Planned Parenthood T-Shirts

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Well, a human zygote is certainly human. So is a human spleen. So get down to define "being".

Only if you define "human" as "a cell or a group of cells, all of which contain DNA characteristic to the human species."

[Last Conformist]

Nyet. There's plenty of stuff I'd call human that do not contain any DNA, human or otherwise.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yes.

Why would I think otherwise?

Just that little detail that technology will make it possible to have a zygote from a single set of DNA, so the "genetic distinction" argument will be superseded.

Even while the unborn child is genetically distinct, and dependent on her mother for survival, it does not mean that she is an integral part of her body.

If it can not be separated without tissue death*, it's integral. Sorry, that's just the way it is. * = Even with medical intervention or support from another organism.

Without transportation, such capacity would also be unavailable to us.

Feet are such wonderful things. I spend a lot of time going from place to place on them.

A child cannot be delivered, except through the assistence of others. And even afterwards, the infant relies upon his mother for survival, and for nourishment.

Delivery with assistance is ideal for the safety of mother and baby, and is often necessary, but it is not an absolute biological requirement. The infant doesn't need the mother at all - do you think every infant dies if it's mother dies in childbirth or shortly thereafter? The whole point of being an independent organism isn't that it's a neonate mountain man, it's that care and support of the infant can be accomplished by nearly anyone.

Yet, we consider the infant a child and the embryo not to be a child.

One has an independent sustainable existence, the other has an absolute biological dependence on the specific individual carrying it, and is incapable of the most fundamental body functions unless and until it develops to the point where it is able to live as an independent organism.

Independence is irrelevant to personhood.

So all clones, identical twins or triplets, etc. are now one person? Shouldn't you rephrase that to "independence is irrelevant when I want it to be" in order to be consistent?

Very true. Which is why a new law would be the extension of prior laws in affirming the personhood of the unborn, as the prior laws affirmed the personhood of women, and of other races.

Good, so we'll issue "conception certificates" instead of birth certificates, allow tax benefits and shelters to be based on trusts and transfers to embryos, make use of the pill a felony equivalent to say, aggravated mayhem, and institute a whole new framework of state action relating to cell masses implanted within a uterus. That's logically consistent with equality of racial and gender status.

Granted. However, there are other causes of missing a period, and for puking in the morning. Such events would also require some indication of sexual activity in order to reasonably postulate a pregnancy.

All of which is irrelevant to the point, namely that quickening was not needed to ascertain pregnancy for the purpose of those statutes - had an individual committed an assault that induced miscarriage prior to quickening, there would be observable medical consequences to the woman as a result of that miscarriage.

And I think it's rather difficult to prove the last condition in court.

Not needed, see above.

Right, but they are valid responses to your herring, since they bring the discussion back to the real point, as to whether or not the unborn ought to be considered persons.

You've failed to demonstrate any biological basis for such a contention, and you've also failed to demonstrate any consistent basis in common law. Arbitrary state action is about the only thing you have left to hang your hat on, other than religious belief, which doesn't form a basis for law in the US.

If they are persons, then the state does not have the right to take away their life, since they do not fall under the common categories in which the state justifies the taking of human life.

Again, you (and the pro-lifers in general) have shown neither a biological nor a historical legal basis for conferring the legal status of being a "person" on a zygote, embryo or fetus. The only alternative is for the state to declare them "persons" by legislative action, without regard to biology or legal precedent.

Good thing Idealism trumps Realism in this case, eh?

Actually, it was more a matter of Kentucky long rifles, rebels and Frenchmen trumping Brown Bess muskets and Hessian mercenaries.

Which affirms my point. The state, without the support of the people, will fall to a revolution of the people, and their authority will be stripped.

So Cuba and the PRC (not to mention the Taleban, the Ayatollahs in Iran, and Saddam Hussein in Iraq) are or were all legitimate states with the support of their people, because they weren't overthrown? As Macchiavelli told us, the ruler need only strive to not be hated more than he is feared.

So, does this mean that the legislatures can redefine this definition, regardless of the participation of the courts?

Legislatures normally don't ask for court permission to pass laws.

That should they choose to do so, they can nullify Roe, without facing a constitutional challenge, by defining personhood to begin at conception?

That's an interesting strategy MtG.

Whether or not there's a constitutional challenge is a matter of whether or not a private litigant brings an action in the courts. Assuming you could get past vagueness (the legislature would have to have a single, consistent definition for "personhood" applicable to all related issues, not just abortion, and not "personhood" for some purposes, but not others), then the legislatures are free to attempt to do so. Missouri did so in the preamble and legislative intent sections to the statues that led to Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, but the legislature did not actually intend to, or attempt to, overhaul all areas of law relating to the rights of "persons."

Which affirms what I'm trying to say, that the distinction exists at conception.

Yes, we agree a conventionally fertilized zygote is genetically distinct from the separate contributors of it's genetic material. Trouble is, that doesn't make it a person, and you can only ignore biological independence if you ignore identical twins and clones.

If people are not informed of the abortifacient side-effect of the pill, and the pill providers do not readily provide such information, then they cannot be held at fault for pursuing such an option.

If I buy a Remington 700 .30-06 rifle, I do not need to probably be explicitly informed by the dealer that firing the rifle into the walls of random buildings might be hazardous. The literature on birth control pills has been out since the 1950's, and the only way someone "doesn't know" how it works is either not to care, or to remain purposefully ignorant. Depraved indifference or reckless disregard (the California term) merely requires that a reasonable person knows or ought to know the potential consequences of their actions.

Is there a requirement that those who prescribe the pill, to provide this evidence? There are plenty of people who are unaware of this connection, or this side effect.

The requirements are the same for any other prescription drug. The information is readily available, it is not concealed, and the only people who are "unaware" are those who choose to be "unaware."

Why use a mailed fist, when a velvet glove will work just as well?

I thought this was about "protecting" "unborn children?" So it's A-OK to allow high risk behaviors that would likely cause crippling birth defects or health issues at any time during the pregnancy, but not ok to prevent the implantation of a single-cell "person?" Consistency, Ben, consistency.

Removing the abortifacient side-effect accomplishes the end desired, which is to prevent the early abortions caused by the pill.

It's not a side effect. It's the entire purpose and function of the pill (elevating hormone levels to prevent implantation). You can't "remove" the effect. And the way it works is well known, thoroughly available in the public domain to anyone even vaguely interested, and usually the little product blurb that comes with prescriptions describes how it works. The Catholic Church has had it's position regarding the pill published for close to four decades now, so I doubt there are many people who don't know, unless they're just clueless about human sexuality in the first place.

I'd assume though, you'd want some changes in terminology to support your ideological point of view about "killing" a "child" rather than sticking with the basic biology?

If the woman seeks a later abortion, you prosecute the providers of abortion services, since they profit off their enterprise, and as doctors, can easily be said to be aware of their profession.

Another point of consistency. A woman solicits the murder of her "unborn child" and pays the killer, but she gets a free pass, and only the actual hitman is prosecuted? By all means, let's pardon John Gotti now.

Tackle the supply end. Birth control pills lose their effectiveness quickly.

Let's see how much legislative support there is for this position. I'd like to see the Christian right be honest and consistent about their legislative goals, instead of playing around with word games. Besides, oral contraceptives are available world wide - better expand the "War on drugs."

That illustrates a very good point. What are the essential parts of a human person? Unlike the car, replacing the parts, does not change the person. That's why I think that our DNA, if not embodying the essential part, represents the part since we retain that throughout our life.

So now if we merely extract the cellular DNA, we still have a "person?" - I think you're stretching a bit far in avoidance of biological independence. The "essential parts" of a human being are those which are required for existance as a biologically independent organism, no more and no less.

Same with the unborn child. She needs supplies before she will be ready to get there.

You can "get supplies" from any number of sources. You're not required to be implanted in, feeding off us, and deriving all life support from a single specific organism, whether that organism wants to provide such biological support or not.

And her transportation is not yet ready either.

Well, if it can't survive independently without even massive medical intervention, there's no basis for calling it a "person," so the point is moot.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Well, a human zygote is certainly human. So is a human spleen. So get down to define "being".

A human being would be any member of the species homo sapiens.

Not that this is connected to the trait "humanity", if by "humanity" you mean compassion, etc.

Plus, I think simply being a human being is a ridiculous moral standard, but hey, I didn't bring it up.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So, where does Roe say that only the state has an interest in the unborn child? Do they categorically reject that the child can have her own interests?

Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, the "unborn child" can't hire legal counsel to argue those rights.

And if you stick to the early enough stage of a pregnancy, before there is frontal lobe cortical function, you're really hard pressed to define that there are any interests other than the mothers.

All you have is your ideological assumption of what those interested will be at some point in the future, and you could make that argument on behalf of an egg.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


A human being would be any member of the species homo sapiens.

It occurs to me that I've never seen a definition of "member of a species" that bothered to designate exactly when something enters and exits that membership. I have read quite a few texts that have presupposed that death does not necessarily imply exit of species membership.

The answer, one suspects, is that the answer to that has little to no biological interest. Species, afterall, are taxonomical abstractions, whose borders often defy non-arbitrary definition (as do, BTW, those of an "organism"). Indeed, I'm hard pressed to think of any issue, beyond arbortion, where it is interesting to know exactly when something attains species membership.

The implication, I guess, is that trying to determine the status of abortion from general principles is going to fail.

Not that this is connected to the trait "humanity", if by "humanity" you mean compassion, etc.

It would never occur to me to use "humanity" in that sense in a discussion of membership in the category of "human being".

[Kuciwalker]

It occurs to me that I've never seen a definition of "member of a species" that bothered to designate exactly when something enters and exits that membership. I have read quite a few texts that have presupposed that death does not necessarily imply exit of species membership.

What?

The answer, one suspects, is that the answer to that has little to no biological interest. Species, afterall, are taxonomical abstractions, whose borders often defy non-arbitrary definition (as do, BTW, those of an "organism"). Indeed, I'm hard pressed to think of any issue, beyond arbortion, where it is interesting to know exactly when something attains species membership.

The implication, I guess, is that trying to determine the status of abortion from general principles is going to fail.

Which is one reason I consider being a "human being" an absurd standard for morality

[Last Conformist]

What?

We frequently speak of dead horses, who can only exist if being dead doesn't necessarily stop you from being a horse.

[Japher]

/me runs in and beats dead horse-like carcus thing

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

What?

We frequently speak of dead horses, who can only exist if being dead doesn't necessarily stop you from being a horse.

To be precise, one would say that it is the corpse of a horse. The dead body is not, precisely, a member of (what is the taxonomical name for a horse?).

[Ben Kenobi]

Horse?

Equus.

But then you have to deal with things like the female orgasm, which serves no real reproductive purpose.

Women are more likely to retain sperm when having an orgasm, so there is a connection between pleasure and reproduction.

[Ben Kenobi]

It occurs to me that I've never seen a definition of "member of a species" that bothered to designate exactly when something enters and exits that membership. I have read quite a few texts that have presupposed that death does not necessarily imply exit of species membership.

Biologically an entity does not 'enter' or 'exit' the species to which they belong, so that question is rather meaningless. Species is a characteristic of the entity, that cannot be removed without destroying the entity. Ergo, it is an intrinsic characteristic, unlike sentience which is an extrinsic characteristic, and an expression of intrinsic capacity.

Species, afterall, are taxonomical abstractions, whose borders often defy non-arbitrary definition (as do, BTW, those of an "organism").

Then what is the unborn child, if he is not a human being? Is he a dog, or a cat, or some other unnamed species?

The question is not, 'what are the borders for the definition of the human species', but rather whether or not the unborn child qualifies.

If the unborn child qualifies, then we ought to protect him, just as we would any other human being.

Secondly, biologists would not consider their definitions of what constitutes a species to be 'arbitrary' but rather, have real bearing on the real world. Whereas the relationship between species may be less certain, the existing boundaries would be much more concrete.

In any case, it's beside the point. The only thing we need to worry about here is whether or not the unborn child qualifies.

Not that this is connected to the trait "humanity", if by "humanity" you mean compassion, etc.

Which is not the sense that I am using the term. I am using the term 'human' in the biological sense, and not of that of compassion.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, the "unborn child" can't hire legal counsel to argue those rights.

Neither can children, yet they still have rights. Rights do not need to be defended by the person, but rather, exist independently of the capacity of the person to defend themselves. That's the whole point of having a right to life, in that the ones who would otherwise not be able to defend themselves would be protected.

And if you stick to the early enough stage of a pregnancy, before there is frontal lobe cortical function, you're really hard pressed to define that there are any interests other than the mothers.

So what about someone who is profoundly mentally handicapped, or trapped in a coma? Do they still have existing 'interests?' Just because the person cannot express their interests, does not mean that their interests are nullified.

All you have is your ideological assumption of what those interested will be at some point in the future, and you could make that argument on behalf of an egg.

No, I could not, because the egg is not an individual entity with DNA distinct from the other cells of the parent. The zygote is vastly different on all of these points from the egg.

Secondly, I make the assumption, that we should not kill another person without due cause. Just because the unborn child cannot express their desire to live, does not mean that they forfeit their protection. Rather, because they are so vunerable to the desires of others, they need to be protected to a greater extent.

[Ben Kenobi]

At any rate, you need to show that a zygote is a human being.

You have a single cell with the capacity to grow and develop, with a human genetic code distinct from the parents.

Secondly, by the definition of species, like begets like. Human parents can only produce other human beings.

Third, if one believes that an infant is a human being, and a zygote is not, but the parents are, this is a violation of the principle that human parents have human offspring. The only consistent defense is to say that the unborn child is human throughout their development, just as they are after birth.

[Ben Kenobi]

A very handy distinction for someone who would other wise be committing genocide once or twice a day.

Why not more frequently?