Should Individual US States Determine Who is a Human Being?

[Fool]

Engendered by the Roe debate. If an unborn child is a human being at any stage in a pregnancy, should individual states have a legal right to permit abortion?

everything is a being. the question is it viable.


why would you give the states civil rights and deny a person the right to their own body?

 

[Fool]

Freedom, rights, equality, and justice should be upheld consistently throughout the entire country.

for the individual, not for groups, or people, trying to directly control another's right to choose for self.

 

[Father Heathen]

for the individual, not for groups, or people, trying to directly control another's right to choose for self.

Of course allowing people's freedoms, rights, etc. to be denied would be opposite of upholding them.

 

[Nakosis]

Tenuous

So does this mean you don't have an answer to the question?

 

[Wandering Monk]

So does this mean you don't have an answer to the question?

Yes

 

[Valjean]

everything is a being. the question is it viable.


why would you give the states civil rights and deny a person the right to their own body?

Not a strong argument, IMHO.
The anti-abortion position is that the fœtus/baby is not part of the person's body; rather, contained within another person's body. This would be confirmed by comparative histological or Genetic analysis.

 

[MikeF]

I think that an unborn child is a human being at any stage in a (human) pregnancy. That is just a biological truism. Since any DNA scan would confirm that.

So, the question is: where is morality applicable? At the DNA level, or to another level? Is humanity important per se, or is another characteristic than humans have, important?

Ciao

- viole

To explore your argument a little further, would a detached human finger, by itself, be a human being? The DNA contained would identify it as so. What about human cancer cells grown in media?

 

[Valjean]

Freedom, rights, equality, and justice should be upheld consistently throughout the entire country.

For all persons, regardless of race, religion or national origin. The issue, though, hinges of "person." Persons have rights and self-interest, but is a non-viable fœtus a person, or merely a potential person?

 

[Fool]

Not a strong argument, IMHO.
The anti-abortion position is that the fœtus/baby is not part of the person's body; rather, contained within another person's body. This would be confirmed by comparative histological or Genetic analysis.

it doesn't have legal autonomy. never has. again rip it out and let the moral majority have it

there is a bigger issue in this land with the rampant number of orphans. yet the majority of the right don't care.

 

[Valjean]

To explore your argument a little further, would a detached human finger, by itself, be a human being? The DNA contained would identify it as so. What about human cancer cells grown in media?

It would be human, but not a being in the usual understanding of the word.
I do not see humanness as the relevant designation, though.

 

[Fool]

For all persons, regardless of race, religion or national origin. The issue, though, hinges of "person." Persons have rights and self-interest, but is a non-viable fœtus a person, or merely a potential person?

it has no name, it has no legal rights, it has no viability without artificial support. if someone other than the carrier wants to be responsible for it, rip it out and give it to them

 

[viole]

To explore your argument a little further, would a detached human finger, by itself, be a human being? The DNA contained would identify it as so. What about human cancer cells grown in media?

Yes, they would be all human beings. That they are is a biological truism. And that is why Woody Allen can threaten to kill the dictator (his ear) while trying to escape, in his Sleeper movie.

But, of course, morality cannot be applied to human biology alone without being circular. So, we need something that is independent from mere DNA, while acting on something more than that.

what is that more than that?

if you need to decide between 1000 human cells in a petri dish, vs, 10 kids at school waiting for their parents outside, how would you decide? No matter, or would you give priority to one of them groups?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Valjean]

it doesn't have legal autonomy. never has. again rip it out and let the moral majority have it

there is a bigger issue in this land with the rampant number of orphans. yet the majority of the right don't care.

This is a question of morality, not law. The Right's whole case is built on abortion as a moral issue.
One would hope the law reflects the moral, but this is clearly not always the case.

Personally, I support abortion, as a morally defensible action, in direct contravention of the Right's moral case. Trying to counter a moral position with legal rights seems like an exercise in futility; an apples-and-oranges argument.

 

[Left Coast]

Engendered by the Roe debate. If an unborn child is a human being at any stage in a pregnancy, should individual states have a legal right to permit abortion?

The issue is, even if the zygote/embryo/fetus is a person, whether the state has a right to force a person to keep another person alive against their will using their own body. I've posted a paper by Judith Jarvis Thomson before on this point, using the classic dying violinist ethical dilemma. People ought to be able to refuse having their body used to keep another person alive.

 

[Valjean]

it has no name, it has no legal rights, it has no viability without artificial support. if someone other than the carrier wants to be responsible for it, rip it out and give it to them

Again, not a question of legal rights. Legal rights are as changeable as the wind. The anti-abortionists are adducing an argument from unchanging, unalterable, eternal law. You can't counter this position legislatively. You can't legislate gravity, morality or the speed of light away.

Their moral argument must be countered on a moral field.

 

[Fool]

This is a question of morality, not law. The Right's whole case is built on abortion as a moral issue.
One would hope the law reflects the moral, but this is clearly not always the case.

Personally, I support abortion, as a morally defensible action, in direct contravention of the Right's moral case. Trying to counter a moral position with legal rights seems like an exercise in futility; an apples-and-oranges argument.

that is exactly what the self-righteous want you to believe. good fences make good neighbors. they're trying to cross a line that they themselves have agreed to follow. a fetus is not human. belief is not an excuse for knowing where one person's autonomy begins and another's ends

 

[Fool]

Again, not a question of legal rights. Legal rights are as changeable as the wind. The anti-abortionists are adducing an argument from unchanging, unalterable, eternal law. You can't counter this position legislatively. You can't legislate gravity, morality or the speed of light away.

Their moral argument must be countered on a moral field.

then give them what they want, give them the fetus

 

[Valjean]

that is exactly what the self-righteous want you to believe. good fences make good neighbors. they're trying to cross a line that they themselves have agreed to follow. a fetus is not human. belief is not an excuse for knowing where one person's autonomy begins and another's ends

But a fœtus is human -- as any histological or genetic analysis would demonstrate; but it is not a person.
The issue does not turn on humanness, but on personhood, which is a whole different thing.

If a flying saucer landed in your back yard/garden, and some little green men emerged and asked to see your leader, would you consider them people?
They're clearly not human, but would you afford them the same moral consideration, as persons, that you would a fellow human?

 

[Valjean]

then give them what they want, give them the fetus

They don't want the fœtus. They want a person to develop and be born.

 

[Fool]

But a fœtus is human -- as any histological or genetic analysis would demonstrate; but it is not a person.
The issue does not turn on humanness, but on personhood, which is a whole different thing.

If a flying saucer landed in your back yard/garden, and some little green men emerged and asked to see your leader, would you consider them people?
They're clearly not human, but would you afford them the same moral consideration, as persons, that you would a fellow human?

if someone wants to be responsible for the fetus; whether is it human or not, rip it out and give it to the one who wants someone to be responsible for it.