Planned Parenthood T-Shirts

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And Che makes a very good point.

I was going to clarify that, but Che's already brought that up.

An unborn child is not a person, because of the potential for viability, but rather, is a person because of what she already possesses at conception.

At conception you have the genetic code required to grow and develop, as a person distinct from either parent, a characteristic not possessed by sperm, and retained by the child throughout their life.

And this is all nice but entirely irrelevant from a legal point of view. We already recognize different levels of legal status for minors, for those who are mentally incompetent, and the law is able to do so also for fetuses. The legal status of a human being is not based on genetic code.

[Ben Kenobi]

If the child survives, it's pretty much by definition not "miscarriage".

Yes, which is why I quoted the NIV, which renders the word to 'gives birth prematurely.'

[Ben Kenobi]

And this is all nice but entirely irrelevant from a legal point of view. We already recognize different levels of legal status for minors, for those who are mentally incompetent, and the law is able to do so also for fetuses. The legal status of a human being is not based on genetic code.

So does this mean that someone who is mentally incompetant, or that minors have no legal status? Hardly. You acknowledge that there are different levels given in the law, so why does this mean that an unborn child ought to have no legal status whatsoever?

In fact, even R. v. Wade says that the state can have the preservation of the unborn child as one of it's duties, so that would seem to say that an unborn child does have certain rights.

All Roe argues is that there is a conflict of rights, and not an absence of them, to which one set of rights takes precedence over the other.

The legal status of whether something qualifies as a human being is not based on birth. So what is it based upon?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yes, which is why I quoted the NIV, which renders the word to 'gives birth prematurely.'

Which brings up another good point. There are too many mistranslations and interpretations of the Bible. It can no longer be considered a reliable source. God should release updates in all languages. That is... if God wrote the bible.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Sava
Which brings up another good point. There are too many mistranslations and interpretations of the Bible. It can no longer be considered a reliable source. God should release updates in all languages. That is... if God wrote the bible.

He did. It's called The Book of Mormon.

[Ben Kenobi]

There are too many mistranslations and interpretations of the Bible. It can no longer be considered a reliable source. God should release updates in all languages.

So only the originals are pure and uncorruptible, and we should all know Hebrew and Greek when dealing with Scripture.

The reality is that any compilation of the bible will suffer the same problems, even in the Septuagint. They use documents written quite some time in the OT, compared to the NT.

So it is impossible to get a single version with all the books done at the same time.

One advantage of the more modern translation is that they have access to older documents that were not accessible to older compilations such as the Septuagint, so we would expect the later versions to be more accurate than those of previous versions.

I would prefer to have a translation in the vernacular, such that people could become familiar with scripture with greater ease than they would otherwise.

That is... if God wrote the bible.

Through his apostles and prophets.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's called The Book of Mormon.

Verto will be so pleased to have a convert!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So does this mean that someone who is mentally incompetant, or that minors have no legal status? Hardly. You acknowledge that there are different levels given in the law, so why does this mean that an unborn child ought to have no legal status whatsoever?

In fact, even R. v. Wade says that the state can have the preservation of the unborn child as one of it's duties, so that would seem to say that an unborn child does have certain rights.

Precisely. The state is able to assert an independent interest in the rights of the fetus upon viability. End of problem.

All Roe argues is that there is a conflict of rights, and not an absence of them, to which one set of rights takes precedence over the other.

Well, there's no argument that there's a conflict of rights - clearly the woman carrying the fetus has some "right" with respect to medical issues affecting her own body. The question is if/whether/when a competing party with an independent set of rights comes into being.

The legal status of whether something qualifies as a human being is not based on birth. So what is it based upon?

Like most legal issues, it is based on whatever criteria the overall lawmaking bodies (legislators, judiciary, constitution) enact. Indians weren't persons under US law at all until 1879, and only then if they dissociated themselves from their tribes, and only if they happened to be in Nebraska.

[St Leo]

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

I'm such a tease.

[Ben Kenobi]

The state is able to assert an independent interest in the rights of the fetus upon viability.

So why should viability be the standard for personhood?

Didn't Roe admit that 'no one knows when life begins?'

Well, there's no argument that there's a conflict of rights - clearly the woman carrying the fetus has some "right" with respect to medical issues affecting her own body.

Actually, that is the argument in the trimester framework of Roe, that there are competing rights involved prior to viability.

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

Section X.1

"These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes 'compelling.' "

So this admits that the interests begin well before viability. The issue of compelling always involves competing rights, in that there are other rights that take precedence to the interest of the government, as Roe puts it, to 'potentiality of human life.'

[Ben Kenobi]

it is based on whatever criteria the overall lawmaking bodies (legislators, judiciary, constitution) enact. Indians weren't persons under US law at all until 1879, and only then if they dissociated themselves from their tribes, and only if they happened to be in Nebraska.

Correct. So do you not find this distinction equally arbitrary as the framework designated in Roe?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So why should viability be the standard for personhood?

It isn't. Viability is only the standard for whether the state can assert an independent protective interest in the fetus, contrary to the interest of the woman carrying it.

Actually, that is the argument in the trimester framework of Roe, that there are competing rights involved prior to viability.

Interests don't necessarily give rise to rights, and the terms are not synonomous in law. There is also a difference between a party actually having a particular right or interest, or merely asserting that they do so.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, and it NEEDS to be pointed out that the 'interests' in Roe refer to the state's interests in perserving unborn life and the woman's interest in her own body. The unborn's interest doesn't factor into the equation.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Correct. So do you not find this distinction equally arbitrary as the framework designated in Roe?

No.

The decision to dissociate oneself from a native tribe is a matter of behavior, not of status, therefore it is supremely illogical to use it as a basis to determine one's legal status as a human being. Using it to determine one's legal status (a la declaratory relief) with respect to tribal membership and rights, treaty obligations upon the tribe but not upon individuals, etc. is perfectly sound, but using it to determine whether one is a human being or not is absurd.

The framework created in Roe is limited to the single purpose of determining whether there are separate competing rights such that the state can assert a protective interest independent of the woman carrying the fetus. A "viable" but unborn fetus has no other rights in law - not to child support (not unless born), not to inherit property, or sue (via a guardian at litem), to own or dispose of property, to be enumerated in any census, or anything else.

Prior to Roe, states asserted an independent interest in a fetus in a manner totally inconsist with any other legal rights or statutory framework. Roe did the states and pro-lifers a favor by creating a standard which allowed them to assert an independent protective interest before birth.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, and it NEEDS to be pointed out that the 'interests' in Roe refer to the state's interests in perserving unborn life and the woman's interest in her own body. The unborn's interest doesn't factor into the equation.

I thought I already made that clear.

I guess I didn't

Thanks Imran.