Planned Parenthood takes its show on the road

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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.

This has nothing to do with my analogy. It was an analogy not true history.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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

So when do you restrict abortion to?

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.

Depends on which definition yo use. This is why we should not determine abortion restrictions on personhood. We cannot agree on what personhood is, so we should not kill human life until we determine what a person is.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Travel is still moving

Still not letting go huh.

If I said I was moving to California that is different than if I said I was traveling to California. Everyone knows this, even you.

But they are different, they are banned in several states

So what. Marijuana is banned in many sates and people have to travel to get it.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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

How so?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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

What stereotype?

 

[crossfire]

So when do you restrict abortion to?

Pre-viability: what the woman and her doctor decide. Lawmakers are not health care experts, and doctors are not lawyers.

Depends on which definition yo use. This is why we should not determine abortion restrictions on personhood. We cannot agree on what personhood is, so we should not kill human life until we determine what a person is.

If you are making laws about it, then a definition would be in order.

 

[Valjean]

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.

No. Personhood is not determined by species, and what, exactly, does "a living human" mean? You seem to think a fœtus is a human being, how about a zygote? An ovum?

Again, it's personhood, not species, that's generally determines moral consideration.

Q: What entitles 'a living human' to extraordinary moral consideration? This sounds like a religious judgement.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Huh?

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

What qualities give this particular species special rights?
Religion?

 

[Valjean]

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.

So an ovum, sperm, or zygote, being fully human and living, are entitled to the full panoply of adult rights? If not, what develepmental milestone confers such rights?
If not religious hubris, what is it about Homo that confers such extraordinary rights?

 

[Valjean]

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.

The right to own a gun as part of an organized militia is written in the constitution. The 2nd amendment right to universal and unregulated, individual gun ownership has never, till recently, been understood to be the intent of the amendment.

Abortions just kill.

They don't kill persons. They don't kill organisms with any features -- save species -- that would qualify them for moral consideration.
Abortions save personal dreams and goals, they prevent poverty and crime, they save millions of tax dollars for social services.

 

[Valjean]

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.

But that's ridiculous! A fœtus has no self-interest, it's not a conscious, sentient being. It doesn't care whether it lives or dies-- it's not even aware it exists, or that futurity exists. It feels no pain, fear or anxiety. It feels no joy or hope for the future.

What feature, other than species, entitles it to special rights above and beyond those of any other animal?

It's religious sentiment, isn't it?
Should we be basing law on religious doctrine? Don't we criticize theocracies and religious republics for exactly that?

 

[ChristineM]

Still not letting go huh.

If I said I was moving to California that is different than if I said I was traveling to California. Everyone knows this, even you.

So what. Marijuana is banned in many sates and people have to travel to get it.

So you have a matter transporter? Oh wait a moment. Even that moves your matter.

Marijuana is not a comparison to pregnancy and you know it but i suppose making false equivalences makes you happy

 

[Valjean]

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


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.

Corporate personhood doesn't involve moral consideration or so called 'human rights'. It's a legalism.

I don't see relationships to others as conferring special moral consideration. Explain, please.
Herd animals have a relationship to society. Bees and ants have social relationships.
Is stepping on an ant the same sort of moral act as aborting a fœtus?

 

[Valjean]

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.

I'm not persuaded of either point of view, neither fœtus as part of the mother's body nor person with special rights.
I propose rights or moral consideration as an artifact of self-interest, itself an artifact of factors like sentience/self-awareness, anticipation of futurity, &c.

 

[crossfire]

Corporate personhood doesn't involve moral consideration or so called 'human rights'. It's a legalism.

I don't see relationships to others as conferring special moral consideration. Explain, please.
Herd animals have a relationship to society. Bees and ants have social relationships.
Is stepping on an ant the same sort of moral act as aborting a fœtus?

Laws are about governing relationships within society, no?
As for morality: is having an abortion antisocial behavior?

 

[Alien826]

Corporate personhood doesn't involve moral consideration or so called 'human rights'. It's a legalism.

As I recall, corporate personhood was introduced to allow companies to inject huge amounts of "dark money" into the electoral process. I'd say there is a distinct moral component there. Just an aside though.

I don't see relationships to others as conferring special moral consideration. Explain, please.
Herd animals have a relationship to society. Bees and ants have social relationships.
Is stepping on an ant the same sort of moral act as aborting a fœtus?

I had the same thought. My refutation was to consider the (unlikely, yes) case where a human being is discovered on a remote island, having been abandoned as a baby and raised by chimps. It would never have interacted with other humans, and be unable to communicate in any human language. I think we would grant personhood in that case.

If ants were sentient, maybe we should avoid stepping in them, but not because they have social relationships.

 

[Alien826]

So you have a matter transporter? Oh wait a moment. Even that moves your matter.

"Wild thing, I think you move me
But I wanna know for sure
So come on and hold me tight
You move me"

 

[Alien826]

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.

Just to muddy the water even more, there does seem to be a difference between a pregnancy and some kind of experimentation on adults. Pregnancy is how we reproduce, and though it is difficult to see in terms of rights, pregnancy is a natural process that is strongly supported in most cases and unwanted in others.

I'll keep saying it, abortion morality is not simple no matter how loudly both sides say it is.

 

[fantome profane]

Just to muddy the water even more, there does seem to be a difference between a pregnancy and some kind of experimentation on adults. Pregnancy is how we reproduce, and though it is difficult to see in terms of rights, pregnancy is a natural process that is strongly supported in most cases and unwanted in others.

I'll keep saying it, abortion morality is not simple no matter how loudly both sides say it is.

Are you employing the naturalistic fallacy? Are you trying to argue that because something is "natural" it is therefore "good"?

I don't see why anything you say here makes any difference to my question.

 

[Valjean]

Laws are about governing relationships within society, no?
As for morality: is having an abortion antisocial behavior?

How would it be antisocial? Wouldn't unwanted children be more socially and economically disruptive than allowing women to pursue their lives unimpeded?