Court Clears Way for Egg Rights Showdown

gonzojournals said:
No, I followed that case because I was very interested in whether they would find him guilty of killing the unborn child--- they did not. He was only found guilty of killing his wife.
Click to expand...
Really? I missed that. Probably because I'm a liberal and don't care about unborn children.
 
Dungheap said:
Sure, science can dictate when life begins. If I understand the point he is trying to make he is saying that the law should not recognize human life as existing at conception because doing so bestows the zygote with constitutional right.
Click to expand...

I understand what he is saying as well. The law will be based on ethics. It will be debated on whether or not the fertilized egg should have rights.

On one side you have science stating that it is indeed human and contains a unique gentic code. That will likely be the basis for saying it should be entitled to human rights.

On the other side you also have science. On this side it will be more of a cognitive ability/development of the unique human life.

Both arguments are valid and it will be interesting to see how it is handled.

Bottom line though, Water was confused as to what I was stating. My response was for Ornot who said it was arbitrary to determine when life began.
 
AssHatZombie said:
But at the fetus stage, they're biological parasites, usc's joke aside.
Click to expand...
No they're not. You see what happens when you start thinking that words aren't contextual? You get your thinking all screwed up.

Can you find even one biology text that characterizes a developing embryo as a "parasite?" Have fun.
 
Dungheap said:
Sure, science can dictate when life begins. If I understand the point he is trying to make he is saying that the law should not recognize human life as existing at conception because doing so bestows the zygote with constitutional right.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The phrase "human life" is slippery in this context. Yes, the zygote/embryo/fetus is alive. Yes, it is of the species homo sapiens sapiens. Okay, fine. So what? Does that mean it's a human being, in the legal and moral senses? No, it does not. Not without an additional axiomatic statement, and one which I am unwilling to stipulate to.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Fair enough. That's one. Of course, that's Minnesota and, as much as I love my fellow Norskies, it's not exactly a state known for deep thinking.

I do hope this guy has his charges reduced to the more rational assault and battery . . . and is convicted.
Click to expand...

It is "more rational" to you. But what do you think the mother and the rest of the childs family think? Somehow I doubt that they would say it is "more rational". Neither would I. I hope he goes to jail for murder, as he should.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Exactly. The phrase "human life" is slippery in this context. Yes, the zygote/embryo/fetus is alive. Yes, it is of the species homo sapiens sapiens. Okay, fine. So what? Does that mean it's a human being, in the legal and moral senses? No, it does not. Not without an additional axiomatic statement, and one which I am unwilling to stipulate to.
Click to expand...

Human life is not slippery. It is Human and alive. It is a human life. Trying to play semantics with whether or not it is a "human being" is arbitrary and pointless. It is simply word games.

The question as you kind of point out, is should an unborn human progeny be entitled to basic human rights. That is, as you mentioned, an ethical issue.
 
Superfreak said:
It is "more rational" to you. But what do you think the mother and the rest of the childs family think? Somehow I doubt that they would say it is "more rational". Neither would I. I hope he goes to jail for murder, as he should.
Click to expand...
I can feel sympathy and sorrow for the family without thinking that all of their vengeful impulses should be indulged. It is quite common for the victims of violent crime to wish destruction and suffering on the perpetrators. That is not justice, however. Indeed, our whole system of justice exists, in large part, to prevent such things.

And you wanna bet about whether this guy's charges are reduced? I'll bet you $50 right here and now, witnessed by the assembled multitude.
 
Superfreak said:
Human life is not slippery. It is Human and alive. It is a human life. Trying to play semantics with whether or not it is a "human being" is arbitrary and pointless. It is simply word games.

The question as you kind of point out, is should an unborn human progeny be entitled to basic human rights. That is, as you mentioned, an ethical issue.
Click to expand...
<*sigh*> I said that the phrase is slippery. Stop acting like a numbskull: it is beneath you.

It is Human -- i.e. of the human species -- and it is alive. Okay, fine. It is not a Human Being, however. Not in the legal or moral sense.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
<*sigh*> I said that the phrase is slippery. Stop acting like a numbskull: it is beneath you.

It is Human -- i.e. of the human species -- and it is alive. Okay, fine. It is not a Human Being, however. Not in the legal or moral sense.
Click to expand...

That's only because our laws and morality have been perverted.
 
Superfreak said:
I understand what he is saying as well. The law will be based on ethics. It will be debated on whether or not the fertilized egg should have rights.

On one side you have science stating that it is indeed human and contains a unique gentic code. That will likely be the basis for saying it should be entitled to human rights.

On the other side you also have science. On this side it will be more of a cognitive ability/development of the unique human life.

Both arguments are valid and it will be interesting to see how it is handled.

Bottom line though, Water was confused as to what I was stating. My response was for Ornot who said it was arbitrary to determine when life began.
Click to expand...


Well, even if it is indeed a unique human life with a unique genetic code, it isn't a viable life at all until implantation in the uterus. Assigning rights to zygotes that are not implanted is arbitrary.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
I can feel sympathy and sorrow for the family without thinking that all of their vengeful impulses should be indulged. It is quite common for the victims of violent crime to wish destruction and suffering on the perpetrators. That is not justice, however. Indeed, our whole system of justice exists, in large part, to prevent such things.

And you wanna bet about whether this guy's charges are reduced? I'll bet you $50 right here and now, witnessed by the assembled multitude.
Click to expand...

What I stated has nothing to do with vengence. Sentencing a murder to jail for murder is not vengence. It is justice. Demanding a murderer die via the death penalty or worse is vengence.

I will not take that bet because I agree that under our current laws it is likely that they will be reduced. The argument is whether or not our current laws should be changed. You obviously feel it is okay to leave them as they are. I am in the opposite camp on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top