Basic Logic...

Damocles said:
That is a requirement of citizenship, not of rights, or of 'personhood'. The definition of 'personhood' was set later by court precedent, exactly as you say, to allow for the denial of rights to a select group.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by that first sentence. The 14th Amendment defines citizenship, and then states no state can "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

THEN it goes on to say that all PERSONS are recognized with basic human rights which they cannot be deprived without due process of law. And that all PERSONS shall be given equal treatment by the law.

It was after that the courts had to start prevaricating what a person is, ignoring common use and science because those definitions do not allow people to exclude anyone.

If we insist on using opinion and legalese to define "person", then what happens when a court decides that the legal term of "person" is limited to blue-eyed caucasians? If you think that is far fetched, think back 70 years...

I can understand there may be a need to ADD to the legal definition of person, such as giving the legal system the ability to treat a corporation as a single entity. But using the definition to SUBTRACT humans from that definition? That is corrupt and immoral, whether we are talking about excluding minority races, minority creeds, or humans at differing stages of development.
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, I am aware of how complex the issue is. I was being an ass. This is why it should be kept to genetics and not some vague randomly made up definitions that fit each individuals end game.

Human mother, Human father.... you are human.

You alive?.... then we got your back... you are protected.
Click to expand...
I would support that.
 
Good Luck said:
Not sure what you mean by that first sentence. The 14th Amendment defines citizenship, and then states no state can "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

THEN it goes on to say that all PERSONS are recognized with basic human rights which they cannot be deprived without due process of law. And that all PERSONS shall be given equal treatment by the law.

It was after that the courts had to start prevaricating what a person is, ignoring common use and science because those definitions do not allow people to exclude anyone.

If we insist on using opinion and legalese to define "person", then what happens when a court decides that the legal term of "person" is limited to blue-eyed caucasians? If you think that is far fetched, think back 70 years...

I can understand there may be a need to ADD to the legal definition of person, such as giving the legal system the ability to treat a corporation as a single entity. But using the definition to SUBTRACT humans from that definition? That is corrupt and immoral, whether we are talking about excluding minority races, minority creeds, or humans at differing stages of development.
Click to expand...
It is what has happened though.
 
Damocles said:
It is what has happened though.
Click to expand...
Oh, I know full well that is what happened. It is what has been happening throughout history. A society has a common use for the word person (or another language equivalent) and they have the LEGAL definition, which is invariably set up to deliberately exclude some class of humans for various purposes from enslavement to legalized homicide.

There was a time the Constitution itself defined a black as 3/5 of a person for census purposes only. Native Americans were not persons at all. Osama Bin Laden claims the right to attack us because, being "infidels" we do not fit his definition of person.

Took a war and several decades of social revolution to get society to include NAs and blacks in our definition of person. (decades of progress fought against by the same party now claiming the unborn are not persons.)
 
Superfreak said:
1) Life is not defined by being self aware

2) A sperm cell and egg cell may be alive, but genetically speaking they are not a unique human life. It is the combination of the two that a unique genetic code is created.

3) At no time can the combination be anything other than human. It is genetically impossible. No matter how many times you call the child by a STAGE of its development. No matter how many philisophical twists you try to use to define a "person" or declare that "only when self aware" will they "count". None of that matters when speaking in terms of genetics. The offspring of two humans must be human. If it is alive.... then you have a human life.

The question, as I stated, then becomes "is that human life entitled to basic human rights". As I stated, valid arguments can be made for both sides of this discussion. But it is complete stupidity to continue to pretend that an abortion doesn't end a human life. It is genetically proven.

4) The topic of a soul is simply a mystical twist by you. No one, to my knowledge, has ever shown that a "soul" exists in anyone.... so it is moot point.
Click to expand...

sf

now i am confused

1; when do YOU think life needs to be protected from murder (assuming that you define abortion as murder

2; what do you define what happens when a pregnancy 'naturally' aborts

3; are you speaking genetically only when talking about human rights

4; my mention of a soul was a nod to the mystical definition (i was not sure if you wanted that argument included)

5; by your definition, a human life starts at the zygote phase of a pregnancy

6; while a zygote may be 'human', what do you call it when its development goes awry and changes genetically

ps i am among those that are anti-abortion and pro-choice, if a family member were to ask me if they should continue their pregnancy, i would want all of the information available before making a recommendation, but all things being equal i would recommend against abortion because i have witnessed the physical and emotional damage done to a female when she has an abortion - also, i would be there for her if she decided to have an abortion
 
DonQuixote said:
sf

now i am confused

1; when do YOU think life needs to be protected from murder (assuming that you define abortion as murder

2; what do you define what happens when a pregnancy 'naturally' aborts

3; are you speaking genetically only when talking about human rights

4; my mention of a soul was a nod to the mystical definition (i was not sure if you wanted that argument included)

5; by your definition, a human life starts at the zygote phase of a pregnancy

6; while a zygote may be 'human', what do you call it when its development goes awry and changes genetically

ps i am among those that are anti-abortion and pro-choice, if a family member were to ask me if they should continue their pregnancy, i would want all of the information available before making a recommendation, but all things being equal i would recommend against abortion because i have witnessed the physical and emotional damage done to a female when she has an abortion - also, i would be there for her if she decided to have an abortion
Click to expand...
Mind if I answer these also?

1: One of the agreed basic human rights is the right to life. Therefore, any HUMAN has the right to life, and therefore protection unless the right to life is deprived through due process of law.

2: The common term is a miscarriage. The term "spontaneous abortion" did not come into use until after the legalized abortion issue was forced to SCOTUS.

3: Human rights belong to Humans. The species Homo Sapiens (ie: human) is determined genetically.

4: Mysticism can and often does enter into the topic of legalized abortion. I personally believe the unborn have souls, as does most of my Church. But using mysticism is not in any way necessary to defend the stance of granting human rights to unborn humans. We are human whether we got this way by God blowing on some mud, or by randomly bouncing chains of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen.

5: At the time the genetic material from the male and female gametes successfully unite, a new and unique living organism is formed. This is true for ALL sexually reproducing animals. It is a basic fact of biology. If those gametes come from two humans of opposite gender, then a new and unique living human is formed.

6: Depends on the extent of the genetic change. Most such changes result in a miscarriage. If the changes are not so great as to kill the fetus so that it comes to term, we usually call them birth defects. I guess if it was an advantageous change that can be passed on, we would call it evolution.
 
DonQuixote said:
sf

now i am confused

1; when do YOU think life needs to be protected from murder (assuming that you define abortion as murder

2; what do you define what happens when a pregnancy 'naturally' aborts

3; are you speaking genetically only when talking about human rights

4; my mention of a soul was a nod to the mystical definition (i was not sure if you wanted that argument included)

5; by your definition, a human life starts at the zygote phase of a pregnancy

6; while a zygote may be 'human', what do you call it when its development goes awry and changes genetically

ps i am among those that are anti-abortion and pro-choice, if a family member were to ask me if they should continue their pregnancy, i would want all of the information available before making a recommendation, but all things being equal i would recommend against abortion because i have witnessed the physical and emotional damage done to a female when she has an abortion - also, i would be there for her if she decided to have an abortion
Click to expand...

Then you appear to confuse quite easily.

1) Life always needs to be protected from murder

2) I call that DEATH by natural causes. Most definitely not murder.

3) I am speaking genetics with regards to this issue, because the religion from the right and the emotional attempts to spin the definition of a human in order to kill the child from the left is nothing more than bullshit.

4) Again, no one is able to verify if ANY of us has a soul or not. It is a religious belief. It is not relevant to the discussion in my opinion. Because if you cannnot prove whether you or I has a soul or whether an unborn child has a soul, then it really cannot be used as some sort of litmus test.... now can it?

5) Genetically speaking it begins the when a unique set of human DNA strands is created.

6) I am not sure what you mean on this point. While things can indeed go wrong in the pregnancy, at no point does it mutate into anything other than human. It may be deformed, it may die naturally, but it is still human.
 
5; that would be the zygote - it has not yet moved in to the uterus nor attached it self to the uterus, when it attaches itself to the uterus or undergoes sufficient cellular divisions, it becomes a fetus

5a; various forms of contraception prevent the zygote from attaching or staying attached to the uterine wall (i am not including tubal pregnancies in this as such threaten the life of the woman and the fetus)

5b; if i understand you correctly, once the zygote forms, medical abortion is no longer an option save that it threatens the life of the woman it is attached to or contained within

6; actually, by definition a mutation is no longer human as it does have the complete human dna, it has another dna - humans today are a result of mutations that took place earlier and will eventually take on another form of 'human' when enough mutations take place - i do not refer to changes due to dominant or recessive genes already present at inception


lastly, under what circumstances do you think abortion is
a; appropriate
b; necessary
c; legal
d; desirable
 
5: Usually by the time the zygote attaches to the uterine wall it has grown to a blastocyst. It does not matter. It is only a short time that later it becomes a fetus. But a living individual human starts with the zygote.

5a: Many times a blastocyst will fail to attach and it dies. That does not justify drugs that prevent attachment. With born humans any action taken which is known in advance to be fatal to another human is homicide. If it is done purposely and without cause it is murder. If it is done unintentionally, but with foreknowledge of the possible consequences, it is manslaughter. The only reason it is legal to deliberately cause the death of an unborn human is because we exclude the unborn from our definition of person.

5b: A case where the mother's life is significantly threatened, aborting the unborn child causing the threat could conceivably be lumped under self defense. But that would have to be VERY carefully monitored or every abortion doctor would be making up lame excuses why the mother's life was threatened. If the woman's life is no more threatened than is caused by the majority of pregnancies, medical abortions are every bit as immoral as killing Native Americans when they were not legally "persons"

6: Again, it depends on the severity of the mutation. We have genetic variations anyway, or we'd all be clones of each other. There are many mutations going on all the time. It is doubtful you or I are completely free of genetic mutations. But most mutations are very minor, or involve an old, inactive part of our genetic code, and as such are undetectable under normal circumstances. Additionally, if you want to REALLY be technical, the mutation would have to be so severe that the offspring is no longer inter-fertile with normal humans. (ie: either they are sterile themselves, OR any offspring would be sterile. Like producing mules from donkeys and horses.) If they are viable (since the vast majority of macro mutations are fatal) and the offspring is interfertile, then they are technically still the same species.

Lastly:
a: An "appropriate" abortion would be one performed because the life of the mother is severely threatened and there is no chance of bringing the child to term.


b: A "necessary" abortion would be the same as an appropriate abortion.


c: A "legal" abortion is, currently, pretty much any abortion.

But if you are asking what I think a legal abortion SHOULD be, a legal abortion should be only those abortions performed because the pregnancy has been medically determined to be a significant threat to the life of the mother. Those threats would be limited to an actual present threat (like tubal pregnancy), not potential threats.


d: I cannot think of a desirable abortion. Even a necessary/appropriate/legal abortion would be regrettable and sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top