Planned Parenthood T-Shirts

[Ben Kenobi]

Uh, because the mother is a person in all legal meanings, and the zygote/embryo/fetus (depending on it's developmental state) is not.

That begs the question, MtG.

I'm asking why there should be a difference between the two. Why should developmental stage matter with respect to personhood? If we took this position to its logical conclusion, would we not also be able to say that because you are less developed, I can kill you?

Belief is irrelevant. In the indian case (Standing Bear v. Crook), the issue of tribal association was a technical issue of standing to sue. Under the law of the time, an indian had no individual rights other than such rights as might be conveyed or agreed upon by the United States to such tribe as a whole. Standing Bear took the position that he renounced his association to any tribe, and thus could not be relegated to a collective and inferior status as a member of the tribe.

Which is a little different from the statement that all men are created equal, and are granted by their Creator certain inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If the state can arbitrarily define some persons to be people, and others not to be persons, then the state has now granted itself the right to kill whomever it wants. The word inalienable, means that the rights are not granted by the state, but are instead recognised by the state. One could even argue that the state cannot assert such authority, as the primary duty of the state is to recognise and protect the inherent rights of all men.

I suggest you study some biology. You've decided the issue on religious grounds, and now you simply adjust the meaning of terminology and concepts of biology to fit what you've already decided.

I was a prolifer before I was Christian, MtG.

Biologically, human life begins at conception. The question here is whether the state should now recognise that human life, in all stages of development, ought to be considered a person.

One's "nature" as a "person" is a subjective concept.

No more subjective than the law, MtG. If this concept is subjective, then law is also subjective.

The biological condition of an undifferentiated cell or a 3-day embryo is different from that of a 15 week fetus, or a full term fetus.

There are differences, but why should they matter? In the past, it used to be recognised that the colour of one's skin was enough of a difference. Now, we say that the development is enough of a difference. Both positions are wrong, for the same reasons.

You were once an embryo, and a fetus, MtG. The only thing that has changed is your age. People grow, from conception, through various stages of development in a continuum. Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent. All names for different stages of development.

say before the fetus has a brain or vertebrae.

You need to study your biology, MtG. Fetus only applies to the unborn child after about the 10th week of development.

At that time, this is what you have.

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/index.html

Head

Brain structure of the fetus is complete and the brain mass increases rapidly

Socket for all twenty teeth are formed in gums.

Face has human appearance (nasolacrimal groove, intermaxillary segment).

Separate folds of the mouth fuse to form the palate.

Early facial hair follicles begin to develop.

Thorax

Vocal cords form in larynx and fetus can make sounds.

Abdomen

Intestines have migrated into abdomen from the umbilical cord. Digestive tract muscles are functional and practice contraction.

Nutrient-extracting villi line the now folded intestines.

Liver start to secrete bile, a thick, brown-green liquid containing bile salts, bile pigments, cholesterol and inorganic salts. The bile is stored in the gall bladder.

Development of thyroid, pancreas and gall bladder is complete. Pancreas starts to produce insulin.

Pelvis

Genitalia begin to show female characteristics (labium minus, urogenital groove, labium majoris) and male characteristics (glans penis, urethral groove, scrotum). Neither male nor female genitalia are fully formed.

Limbs

Fingernails begin to grow from nail beds.

Skin & Muscle

Fetus develops reflexes and the skin is very sensitive.

Nice strawman - there is no legal concept of "more of a person" or "less of a person." Is this something like "more pregnant" or "less pregnant?"

You are a person, or you are not. It's a legal term. Prior to birth, you are not.

Actually, what about a partial birth abortion? Clearly birth is no longer the dividing line.

I agree with you, you are either a person, or you are not. You cannot be a 'potential' person, nor can you be 'less than fully a person'.

So the question now becomes, where should that line be drawn? What age, MtG?

You have already conceded that the distinctions in the second trimester are arbitrary, so what makes these distinctions more arbitrary then those in the first trimester?

The only thing arbitrary about "viability" is that on the margins, it is subject to legitimate differences of expert opinion.

Viability is arbitrary because it measures our technology and not the child.

but the non-arbitrary alternative is "any time before birth."

Why? There is a better non-arbitrary alternative, conception. Biologically it makes much more sense, than birth, because the only thing that changes at birth is your location.

in that pre-viability it's very hard to build a rationale for a superior set of rights on behalf of something that can not exist independently of, or outside the body of, a single specific individual.

None of us exist independently of each other, we all are interdependent. So why should we have a higher standard for an unborn child than we do for ourselves?

[Ben Kenobi]

Plus, it's survival of the fittest. Nobody has a right to live.

Well, aside from the fascist nature

Who's the fascist here, Sava?

And somehow, MORE unwanted children doesn't sound like a good thing.

So we kill everyone who is unwanted by the state?

[Ben Kenobi]

an addendum. it has to have a time limit of a year and has to be inside of a female human's body during that year. an in vitro fertilized egg, not being inside of a human's body, would pass the test save for the fact that it is not implanted in a womb, and therefore avoids the entire issue of abortion by virtue of it not being involved in any way with the issues surrounding abortion, that of it being inside a woman's body and her right to choose whether or not she has a baby inside of her.

So you don't believe that the mother or the father has any claim over their children after a year? Do you believe that these organisations which freeze embryos, such as IVF clinics should be able to do whatever they want to these children?

I hate to burst your bubble, but these frozen embryos have became embroiled in this debate on abortion, even though they are outside of the body of the mother.

http://www.americaninfertility.org/faqs/aia_frozenembryo.html

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You were once an embryo, and a fetus, MtG. The only thing that has changed is your age. People grow, from conception, through various stages of development in a continuum. Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent. All names for different stages of development.

There's more than that. At some point in time, a human gains self-awareness. That's when the transformation to a person occurs.

[Agathon]

The shirt should say, "I wish your mother had had an abortion". Very good for starting fights.

[Ben Kenobi]

There's more than that. At some point in time, a human gains self-awareness. That's when the transformation to a person occurs.

Then you agree with Peter Singer who believes this happens after birth?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That begs the question, MtG.

I'm asking why there should be a difference between the two. Why should developmental stage matter with respect to personhood?

Well then, why not unfertilized eggs? After all, we're commanded to "be fruitful and multiply" and eggs and sperm both have distinct DNA from normal cells. By "developmental stage" you're not talking social development, emotional development, or anything else - you're talking basic anatomy. A being which does not yet have and has never had essential organs or the ability to survive separately from a specific individual in which that being is fully contained is hardly comparable to a separately existing individual at any stage of development.

If we took this position to its logical conclusion, would we not also be able to say that because you are less developed, I can kill you?

No. First problem is there probably isn't a man portable weapon and combination of skill in use and fieldcraft such that you could kill me in anything resembling an objectively neutral setting.

The second problem is that it's not a question of "more developed" or "less developed" - it's a question of crossing some minimum threshhold beyond which the legal status of being a separate "person" is conveyed.

The third problem is you'd have a tough time developing an objective standard for what is "more developed" or "less developed" other than a purely biological standard. The legal standard has been that one becomes a person at birth for centuries - well back into the common law.

Which is a little different from the statement that all men are created equal, and are granted by their Creator certain inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

A statement which has always been editorial opinion, and nothing more. Or if you want to be a literalist, you could argue women don't count, which is why so many men seem to want to assert control over women's reproduction.

If the state can arbitrarily define some persons to be people, and others not to be persons, then the state has now granted itself the right to kill whomever it wants.

Yes, a condition known as war. Or the death penalty.

The word inalienable, means that the rights are not granted by the state, but are instead recognised by the state.

Like it or not, the state is the body which defines the rights of those subject to it's power. As I tell David Floyd when he gets into one of his Liberterrarium babble-rants, if you want to argue natural rights, do so in a cage with a hungry tiger. Rights are strictly an abstract human creation.

One could even argue that the state cannot assert such authority, as the primary duty of the state is to recognise and protect the inherent rights of all men.

I was a prolifer before I was Christian, MtG.

And I'm a pro-lifer too, I just don't believe the state should have the power to inject itself into personal moral decisions unless and until there is a compelling state interest.

Biologically, human life begins at conception.

And this is meaningless. Yes, a human zygote is human, and it's a living cell. Same with a raccoon zygote.

The question here is whether the state should now recognise that human life, in all stages of development, ought to be considered a person.

A thousand or so years of legal history has pretty well answered that question. It is only fairly recently, and pretty much exclusively with respect to abortion (why not be honest and advocate prosecution of women who use the pill for capital murder?), that a one-off redefinition of the legal standard for being a person has become a political agenda for some.

No more subjective than the law, MtG. If this concept is subjective, then law is also subjective.

BINGO! What constitutes a "reasonable" search? Of course the law is subjective. It is a human creation, subject to revision and interpretation, and even selective application, by human beings.

There are differences, but why should they matter? In the past, it used to be recognised that the colour of one's skin was enough of a difference. Now, we say that the development is enough of a difference. Both positions are wrong, for the same reasons.

We're not saying "development" - we're saying "birth." The common law recognition of when an individual became a "person" dates back to at least the 13th century.

Comparing differences in the color of skin to differences in whether an organism is an invertebrate embryo or is post birth is absurd.

You were once an embryo, and a fetus, MtG. The only thing that has changed is your age. People grow, from conception, through various stages of development in a continuum. Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent. All names for different stages of development.

I was once an egg, too. Many things changed - for one thing, I haven't required the life-support services of my mother's uterus for some time, and during this process, I developed from an undiffertiated cell.

You need to study your biology, MtG. Fetus only applies to the unborn child after about the 10th week of development.

Will you forgive my occasional laziness when typing in a hurry, or must I use zygote/embryo/fetus at all times from now on?

None of us exist independently of each other, we all are interdependent. So why should we have a higher standard for an unborn child than we do for ourselves?

You're talking social constructs, not biological dependence. If every other human being was wiped off the planet earth but you, you would (assuming you didn't do something self-destructive) be biologically capable of survival. I know there's no shortage of stuff to eat around here - no lack of shelter, etc. It might get boring, but social dependence is nothing even close to biological dependence.


edit- friggin' quote tags.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Then you agree with Peter Singer who believes this happens after birth?

Self-awareness is another subjective concept. How do we define what constitutes self-awareness, let alone what actions by an individual constitute a demonstration that the individual is self-aware.

There is plenty of evidence (EEG, monitoring by ultrasound, etc.) that late term fetuses engage in a large variety of actions which are not mere stimulus-response.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
I hope people who wear these shirts die a painful and horrible death!

One in 4 women in Australia have had a termination.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well then, why not unfertilized eggs? After all, we're commanded to "be fruitful and multiply" and eggs and sperm both have distinct DNA from normal cells.

Yes, but they are not distinct from their parents. The sperm are cells of the father, and the eggs are cells of the mother. Special cells, but not distinct from the parents, as the zygote wouldbe.

A being which does not yet have and has never had essential organs

At that stage, such organs are not a prerequisite for survival.

the ability to survive separately from a specific individual in which that being is fully contained is hardly comparable to a separately existing individual at any stage of development.

The ability to survive is contingent on the environmental conditions. In a sufficiently harsh environment, even the supposedly independent people, would not be able to live on their own.

No different from the unborn child, in that at that stage, his environment is inside the womb.

First problem is there probably isn't a man portable weapon and combination of skill in use and fieldcraft such that you could kill me in anything resembling an objectively neutral setting.

Right, but is an abortion clinic an objectively neutral setting for the child?

The legal standard has been that one becomes a person at birth for centuries - well back into the common law.

One could argue that the common law has generally restricted such activities to kill the child inside the womb, which has only changed in recent years.

The requirement for quickening is more of a limitation of technology, in that they had no way to conclusively prove a pregnancy present, until quickening. Now our technology is more advanced.

The second problem is that it's not a question of "more developed" or "less developed" - it's a question of crossing some minimum threshhold beyond which the legal status of being a separate "person" is conveyed.

And historically, the common law has granted protection up until the moment when it could be shown that human life existed. Development does not enter the picture.

Yes, a condition known as war. Or the death penalty.

Has the unborn child violated any statute of the law warranting a death penalty?

Is the unborn child a threat to anyone else, necessitating self-defense?

if you want to argue natural rights, do so in a cage with a hungry tiger. Rights are strictly an abstract human creation.

That's not exactly the position of the founders in your Constitution, MtG.

Do you really want to give the state arbitrary powers with respect to human rights, the ability to grant and to nullify them at will?

I just don't believe the state should have the power to inject itself into personal moral decisions unless and until there is a compelling state interest.

And I think the life of another person constitutes compelling interest, which is why Roe scrupulously avoids the definition of a human person.

Yes, a human zygote is human, and it's a living cell. Same with a raccoon zygote.

But are an adult raccoon and adult human the same? If there is no difference between the two zygotes, why are there differences later on? Or are there very real differences in the zygotes which manifest themselves more obviously as they develop?

(why not be honest and advocate prosecution of women who use the pill for capital murder?),

The pill eh?

Because that is not the sole purpose of using the pill. People can use the pill without knowing that the pill can cause early abortions, in altering the tissue of the endometrium so as to prevent the implantation of a conceived embryo.

A better course would be to require all contraceptives to remove all abortifacient side-effects in order to be approved for use.

Comparing differences in the color of skin to differences in whether an organism is an invertebrate embryo or is post birth is absurd.

Why? Because they don't look the way that we expect people to look like after they are born?

That's a poor argument. The person looks different because that is how they are supposed to look at that stage of development.

or must I use zygote/embryo/fetus at all times from now on?

Just use unborn child and avoid that complication altogether.

you would (assuming you didn't do something self-destructive) be biologically capable of survival. I know there's no shortage of stuff to eat around here - no lack of shelter, etc. It might get boring, but social dependence is nothing even close to biological dependence.

But this depends on the environment. If I were at the north pole, then I would not be able to survive on my own without prior preparations.

If you allow me prior preparations, then the situation is analogous to human development in the womb, in preparing the child for life outside the womb.

[Alexander's Horse]

I think the welfare of the woman is more important than the welfare of an unborn child. My views flow from that.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I think the welfare of the woman is more important than the welfare of an unborn child. My views flow from that.

well obviously you are going to hell...

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Sava
well obviously you are going to hell...

I'll see you there then

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Verto will be so pleased to have a convert!

I bet it was Tass, actuallly.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then you agree with Peter Singer who believes this happens after birth?

Current evidence strongly suggests that, yes.