Planned Parenthood takes its show on the road

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

You're dancing around your anti-choice hypocrisy here. Every person has the right to a nationality (UNDHR Art. 15).

Edit: you, like anti-choicers generally, don't treat a fetus as a person entitled to human rights except when this can be used as a weapon to attack the rights of pregnant people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Pregnant people meet the definitions of "life" and "human." Maybe try caring about them for a bit, or at least recognizing their rights.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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

SO you don't really have a definition. What you really mean is whatever the doctor and mother decide. Which can be anything and varying.

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

Then I guess your definition of a person is if they are viable?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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.

The definition of a person as a living human is just the first definition I got from a dictionary. A zygote is living and is human and is the start of a human being if left alone and has a chance to become a person outside the womb.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Huh?

What qualities give this particular species special rights?
Religion?

What special rights?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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.

And the supreme court upheld the right extended to the individual. They never ruled they cannot be regulated.

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.

I disagree as I have stated.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Well that's a steaming pile of nonsense.

... unless you're still attached to your placenta, relying on fetal circulation.

Do you poop? Fetuses don't (unless there's a significant medical problem).

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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

Incredible.

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

Why is it a false equivalence?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Incredible.

Why is it a false equivalence?

Access to marijuana isn't a fundamental right. Bodily security is.

 

[ChristineM]

Incredible.

Why is it a false equivalence?

Factual.

Does marijuana grow in a womb, does a woman have to carry marijuana inside her for 9 months, does a woman have to nurture marijuana,..

I could go on and on but I won't

 

[crossfire]

SO you don't really have a definition. What you really mean is whatever the doctor and mother decide. Which can be anything and varying.

Each case is different, and the people closest to the case have the best information pertaining to that case.

Then I guess your definition of a person is if they are viable?

My definition of a person is an entity that has a relationship with society. (From persona the actor's mask worn to depict individual characters in a play.) By definition, a fetus that is pre-viable can't have a relationship with society.

 

[Mister Emu]

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.

Carpool lanes, carte blanche to end a life... to-may-to to-mah-to.

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".

It has little to do with simplicity and everything to do with the capacity for meaningful dialogue.

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.

There are many differences, all sourced in development. An acorn is the same thing as an oak tree at a different stage of life, everything that is the oak tree is held within the acorn as well. Are you saying there is some transmutation that occurs wherein an acorn becomes something entirely different in order for an oak tree to come into existence?

And the bold statement, and I'm accepting I must be reading it incorrectly, is precisely what I said. Being more developed is the only difference that applies; if the being that is the acorn were more biologically developed, it would have roots and branches and all of that. That is because the acorn and the tree are the same thing.

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.)

This is entirely backwards, and it has nothing to do with moral relativity vs moral realism. Relativists are just as capable of having a consistent logic to apply to morality as a realist; for instance Mill's Utilitarianism still has a logic.

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

If you don't claim the differences aren't developmental, why have you been harping on me for identifying them as such?

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

Seeking clarity; If I'm brain dead, have an advanced directive set up and the funds to procure life support, it would still be okay to kill me?

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

You can feel free to replace "moral development" with any other arbitrary standard, the inherent question is "why"; why should we evaluate biological development as rights bearing?

So an ovum, sperm, or zygote, being fully human and living, are entitled to the full panoply of adult rights?

Ova and sperm have their own life cycle, being produced, maturing, and dying. The zygote is the same thing as the adult that will later develop; so yes it has full human rights, because rights are inherent, recognized not given, and cannot be taken away, only ignored and abused.

But that's ridiculous!

And yet, true. I'd suggest, a relatively empty hypothesis absent a full interview, that it is an egocentric valuation of the self that rejects this as preposterous. In argument, I'd say that there is no alchemical change, no magical alteration of what exists, that produces the differences you find between your pre and post adult developmental selves. The only thing that happens is that you have progressed along your biological lifespan.

If not religious hubris, what is it about Homo that confers such extraordinary rights?

It is my argument that it is our nature that bears rights; it is our human nature that produces all of those effects you value such that others have an obligation to behave in certain ways towards us. It isn't random chance that we have sapience, foresight, futurity, etc. elsewise such characteristics would show up in any object or creature of any form, and in ours not with any consistency. Have you reasoned with a shrub or ant?

You're dancing around your anti-choice hypocrisy here. Every person has the right to a nationality (UNDHR Art. 15).

I'm not dancing around anything, I believe in universal human rights and as I can imagine a scenario in which it is justifiable that someone has no nationality (really simply, if there were no nations), such a thing cannot be a right.

Well that's a steaming pile of nonsense.

... unless you're still attached to your placenta, relying on fetal circulation.

Do you poop? Fetuses don't (unless there's a significant medical problem).

Amazing that for arguing against "steaming pile of nonsense", you've failed to list a single difference that is not directly attributable to the normal biological development of a human.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is entirely backwards, and it has nothing to do with moral relativity vs moral realism.

Moral relativity is "moral realism", ie, recognizing that
no one has The Truth. Religions say they have it, but
they can't agree on much of anything from year-to-year
or religion-to-religion. They lack a reliable source.

I start with considering the effects of various moral &
ethical concepts, & select those which function the best
best (IMO).

To start reasoning by assuming morals from some
particular source, eg, this or that religion, is worse
than backwards....it often causes evil, eg, forcing
a raped child to give birth.

Relativists are just as capable of having a consistent logic to apply to morality as a realist; for instance Mill's Utilitarianism still has a logic.

Logic isn't typically the problem.
It's the selection of dysfunctional premises,
& treating them as inerrant universal truth.

If you don't claim the differences aren't developmental, why have you been harping on me for identifying them as such?

Nay, you keep "harping" on "developmental".
I consider that tangential. What matters is
the functional relationship of the fetus/person.

Seeking clarity; If I'm brain dead, have an advanced directive set up and the funds to procure life support, it would still be okay to kill me?

Are you even legally alive when brain dead?
Setting that aside, you've no right to "life" of
a brainless body. But this lack is not to say
that you cannot prearrange support for a body,
so long as you pay for it....not the taxpayers.

You can feel free to replace "moral development" with any other arbitrary standard, the inherent question is "why"; why should we evaluate biological development as rights bearing?

Arbitrary? Your argument appears to start with strict
morals that don't prioritize the range of consequences.

Ova and sperm have their own life cycle, being produced, maturing, and dying. The zygote is the same thing as the adult that will later develop; so yes it has full human rights, because rights are inherent, recognized not given, and cannot be taken away, only ignored and abused.

This is just stating your claim, not really arguing
why it's a better approach to rights than mine.

1) What is your fundamental basis for giving right
to live to every fertilized human egg?
2) Do you see any exceptions due to deleterious
consequences to the mother, eg, health danger,
rape, incest, severe congenital disease?

 

[Mister Emu]

Moral relativity is "moral realism", ie, recognizing
that no one has The Truth.

That's not what moral realism means. Moral realism is the philosophical approach that there are objective moral facts.

Logic isn't typically the problem.

I'll take culpability for the confusion here, I wasn't talking about logic as a monolithic structure, but that moral relativists have no necessary handicap in having a system of reason by which they come to moral conclusions as opposed to preferred outcomes ex post facto justified by ad hoc argumentation.

Nay, you keep harping on "developmental".
I consider that tangential. What matters is
the functional relationship of the fetus/person.

I can only recommend you reconsider the path of the conversation. I noted that the differences in form and function that people have offered are developmental markers and you, and others, have disagreed and continued to balk at the characterization.

But setting that aside, you've no
right to "life" of your brainless body. However,
this lack of right is not to say that you cannot
prearrange support for this body, so long as
you pay for it.

You've sidestepped the question. In a world governed by your principles, if someone came in and unplugged the life support of one damaged so, would they face criminal charges? Could my body be subjected to experiments without my consent? I know you said specifically a right to life, but what of the other human rights?

 

[Revoltingest]

That's not what moral realism means.

That's not all that it means.
But it's part of moral relativism.

Moral realism is the philosophical approach that there are objective moral facts.

How do you determine the objectivity
of your various moral facts?

I can only recommend you reconsider the path of the conversation. I noted that the differences in form and function that people have offered are developmental markers and you, and others, have disagreed and continued to balk at the characterization.

You do your share of "balking" too.

You've sidestepped the question.

I address your posts the best I can.

 

[Valjean]

What special rights?

Rights we usually arrogate ourselves but generally deny to other animals: a right to life, liberty, personal and bodily autonomy, self determination, &al; a right not to be harmed, robbed, or imprisoned.
Ie: Those considerations and deference we expect for ourselves but not for chickens.

 

[Valjean]

My definition of a person is an entity that has a relationship with society. (From persona the actor's mask worn to depict individual characters in a play.) By definition, a fetus that is pre-viable can't have a relationship with society.

So hermits and anchorites are not persons?

 

[Valjean]

There are many differences, all sourced in development. An acorn is the same thing as an oak tree at a different stage of life, everything that is the oak tree is held within the acorn as well. Are you saying there is some transmutation that occurs wherein an acorn becomes something entirely different in order for an oak tree to come into existence.

Yes, an acorn becomes something entirely different -- anatomically and physiologically.
The acorn contains a genetic 'blueprint' for an oak tree, and for assembling one, but it is nothing like an oak. Other than the genome, what exclusive qualities does it have in common with the tree?

A potential is only a potential; a possibility, not finished product.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not dancing around anything, I believe in universal human rights and as I can imagine a scenario in which it is justifiable that someone has no nationality (really simply, if there were no nations), such a thing cannot be a right.

Is there any right you think a fetus should be entitled to that doesn't involve harming, shaming or disadvantaging a pregnant person?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Amazing that for arguing against "steaming pile of nonsense", you've failed to list a single difference that is not directly attributable to the normal biological development of a human.

Please lift with your legs as you move those goalposts. I wouldn't want you to pull something.