Planned Parenthood takes its show on the road

[crossfire]

That's an empty, quasi-mystical, unempirical term that people conveniently define.

Embryos and fetuses are persons, and specifically human persons.

They do not interact in society yet. (The word person is derived from the word that meant actor's mask.)

The word people (Ninth Amendment) means the collection of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or culture.

 

[Father Heathen]

Embryos and fetuses are persons, and specifically human persons.

Are they sentient/sapient? Also, is unbaked batter a cake?

 

[Mister Emu]

They do not interact in society yet.

Humans in a coma aren't persons? Humans who live in isolation and choose not to interact with society are not persons?

Further, you really think fetuses don't interact in society? They have no response to external cues or produce responses from society themselves?

Are they sentient/sapient? Also, is unbaked batter a cake?

Spoiler: Profanity

 

[crossfire]

Humans in a coma aren't persons?

They have a history of being a person, and have probably interacted with others regarding their wishes as to what to do if they are ever in a coma, or at least conveyed their philosophy regarding it.

Humans who live in isolation and choose not to interact with society are not persons?

They made that individual choice regarding society and their relationship (withdrawl) with it. They are a person who has decided "these are not my people."

Further, you really think fetuses don't interact in society? They have no response to external cues or produce responses from society themselves?

Can they recognize themselves and others, and make the distinction between the two? Can they distinguish between different individuals? Can they even breathe on their own? Do they even have a history of being able to breathe?

 

[Revoltingest]

Those are developmental differences.

What are the significant differences in your opinion?

Society's proposed faulty ability to perceive that there are no essential differences between the developmental stages of humans such that some deserve rights and others do not is tautologically based in development as well.

All sides on this issue have faulty ability.
You don't have the truth. Neither do I.
Some compromise will result, & to find
the best one requires considering all
aspects of the issues.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I remember when people claimed it was fear mongering when people speculated about Roe v. Wade being overturned. And here we are.

So you won't respond to my explanation. Ok.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Traveling is moving, one cannot travel without moving.

Jeez, When most people say they are moving to another state they mean staying in that state for awhile. That is why we use the word travel.

And consider those who are unable to travel for one reason or another.

Why should abortion services be different than any other thing you want to do?

Whether you support it or not will make no difference if that law is passed.

I agree.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No fear mongering.
Just countering your quibbling.
Inter-racial marriage is a non-enumerated right, as is abortion.
When they were made rights, there was legal reasoning in
both cases.
"Legal reasoning" is often just rationalizing what the justices
already believed for personal reasons. That's why they so
often disagree. The law can be a very imprecise thing,
confused by innumerable details specious arguments
designed to ignore other lines of thought, other facts,
& to confuse the populace with inscrutable language.

Then interracial marriage could have been made illegal without roe being overturned. What does Roe have to do with it then?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Congress can make something legal, even
if SCOTUS doesn't recognize it as a right.
But they can also make it illegal. In that case,
states can't legalize it.

I agree.

 

[Revoltingest]

Humans in a coma aren't persons? Humans who live in isolation and choose not to interact with society are not persons?

Comas are conditions for people who once did
interact as kids or adults. This matters because
if they were killed upon entering a coma, people
in general would perceive a threat to themselves
if ever they were hospitalized. They don't see a
threat of abortion to themselves because they'll
never become a fetus again.
This is a significant difference that matters.

Further, you really think fetuses don't interact in society?

They don't.
They're not like babies, children, or adults.
These differences are significant legally.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.​

Embryos and fetuses are not persons.

When do they become a person?

The definition of person is "A living human". The unborn fit this description. They meet the definitions of life and of human.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

A constitutional right doesn't guarantee that
everyone will be personally able to exercise it.

I agree. Same with abortion correct?

 

[Revoltingest]

Then interracial marriage could have been made illegal without roe being overturned. What does Roe have to do with it then?

Interracial marriage, contraception, gay
marriage, & abortion are all non-enumerated
constitutional rights.
Thus if not being specifically named in the
Constitution means abortion isn't a right,
then this reasoning would apply to all others.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Except it's worse than that and not really like that at all. If you don't have the means to travel to a different state to have an abortion, now you're stuck having to find the means to carry a pregnancy to term, pay for the healthcare that comes with that, and raise a child. If you don't have the means to leave the state, I'm gonna go ahead and assume you don't have the means to pay for whatever healthcare is involved and then support a child. And that's assuming nothing goes wrong with your pregnancy.

Should we kill a 5 year old when the parents all of a sudden cannot support them financially?

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree. Same with abortion correct?

At the moment, abortion isn't a right.
But yes, not everyone can afford to freely
travel, to buy a gun, hire a lawyer, etc.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

So, to be clear, you would NOT consider either an increase in gun control or certain states choosing to ban guns to be a reduction or removal of the right to own a gun?

I am for certain gun laws that actually reduce criminal behavior. I do not support banning guns altogether. They can be used for good as well as bad. Killing or self defense. The right to own a gun is written in the constitution. The right to an abortion is not.

Abortions just kill.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Be interesting to see how someone can go to another state without moving. Teleport maybe?

Added: Sorry Christine, hadn't got to your response.

Seriously? When someone says they are moving to another state they mean they are moving for a awhile. You know this. We have the word travel to indicate a temporary stay in another state. I cannot believe I am having this conversation.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Because your country is so turned around that they value the right to a gun more than the right to health care, or water.



Don't talk to me about pro life.

I value human life more than someone's health care or water. The good think is we can stop killing, have clean water and give health care to people that need it at the same time.

The US is turned around because many believe an unborn human life is to be tossed away.

 

[Mister Emu]

They have a history of being a person

But, are not currently? Or is this an ad-hoc addendum to maintain the purpose of the definition, to other-ize humans whose rights are undesirable?

Can they recognize themselves and others, and make the distinction between the two?

And we're back to unpersoning and abrogating the rights of developmentally different humans.

What are the significant differences in your opinion?

I already told you, the differences are developmental. I happen to think that a philosophy that makes the base of rights-granting developmental milestones is disastrous; I think you'd find it so as well if you weren't in the power group deciding which development and which milestones are under consideration. Perhaps we ought to consider moral development as rights-granting as opposed to biological development.

Is "You're less morally developed than me, so you have no rights" a valid legal philosophy in your mind and if not, how is it differentiated from "You're less biologically developed than me, so you have no rights"?

This is a significant difference that matters.

I'm not sure that only what can/will happen to one's self is a good barometer for philosophical, moral, or legal consideration.

I can't be vaginally raped. This is a significant difference that allows me to subscribe to a legal or moral philosophy that provides for vaginal rape?

They don't.

Disagree. People interact with them, they can and do react to stimuli that reach them, and are even responsive to the stress of their mother as they experience some effects thereof.

 

[Revoltingest]

But, are not currently?

Still a person.

Or is this an ad-hoc addendum to maintain the purpose of the definition, to other-ize humans whose rights are undesirable?

No.

And we're back to unpersoning and abrogating the rights of developmentally different humans.

There is no "back to".
That has been the issue all along.

I already told you, the differences are developmental.

To label the differences as "developmental"
isn't discussing those differences, & how they
affect legal status of a fetus.

I happen to think that a philosophy that makes the base of rights-granting developmental milestones is disastrous; I think you'd find it so as well if you weren't in the power group deciding which development and which milestones are under consideration. Perhaps we ought to consider moral development as rights-granting as opposed to biological development.

I am considering morals, ie, values that are useful
to society & individuals. But I don't approach them
from any absolutes, eg, Bible, Koran. It's about
finding the optimum balance of various concerns.

Is "You're less morally developed than me, so you have no rights" a valid legal philosophy in your mind and if not, how is it differentiated from "You're less biologically developed than me, so you have no rights"?

That's one way to view the issues.
But it's not mine.

I'm not sure that only what can/will happen to one's self is a good barometer for philosophical, moral, or legal consideration.

I can't be vaginally raped. This is a significant difference that allows me to subscribe to a legal or moral philosophy that provides for vaginal rape?

Explain the relevance.

Disagree. People interact with them, they can and do react to stimuli that reach them, and are even responsive to the stress of their mother as they experience some effects thereof.

Do you believe that interaction with a fetus
is the same as with a child or adult?
I don't. I find the difference significant.