions.
.
Dear Ms Cousins, We are sad to inform you that your unborn child has Spina Bifida, an extreme type, however we absolutely refuse to perfom a termination and insist that you shall carry this foetus through to birth. On a brighter note, you may be saved from a lifetime of devotion to an invalid in constant need and pain because the child may die at some time.
.
Utter drivvle. You have no idea. As I said, the three conditions often occur together. Even so, a woman should have the right to terminate a foetus which has physical conditions if she chooses.
.
You don't seem to know the difference between treatment and cure.

Looks like you're talking out of something else. You are talking about women's pains and you're a man, how would you know that. Secondly, am a physician, I know what am talking about.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I think that pro-abortion people tend to play semantic games, such as over the definition of what "life" is and over concepts of "bodily autonomy". Whatever you want to call a fetus, it is an individual human being (or human being in development) with a unique and unrepeatable DNA code, i.e. they are a unique person (or person in development) who will never exist again. That's their one chance. Abortion takes that chance away - forever. In this post, you seem to have made a false equivalence. Abortion and a vasectomy are nowhere near the same. An abortion ends a life and a vasectomy doesn't. Sperm cells and eggs on their own are not human beings and you're not killing a creature when you don't allow them to meet, so sterilization and abortion are galaxies away from each other.

Also, I didn't say anything about making abortion illegal. Making it illegal won't make it go away. The problem is the culture and until there's a revolution in morality, it's not going away. People are too selfish.

What would you determine as personhood? How would that be legally established and enforced?

Do you agree with the push to hold women liable for miscarriages if personhood and fetal death is as tragic? How well will policies such as that go over?

What you see as protecting "life" I see as horribly draconian efforts to hold women's reproductive systems hostage.

Owning my uterus and deciding what my body is going to go through isn't selfish unless it's assumed I owe the use of my body to somebody else. Men have a level of bodily autonomy that believe women are entitled to as well. Men aren't thought of as selfish if they don't want to offer a single cell of their body to maintain or save a life. Why say that about women?

I still maintain that anti choice people are seeing reproductive rights with an extremely sexist lens. "Women owe their bodies for____" has been argued for all kinds of measures that have shamed, coerced, harassed, and forced women into giving up self agency over their own bodies. From unwanted pregnancies to restricted access to birth control to rape, women standing for ownership of their bodies face rhetoric like this.

Whore

*****.

Murderer.

Time to stop this and respect women who take ownership of their own bodily security.

 

[leibowde84]

I am just about out of patience. You simply deny reality and substitute your own. No it does not seem obvious anything was put in anyone's mouth, it is not out of line with the rest of what he said, it is not out of line with any biblical authors, the great commentators say the opposite, textual critics say the opposite, theologians say the opposite, the apostles say the opposite, hundreds of millions of Christians have experienced the opposite, the foundational doctrines of almost every denomination say the opposite, creedal statements external to the bible that date within months of Christ suggest the opposite, hymns that predate the NT say the opposite, thousands of scriptural harmonies say the opposite of what you have said, etc....... The foundations for what you believe seem to be invented by you. I can't debate an emotional preference that contradicts fact and reason. Jesus was teaching Jews who had never heard the term Christian before, it would have made no sense to them. Maybe biblical doctrine is just not a thing your prepared to debate. Not that the term Christian was even in the what I quoted to begin with. I am going to explain this as one final attempt to clarify what being a Christian is about, but I am undecided whether to continue discussing the issue with someone who is not prepared to evaluate properly the issues that have been well established for thousands of years.

To be a Christian literally means to be a little Christ. The relevant context that this necessitates is that we inherit his righteous standing with God. The spiritual mechanics that take a sinful person who is guilty before God and make him legally perfect before God (though he is yet a sinner) is to be born again. You cannot possibly earn heaven, you have nothing to offer God to atone for your sins, only God could pay the infinite debt we have. Only God can make us righteous before him. We can't learn to be such, we cannot try hard enough, the standard is perfection and the distance between the best of us and it is infinite. Only Christ actually could accomplish it. Only by being born again does what he did for us get applied to us. In ten thousand sermons and theological writings the difference between faith (the mere intellectual consent or agreement to a proposition) is contrasted with saving faith which actually results in our being baptize into Christ, being born from above, being born again, being made alive with Christ, participating in his death and resurrection. All those countless verses point to this single event, it is the purpose and pinnacle of faith. It is the whole climax of the entire bible. Without it the bible is merely philosophy and history. I spent three years studying nothing but salvation, I have written papers on it, I have continued to study it for 20 years. I have lived it. I have read hundreds of accounts of it. Hundreds of millions testify to it. No one is making it up, no one is putting words in Christ's mouth. I can and have written thousands of words on it but explaining it to someone who does not believe in it and so has not experienced it is like trying to explain what being in love is like to a person who has never been and doubts it in principle or trying to tell someone who has never been but thinks the north pole is hot that it is actually cold because we have been there and know.

You can say you do not believe this, you can say it is not true, but you cannot say this is not Christianity. To deny this is to deny the bible and Christ. Being that you have said that you deny being born again and deny there is even such a thing everything else you have been saying fits neatly into a tidy context. It appears your a secularist who has found things in the bible they agree with and prefer and you call that Christianity.

There are many forms of Christianity. Who are you to say which one is correct? We are going on personal faith, whether you admit it or not.

 

[leibowde84]

Secular = Not religious
Christian = ....of or believing in Christianity.
Christianity = The religion based on the teachings and works of Jesus.

Secular Christian = A non-religious religious person....
View attachment 7508 .

So let me get this straight. You can't think of any other common term that doesn't follow the actual meaning of the included words?

 

[leibowde84]

Is any of this relevant to the OP?

Not in the slightest. They don't want to address the OP. It was a legal rights question.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Not in the slightest. They don't want to address the OP. It was a legal rights question.

Certainly seems that way.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What would you determine as personhood? How would that be legally established and enforced?

I'm not sure. That's a very philosophical question and I'm not a philosopher. I guess I'd go with when the heart starts to beat. I would say fertilization, but you're asking for a legal definition. Personally, I say fertilization. But legally, I'll go with the first heartbeat.

Do you agree with the push to hold women liable for miscarriages if personhood and fetal death is as tragic? How well will policies such as that go over?

I'm not aware of any such push and it sounds like a ridiculous strawman.

What you see as protecting "life" I see as horribly draconian efforts to hold women's reproductive systems hostage.

Which efforts, specifically, do you see as "draconian"? Late-term abortion bans? Parental notification laws? ???

Owning my uterus and deciding what my body is going to go through isn't selfish unless it's assumed I owe the use of my body to somebody else. Men have a level of bodily autonomy that believe women are entitled to as well. Men aren't thought of as selfish if they don't want to offer a single cell of their body to maintain or save a life. Why say that about women?

No one said you can't own your body. But when you're pregnant, it's not just about you anymore. You have a human being that depends on you for survival now. They are not a "parasite". We now know that pregnancy offers women certain health benefits such as decreased breast and ovarian cancer risk, among others: 6 Surprising Benefits of Pregnancy
3 Health Benefits of Being Pregnant | Pregnancy Blog
The unexpected benefits of pregnancy - Telegraph

They are not mere "lumps of tissue/lumps of cells", either. Would you have wanted your mother to think of you that way while you were in the womb? Did you think of your children that way while they were inside of you?

Also, only females are capable of having a womb and carrying a child. Males and females are not the same. Equal, but with distinctions and differing responsibilities. Both have a responsibility to be sexually responsible, respectful and supportive of each other. Part of this sexual responsibility is to do all that you can to prevent unwanted pregnancies. There's a plethora of various methods that can be used: abstinence, celibacy (does anyone even know what those are anymore? ), non-vaginal sex, "casual sex", condoms, prescription birth control, choosing your partners wisely, etc. etc. I don't understand what it is so difficult in keeping yourself from not getting pregnant if you want to. We've had close to 60 million abortions in America since it was legalized. That is breathtaking in its astonishing ability to reveal how disgusting we are as a culture.

Nowhere did I say that only women are selfish. Both men and women are equally selfish, as a whole. In fact, men who sire children should be forced to care for them and to care for the mother, legally. Deadbeat dads should face strict penalties. This sort of selfishness on both sides of the sex divide is one of the reasons why the West is experiencing plummeting birth rates and native Western Europeans are going to go extinct soon if they don't start having loads of more babies (and taking care of them).

I still maintain that anti choice people are seeing reproductive rights with an extremely sexist lens. "Women owe their bodies for____" has been argued for all kinds of measures that have shamed, coerced, harassed, and forced women into giving up self agency over their own bodies. From unwanted pregnancies to restricted access to birth control to rape, women standing for ownership of their bodies face rhetoric like this.

Oh, please. Don't hit me with that 2nd and 3rd wave feminist spin. That's just strawmanning and isn't conducive to having an actual dialogue that has a hope of being constructive.

Whore

*****.

Murderer.

I, and all the other pro-lifers I know have never called women who have had an abortion such things. My oldest sister has had one or two abortions but I've never said anything about it to her and don't think such things about her. My mother considered aborting me, actually (thank God she changed her mind and cancelled the appointment).

Honestly, I've experienced vitriol from the pro-abort crowd. You yourself are insinuating that I'm some woman-hating sexist. Also, when I've been to pro-life Chain of Life demonstrations, we've been flipped off and called things like "Nazis!". (Ironically, most of the people taking part in those demos were mothers with their children, teenage girls and young women; there weren't many males there.)

Time to stop this and respect women who take ownership of their own bodily security.

You go, girl! Sisterhood is powerful!

 

[McBell]

I'm not sure. That's a very philosophical question and I'm not a philosopher. I guess I'd go with when the heart starts to beat. I would say fertilization, but you're asking for a legal definition. Personally, I say fertilization. But legally, I'll go with the first heartbeat.

So to you a zygote is a person?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So to you a zygote is a person?

In my personal opinion, yes. Notice I separated my personal opinion from the legal one (as if I'm a lawyer, anyway).

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'm not sure. That's a very philosophical question and I'm not a philosopher. I guess I'd go with when the heart starts to beat. I would say fertilization, but you're asking for a legal definition. Personally, I say fertilization. But legally, I'll go with the first heartbeat.

Okay, how would you legislate that?

I'm not aware of any such push and it sounds like a ridiculous strawman.

It exists. Push by anti-choice extremists. I asked for your opinion on it since you're so concerned about the "lives" that are gestating inside the women's uterus.

Which efforts, specifically, do you see as "draconian"? Late-term abortion bans? Parental notification laws? ???

Anti-choice activists. Calling a fetus it's own "life" that must be protected more than the woman gestating it.

No one said you can't own your body. But when you're pregnant, it's not just about you anymore.

Exactly what I and many others disagree with. It's also medically unethical, since ob-gyn appointments check nearly entirely on the health of the woman and check the progress of the fetus. The fetus itself has no medical professional checking to make sure it's okay or champions it's rights as a patient. The woman is the patient.

Once the woman gives birth, THEN a pediatrician arrives to take over the care of status of the newborns health.

Shame that anti-choice people don't see it that way either.

You have a human being that depends on you for survival now. They are not a "parasite". We now know that pregnancy offers women certain health benefits such as decreased breast and ovarian cancer risk, among others: 6 Surprising Benefits of Pregnancy
3 Health Benefits of Being Pregnant | Pregnancy Blog
The unexpected benefits of pregnancy - Telegraph

Health benefits increase with breastfeeding for more than 2 years of a mothers lifespan. But it is not my job nor my place to even suggest that bottle feeding mothers are selfish.

And as someone who experienced traumatic labor and delivery, your view on the benefits of pregnancy is myopic at best. Shall I tell you what it's like to hemorrhage on the delivery table? Or do you have the audacity to tell me that my experience was either just an inconvenience or that at best I was privileged to experience the risk of death because I was giving birth?

They are not mere "lumps of tissue/lumps of cells", either. Would you have wanted your mother to think of you that way while you were in the womb? Did you think of your children that way while they were inside of you?

Yeah, you haven't been pregnant have you? Trust me, there is a LOT that goes on in the mind of pregnant women, and specifically with women who are facing an unwanted pregnancy.

Also, only females are capable of having a womb and carrying a child. Males and females are not the same. Equal, but with distinctions and differing responsibilities. Both have a responsibility to be sexually responsible, respectful and supportive of each other. Part of this sexual responsibility is to do all that you can to prevent unwanted pregnancies. There's a plethora of various methods that can be used: abstinence, celibacy (does anyone even know what those are anymore? ), non-vaginal sex, "casual sex", condoms, prescription birth control, choosing your partners wisely, etc. etc. I don't understand what it is so difficult in keeping yourself from not getting pregnant if you want to. We've had close to 60 million abortions in America since it was legalized. That is breathtaking in its astonishing ability to reveal how disgusting we are as a culture.

"Disgusting", Frank? Women around the world regardless of culture seek termination of unwanted pregnancies. Regardless of legal status. Regardless of religious inclination. What a depressing view of all of humanity then if that's the case. I'm far more optimistic.

Nowhere did I say that only women are selfish. Both men and women are equally selfish, as a whole. In fact, men who sire children should be forced to care for them and to care for the mother, legally. Deadbeat dads should face strict penalties. This sort of selfishness on both sides of the sex divide is one of the reasons why the West is experiencing plummeting birth rates and native Western Europeans are going to go extinct soon if they don't start having loads of more babies (and taking care of them).

Wait...what?

Oh, please. Don't hit me with that 2nd and 3rd wave feminist spin. That's just strawmanning and isn't conducive to having an actual dialogue that has a hope of being constructive.

Lol remember who you're talking with. Of course I have my own feminist spin on the issue. You try taking out your outdated archaic Catholic "pro-life" spin on the debate too and see what happens on being constructive. We all have our opinions on the ethics, and we are all sharing them.

So I'll "hit you" with whatever I can within the rules. I won't be silent.

I, and all the other pro-lifers I know have never called women who have had an abortion such things. My oldest sister has had one or two abortions but I've never said anything about it to her and don't think such things about her. My mother considered aborting me, actually (thank God she changed her mind and cancelled the appointment).

Honestly, I've experienced vitriol from the pro-abort crowd. You yourself are insinuating that I'm some woman-hating sexist. Also, when I've been to pro-life Chain of Life demonstrations, we've been flipped off and called things like "Nazis!". (Ironically, most of the people taking part in those demos were mothers with their children, teenage girls and young women; there weren't many males there.)

I've repeatedly escorted women seeking services from their cars to the clinic and have been pushed, spit on, and anti-choice extremists lie about accosting women and taking them I to a van for "free ultrasounds" while getting information to further contact and harass through email, and threaten with releasing the patients names to the public.

Getting flipped off and being called a nazi would be a vacation. You ever get threatened with bombs and death threats? Try working at one of the clinics.

So attempting to suggest to me that anti-choice activists are all quietly holding hands and singing kumbaya isn't going to go far with me. Lived through enough of that to know better.

You go, girl! Sisterhood is powerful!

Ha! I'll take the backhanded compliment with a grain of salt. I do stand for women's rights, and I'll keep speaking my mind, thank you very much.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Okay, how would you legislate that?

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not aware of all possible ramifications of such a thing.

It exists. Push by anti-choice extremists. I asked for your opinion on it since you're so concerned about the "lives" that are gestating inside the women's uterus.

I've never heard of it. Anyway, I wouldn't support such a thing.

Anti-choice activists. Calling a fetus it's own "life" that must be protected more than the woman gestating it.

So simply disagreeing with your opinion on this is "draconian"?

Exactly what I and many others disagree with. It's also medically unethical, since ob-gyn appointments check nearly entirely on the health of the woman and check the progress of the fetus. The fetus itself has no medical professional checking to make sure it's okay or champions it's rights as a patient. The woman is the patient.

Once the woman gives birth, THEN a pediatrician arrives to take over the care of status of the newborns health.

Shame that anti-choice people don't see it that way either.

I fail to see how that rebuts what I said. Obviously they check to make sure the baby is okay, too. Obviously they're going to check the mother's health first. No one's saying that the health of the woman is should be ignored or placed on a lower priority.

Health benefits increase with breastfeeding for more than 2 years of a mothers lifespan. But it is not my job nor my place to even suggest that bottle feeding mothers are selfish.

I didn't say that, either.

And as someone who experienced traumatic labor and delivery, your view on the benefits of pregnancy is myopic at best. Shall I tell you what it's like to hemorrhage on the delivery table? Or do you have the audacity to tell me that my experience was either just an inconvenience or that at best I was privileged to experience the risk of death because I was giving birth?

Nope. It's unfortunate, but my point is that fetuses are not "parasites" by definition and I think it's rather ghoulish that people refer to unborn children as such.

Yeah, you haven't been pregnant have you? Trust me, there is a LOT that goes on in the mind of pregnant women, and specifically with women who are facing an unwanted pregnancy.

I'm sure there is. We all get angry or frustrated but I would hope they don't seriously view it that way.

"Disgusting", Frank? Women around the world regardless of culture seek termination of unwanted pregnancies. Regardless of legal status. Regardless of religious inclination. What a depressing view of all of humanity then if that's the case. I'm far more optimistic.

I know they do, but I'm focusing on our culture for the time being.

Wait...what?

Just commenting on the state of things.

Lol remember who you're talking with. Of course I have my own feminist spin on the issue. You try taking out your outdated archaic Catholic "pro-life" spin on the debate too and see what happens on being constructive. We all have our opinions on the ethics, and we are all sharing them.

Actually, my pro-life views didn't come from my Catholicism. I'm pro-life regardless of whatever my religious beliefs are. Pro-abortion arguments were never convincing or logical to me.

So I'll "hit you" with whatever I can within the rules. I won't be silent.

No one's telling you to be silent. I just find the feminist tropes humorous, is all.

I've repeatedly escorted women seeking services from their cars to the clinic and have been pushed, spit on, and anti-choice extremists lie about accosting women and taking them I to a van for "free ultrasounds" while getting information to further contact and harass through email, and threaten with releasing the patients names to the public.

Getting flipped off and being called a nazi would be a vacation. You ever get threatened with bombs and death threats? Try working at one of the clinics.

So attempting to suggest to me that anti-choice activists are all quietly holding hands and singing kumbaya isn't going to go far with me. Lived through enough of that to know better.

Well, I'm sorry you've experienced that but we're not all the same. Every movement has its crazies. Don't get me started on the feminist movement's nutcases.

Ha! I'll take the backhanded compliment with a grain of salt. I do stand for women's rights, and I'll keep speaking my mind, thank you very much.

I was mocking you.

 

[Sundance]

I would like to pose a thought-provoking question: should a woman's (or anyone's) right to autonomy of mind, body and spirit necessarily preclude finding or creating various alternative options for its expression? Can't both sides come together to figure out how we can work to solve the issues women face in society so that a woman isn't pitted against her child.

 

[oldbadger]

Looks like you're talking out of something else. You are talking about women's pains and you're a man, how would you know that. Secondly, am a physician, I know what am talking about.

Well you don't know much about Spina Bifida. You don't know much about clubbed feet either if you think that condition is so easy to correct.
Physician? What a strange way to describe any work in medicine........
I am a GP. I am a Doctor. I am a surgeon. I am a specialist. I am a consultant.
....... you are a physician? .... interesting.

That's what I find in extremist's posts. When sound points cannot be replied to I often read nonsense such as '...these are women, but you're a man', and such stuff.

I am a human, and I would support the right of females to terminate pregnancies. In situations where their unborn foetus is seriously ill then their decision would certainly be supported and upheld.

I often debate on the other side of the issue in connection with aspects of this subject but I wholly support a 24-25 week law.

But I would always defend a woman's right to choose against, for instance, moralising extremists who would take control of this freedom.

QUESTION:
You are Prolife in-extremis..... if a woman contacted you, explained that her foetus would be seriously ill and disabled once born but was quite unable to shoulder the physical, financial and psychological burden of it's upbringing and future life, what help would you give her? Would you take on the upbringing of the baby and its care for life as a duty motivated by your opinion and belief about Prolife?

 

[oldbadger]

So let me get this straight. You can't think of any other common term that doesn't follow the actual meaning of the included words?

No...... I can't!
That's the sort of description that I once heard socially respectable middle class hypocrites use in the 50's!
''We're very respectable, you know! We are a Christian household, of course..... well, you know, we're not so extreme as to go to Church every Sunday. We're not fanatics, you know..... more like, well.... Secular Christians!' (Smiles)

I love it!

 

[McBell]

In my personal opinion, yes. Notice I separated my personal opinion from the legal one (as if I'm a lawyer, anyway).

Then I would be most interested in your definition of "person" that would include a zygote.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Then I would be most interested in your definition of "person" that would include a zygote.

I'll let the philosophers handle that:
Human Personhood Begins at Conception
Human Personhood Begins at Conception - Abortion Group Blog

 

[McBell]

I'll let the philosophers handle that:
Human Personhood Begins at Conception
Human Personhood Begins at Conception - Abortion Group Blog

Oh no, you do not get to cheat....

How do YOU define "person" so as to include zygote?

I suspect perhaps some arbitrariness.