Should Individual US States Determine Who is a Human Being?

[MikeF]

Yes, they would be all human beings. And that is why Woody Allen can threaten to kill the dictator (his ear) while trying to escape.

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 to something more than that.

what is that more than that?

if you need to decide between 10 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?
rity

Ciao

- viole

I would not classify body parts as human beings and certainly not as entities with legal rights. The detached finger and cancer cells are parts of a human organism, but not an organism on which to confer rights.
Where do we draw the line? Do we include sperm and unfertilized eggs as having legal rights because of their potential? Does it start with the single cell fertilized egg? Is personhood granted to any material that has the potential to become a fully formed human organism?

Since the fertilization process and fetal development can fail at any point for natural reasons, I lean toward the standard of viability as the first threshold to be met.

The only authority for were the line should be drawn (in the US specifically) is from we the people, through our elected representatives. It is a political compromise of morays and values of the electorate.

 

[Fool]

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

then give them the fetus to be developed and born for them. it isn't someone else's responsibility to make another feel happy about their choices. it is hypocritical of a society that doesn't have a problem with euthanizing pets but they want to feel warm and fuzzy about making sure someone has an unwanted human.

give them the warm and fuzzy. put it in their hands. you want responsibility. you take it

 

[Subduction Zone]

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 problem that is a big "if". The belief that a fetus is a human being is not even biblical. The reinterpretation of the soul entering at birth is a very late belief among Protestants. And not even held by all Catholics.

What makes a human being a human being? As an unanswered question the decision about what to do with a fetus, embryo, or zygote belongs to the person most affected by it, the woman that is pregnant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

then give them the fetus to be developed and born for them. it isn't someone else's responsibility to make another feel happy about their choices. it is hypocritical of a society that doesn't have a problem with euthanizing pets but they want to feel warm and fuzzy about making sure someone has an unwanted human.

give them the warm and fuzzy. put it in their hands. you want responsibility. you take it

The vast majority of abortions occur before viability exists. I take it you have no problem with those abortions.

 

[viole]

I would not classify body parts as human beings and certainly not as entities with legal rights. The detached finger and cancer cells are parts of a human organism, but not an organism on which to confer rights.
Where do we draw the line? Do we include sperm and unfertilized eggs as having legal rights because of their potential? Does it start with the single cell fertilized egg? Is personhood granted to any material that has the potential to become a fully formed human organism?

Since the fertilization process and fetal development can fail at any point for natural reasons, I lean toward the standard of viability as the first threshold to be met.

The only authority for were the line should be drawn (in the US specifically) is from we the people, through our elected representatives. It is a political compromise of morays and values of the electorate.

I personally think that fertilized eggs do not have the same rights as full blown humans.i actually believe they have no rights whatsoever.

and I would challenge anyone to prove me wrong. For, who would sacrifice a 2 years old baby, so that 1000 human cells in a petri dish would survive?

suppose a missile is flying towards a school, where some few kids are still there. Now suppose you can deviate the trajectory of that missile so that it would hit, instead, a pharmaceutical research center with about 1 million alive single cellular human cells stored in special petri dishes.

what would a pro-life person do?

ciao

- viole

 

[Fool]

The vast majority of abortions occur before viability exists. I take it you have no problem with those abortions.

i do not. i don't believe the body creates the consciousness. i do not believe in forcing someone to be enslaved to anyone else's wishes; whether a fetus, or a viable human.

now if a female carries a fetus to full term and it's viable when born, that is a whole other pandora's box

 

[MikeF]

I personally think that fertilized eggs do not have the same rights as full blown humans.i actually believe they have no rights whatsoever.

and I would challenge anyone to prove me wrong. For, who would sacrifice a 2 years old baby, so that 1000 human cells in a petri dish would survive?

suppose a missile is flying towards a school, where some few kids are still there. Now suppose you can deviate the trajectory of that missile so that it would hit, instead, a pharmaceutical research center with about 1 million alive single cellular human cells stored in special petri dishes.

what would a pro-life person do?

ciao

- viole

And I would agree. Unfortunately there is no universal moral authority to appeal to. Each of us will decide individually based on upbringing, socialization, and experience. The legal standard will be set through political compromise among the varied opinions of the electorate. Since compromise is required, some, if not all, will be unhappy with wherever the line is drawn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

i do not. i don't believe the body creates the consciousness. i do not believe in forcing someone to be enslaved to anyone else's wishes; whether a fetus, or a viable human.

now if a female carries a fetus to full term and it's viable when born, that is a whole other pandora's box

By the way, there is a big myth about late term abortions. Very very very few of them are done simply because someone does not want a baby. Most of them are medically necessary and the woman has them not because she wants to but because her health or life is threatened. Optional abortions at that stage are very expensive, most doctors won't do them even if they do late term abortions. And they have their own possible complications. If a woman just wanted to get to end her pregnancy they almost all do it long before that.

 

[Valjean]

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.

You're being simplistic. Nobody wants the fœtus. The fœtus is not viable, it's only a potential. Removing it would kill it.
The anti abortionists want the potential to be realized, which means leaving it in place.

 

[Valjean]

This is a question of claim to moral consideration. What attributes confer moral consideration?

 

[MikeF]

This is a question of claim to moral consideration. What attributes confer moral consideration?

I would start by saying that one should have consciousness, the awareness of ones self and the external world, or have had these properties, to be given moral consideration.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

Well, since half the DNA in every cell in your body came from a sperm cell, the other have from an ovum, wouldn't we then have to count those as human, too? Making masturbation (at least for men) equivalent to murder.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I would start by saying that one should have consciousness, the awareness of ones self and the external world, or have had these properties, to be given moral consideration.

And the ability to survive without being parasitically dependent upon another being. We do not, for example extend moral consideration to tape worms -- we try to get rid of them as soon as possible.

 

[esmith]

You should add one more choice to your poll.

Should States have the right to determine abortion policy

 

[Wildswanderer]

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

Yes, the unborn should have the right and freedom to be born anywhere in the entire country.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

I think so. People should have the right to choose and states rights are paramount for a proper free country.


Weither it's plastic bags, sugary drinks, seat belts, helmets, tobaccos, gas vehicles, and abortion as long as the fetus cannot feel pain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, the unborn should have the right and freedom to be born anywhere in the entire country.

And what of he rights of the mother? Should we be able to enslave you for 9 months and leave permanent scarring on your body since you seem to think that it is okay to do that to women.

 

[Father Heathen]

I think so. People should have the right to choose and states rights are paramount for a proper free country.


Weither it's plastic bags, sugary drinks, seat belts, helmets, tobaccos, gas vehicles, and abortion as long as the fetus cannot feel pain.

So a country doesn't truly have freedom if certain segments of it can't arbitrarily deny you freedom? What about slavery or public hangings for homosexuals? Where/how would you draw the line?

You're so blindly loyal to a political party that you're performing mental gymnastics pretending to be pro freedom while excusing religious tyranny, but you're not fooling anyone here.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So a country doesn't truly have freedom if certain segments of it can't arbitrarily deny you freedom? What about slavery or public hangings for homosexuals? Where/how would you draw the line?

You're so blindly loyal to a political party that you're performing mental gymnastics pretending to be pro freedom while excusing religious tyranny, but you're not fooling anyone here.

I don't listen to authoritarian garbage tripe.

 

[Ponder This]

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?

There is no such thing as a right to abortion. No one is entitled to receive an abortion nor can the state compel a person to have an abortion. But, a person does, generally, have a right to refuse abortion (as a voluntary patient). In fact, a person, generally, has the right to refuse any medical operation or treatment (as a voluntary patient). Moreover, a doctor has the right to refuse to perform an abortion or other medical procedure (if the patient is not in immediate need of care).

States have the power to regulate abortions. In fact, the states have the power to regulate any medical procedure. This power is reserved to them by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

This means that a state has the power regulate abortions. A state can also ban medical procedures. This is why people are predicting that once the Supreme Court officially overturns Roe vs Wade, some states will outright ban abortion - because they have the power to do so.