Planned Parenthood takes its show on the road

[Augustus]

I think you have your analogy backwards. The correct analogy is that Germany passed laws protecting Jews and the Nazi's had to take the Jews across the border to kill them.

The Nazis did not "have to" circumvent German human rights laws by taking people "abroad".

There were many concentration camps in Germany where Jewish people were killed.

The main extermination camps were in "Poland", but, Germany annexed much of this territory making it part of Germany. So, for example Auschwitz and Chełmno are now in Poland, but were in Germany then.

Also aspects of The Holocaust developed out of Aktion T4, murder via involuntary euthanasia of those deemed 'genetically deficient'. This occurred in Germany too.

 

[Mister Emu]

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

To be fair to me, this and the quotes above were directed at Crossfire.

To label the differences as "developmental"

It's not a label, it's a material fact that the only significant difference between a fetus and an adult is that the latter is more biologically developed than the former.

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.

That isn't addressing what I said, which isn't that you aren't considering morals; I said maybe we should consider moral development as the rights-granting proposition.

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

Well... maybe not "than me" but "than the standard I arbitrarily declare".

Explain the relevance.

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.

Either "what can happen to me" is significant in determining the validity of my moral and legal philosophy, or it isn't.

 

[crossfire]

When do they become a person?

When they have a relationship to society--generally when they are born.

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

Person goes farther than that. Persons are entities that have a relationship to society. This is how corporations can be legally counted as persons--they can be specifically named in a lawsuit and are subject to the laws and regulations of the society.

 

[Revoltingest]

To be fair to me, this and the quotes above were directed at Crossfire.

OK

It's not a label, it's a material fact that the only significant difference between a fetus and an adult is that the latter is more biologically developed than the former.

So you deem irrelevant the differences in relationships
with people of fetus vs kids & adults, eh. To discuss
this issue, it would be good to recognize that prolly
most people disagree with you. Want to convince
them of your views? Understanding the other side
is useful.

That isn't addressing what I said, which isn't that you aren't considering morals; I said maybe we should consider moral development as the rights-granting proposition.

I do consider morals. Note that mine
seem to be very different from yours.

Well... maybe not "than me" but "than the standard I arbitrarily declare".

What does that mean?

Either "what can happen to me" is significant in determining the validity of my moral and legal philosophy, or it isn't.

It's not that simple when one considers
differences between a fetus & a person.

 

[crossfire]

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?

They are persons, having attained personhood by being born and have established a relationship with society.
<edit to add>
Fourteenth Amendment:

Section 1 Due Process of Law
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
​

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

I'm not saying that fetuses are not human--I'm saying they have not yet become persons. It is not possible to "unperson" someone who has not yet become a person.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

That is not even close to what I asked.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Travel is still moving

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

But they are different, they are banned in several states

 

[esmith]

Why would it? No public funds are involved.

Does Planned Parenthood receive federal funds?
Where does Planned Parenthood get its money? - SuperTalk Mississippi
Planned Parenthood derives nearly half of its ~$1.5 billion of annual revenue from Medicaid, part of mandatory spending. This money flows from the Fed to Planned Parenthood without a single vote from Congress. In addition to abortions, Planned Parenthood provides a variety of women’s health care services which are eligible for Medicaid reimbursement, such as mammograms and pap tests. Just like Social Security and Medicare benefits, Medicaid pays Planned Parenthood without any action by Congress. In other words, no votes are cast by members of the House and Senate to fund Medicaid, including payments to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers for eligible Medicaid services.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Just did.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

This comparison doesn't make sense either and doesn't address what I said.

 

[Alien826]

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.

Fair enough. I sometimes like to introduce some levity when things seem to be getting too "heavy".

 

[Mister Emu]

So you deem irrelevant the differences in relationships
with people of fetus vs kids & adults, eh.

What are the significant differences in relationship such that fetuses do not have rights? What is the process by which relational status impacts the rights of a human?

So you deem irrelevant the differences in relationships
with people of fetus vs kids & adults, eh.

Can you show how those relational differences are disconnected from their developmental state, such that they cannot be called a matter of development?

Can you provide an example of an adult who suffers from the same or a similar relationship deficiency that they would also be considered a non-person who has no rights?

I do consider morals.

You consider moral development when you are deciding which humans get deemed persons and therefore rights bearers? People who are not morally developed to a high enough standard are not persons?

What does that mean?

It's a simple replacement of wording.

My original statement: 'You're less biologically developed than me, so you have no rights'
The new statement: 'You're less biologically developed than the standard I arbitrarily declare, so you have no rights'

It's not that simple when one considers
differences between a fetus & a person.

Of course not, nothing is so simple as consistent reasoning when you have predetermined objectives.

Which is what I said in the beginning, "person" in the context of a rights debate is an empty term defined conveniently, not a matter of consistent reasoning, logic, or principle.

They are persons, having attained personhood and have established a relationship with society.

The first is tautology, they are person because they are persons. The second is a further divergence from your original delineation.

By the way, I'll stick with the dictionary(Merriam-Webster and Oxford) definition of person, a human individual.

It is not possible to "unperson" someone who has not yet become a person.

Ha. 'They were never persons in the first place' is an effective cognitive defense, I suppose.

So be it, "unpersoning" to "denying the application of personhood to"

<edit to add>
Fourteenth Amendment:

Section 1 Due Process of Law
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

I'm unsure where this fits in the discussion.

The Due Process clause doesn't define persons. It defines citizen. Yes, you have to be born to be a citizen.

 

[metis]

Is it easy for the poor to get a gun that is their right?

"Nice" stereotype of the poor. Got any more while you're at it?

 

[crossfire]

Humans in a coma aren't persons? <...>]

They are persons, having attained personhood by being born and have established a relationship with society.

The first is tautology, they are person because they are persons. The second is a further divergence from your original delineation.

So answering your question a tautology? Really?

By the way, I'll stick with the dictionary(Merriam-Webster and Oxford) definition of person, a human individual.

Suit yourself. I'm not sure how much legal ground that will stand up to.

Ha. 'They were never persons in the first place' is an effective cognitive defense, I suppose.

So be it, "unpersoning" to "denying the application of personhood to"

Oh you mean like those who want to deny children in car seats as counting as persons in the carpool lane?

I'm unsure where this fits in the discussion.

The Due Process clause doesn't define persons. It defines citizen. Yes, you have to be born to be a citizen.

Read the last clause about the State not denying any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws: an unborn fetus does not count as a person to qualify to ride in the carpool lane, but a non-resident tourist does. The State cannot disqualify a non-resident tourist as ineligible to ride in the carpool lane.

 

[Alien826]

Which is what I said in the beginning, "person" in the context of a rights debate is an empty term defined conveniently, not a matter of consistent reasoning, logic, or principle.

Absolutely. I'm thinking that the word originally was no more than a convenient way to avoid say "man or woman". OK, yes that's not all, but its use suggests to me the problem both sides have in defining what we are aborting or not aborting. It covers a multitude of definitions doesn't it? A single cell is not a person. Ah, but that single cell has human DNA so it must be a person. Seriously, a single cell? Well it will be a person if you give it the right environment and enough time. And so on.

What I challenge on both sides is the idea that it's all soooo simple if only the other side would just "apply consistent reasoning, logic or principle".

Pro life: It's human and has a right to life. Pro choice: The mother has to go through the pregnancy so her needs are all that matter.

What do I think? I think it's complicated. There are good arguments on both sides. I come down on the pro-choice side, but if I had the power I would put huge sums into research into contraception.

Another thought. This problem is unique (or close to it, I can't think of another that is similar) in that there is more than one stakeholder and nobody else can assume the woman's burden. Maybe if the fetus could be extracted and implanted into another woman the morality would be clearer? I'm sure there would be lots of pro-life volunteers. [/sarcasm]

 

[Alien826]

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.

Agreed. Though it's not a matter of truth in the end. We know lots and lots about the process of reproduction in humans. Likewise the social implications of unwanted pregnancy. What we have is differences in value judgment, and that typically doesn't get settled by science.

Long live compromise, by the way.

 

[Alien826]

It's not a label, it's a material fact that the only significant difference between a fetus and an adult is that the latter is more biologically developed than the former.

Seriously? There is no difference between an acorn and an oak tree? What about roots, branches and leaves? Being more developed is about the only thing that applies.

 

[Revoltingest]

What are the significant differences in relationship such that fetuses do not have rights? What is the process by which relational status impacts the rights of a human?

You're jumping the gun. First examine the functional
differences between a fetus & a child. (This is needed
by moral relativists & others lacking moral absolutes.)
Only after discussing all the different perceptions of
the parties involved that does it make sense to deem
who has what rights.

Can you show how those relational differences are disconnected from their developmental state, such that they cannot be called a matter of development?

I don't claim disconnect...just differences.

Can you provide an example of an adult who suffers from the same or a similar relationship deficiency that they would also be considered a non-person who has no rights?

An adult with total loss of brain function
wouldn't have the right to life.

You consider moral development when you are deciding which humans get deemed persons and therefore rights bearers?

What is "moral development"?

People who are not morally developed to a high enough standard are not persons?

Again, what is "moral development",
& why is it an issue for you?

It's a simple replacement of wording.

My original statement: 'You're less biologically developed than me, so you have no rights'
The new statement: 'You're less biologically developed than the standard I arbitrarily declare, so you have no rights'

The state of biological development is at issue here.
It's what we're discussing. Your quoted statement
is yours, not mine.

Of course not, nothing is so simple as consistent reasoning when you have predetermined objectives.

I urge you to dispense with your many
pre-determined objectives. Then we
can discuss the issues of both sides.

Which is what I said in the beginning, "person" in the context of a rights debate is an empty term defined conveniently, not a matter of consistent reasoning, logic, or principle.

I don't see defining "person" as crucial.
It's about abortion of a fetus....no matter what it's called.

I'm skipping the rest because this is getting long.
Addressing fewer issues at a time is best.

 

[fantome profane]

What are the significant differences in relationship such that fetuses do not have rights? What is the process by which relational status impacts the rights of a human?

Even if you believe that a fetus has full human rights the fact still remains that no human, not you, not me, no one, has the right to live inside another human. No one has the right to use another person’s organs.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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.

Sure, but that reasoning could be made independent of the Dobbs decision.