Vatican says gays are undeserving of basic human rights.

[Felch]

The discussion has moved on. It's no longer about whether it's legal, it's just about what circumstances.

We shouldn't allow fanatics to skewer the debate.

Labeling your opponents fanatics instead of contributing to a debate. Classy and constructive.

When they have an elderly person physically attached to them then their opinion as to the fate of the elderly person will carry more weight than mine.

Do conjoined twins have the right to harm each other?

If a fetus didn't like being aborted, why doesn't it say something? Implicit agreement.

So I can murder deaf-mutes now? I'll just tell the jury that they implicitly agreed to be killed by not saying anything. Hell, I can set myself up on the roof of a building, and shoot passersby. As long as none of them have said that they didn't want to be shot, I'm not violating their rights according to you.

I love how you guys are so certain that you're correct, and your arguments are all so weak and poorly thought out. Face facts. Terminating a pregnancy for no good reason is a barbaric custom. Just because it's socially accepted doesn't make it right.

[loinburger]

Do conjoined twins have the right to harm each other?

Poor example. A common fate of conjoined twins is that they are separated and one dies due to e.g. their having shared vital organs. So yes, if their lives are in danger (as is usually the case) as a result of being conjoined then they have the right to be separated at the likely cost of one of their lives.

[Ming]

However, a pregnancy without complications usually does not result in the mother dying.

The key word is "usually"... IT HAPPENS. And if you knew somebody who had the wife die giving birth when no complications were expected, maybe you would understand and not make light of it.

No biologist would debate "when life begins," or "what is a human being."

BS... I know biologists that would argue that a fetus is not a human being... they would call it what it is... a fetus.

The only question that I'm talking about is "should a fetus have rights." I believe that all humans should have human rights, and I believe that a fetus is human.

You are welcome to your opinion... but that's all it is.

There's nothing religious about this. If you disagree with the idea that a fetus is a living human being, you should come up with some evidence to support that claim.

Why don't you come up with evidence that there is universal support of your "opinion"

By the way, claiming that a fetus is part of the woman's body is baseless. It's clearly a separate organism, although not a parasite, because it is of the same species. If women don't like that, tough. We don't always get what we want. Part of having rights is the responsibility to respect the rights of others. It's why we wait at traffic lights and don't steal our neighbor's mail.

Yep... a fetus isn't a parasite, but it is a part of the woman's body. To claim otherwise is just plain silly. I respect the right of a woman to make her own choice about her body and her life.
A fetus isn't an OTHER, it's a fetus, a part of the woman's body.

If you have a problem with abortion... great. ORDER YOUR WOMAN not to do it... since you seem to want to dictate to woman what they can and can not do with their bodies.
But I'm going to respect the rights of woman to make their own choice.

[Felch]

Straw man crap... and you know it. Old people and people who aren't them are PEOPLE by EVERY definition of law in this country and they do indeed have rights. To kill them is indeed murder.

Corporations are people. Why not extend personhood to a fetus?

That is NOT the case with a fetus. You can PERSONALLY have a BELIEF that life begins with conception, but that's not the way EVERYBODY looks at it, and the law (at this point in time in this land) disagrees with you.

Oh, because you failed biology. Life begins at conception. The law does not extend human rights to pre-birth humans, but then again, it used to not extend human rights to blacks. Is the law always right, or should we consider changing it?

And I will say again, having a baby can be a death sentence for a woman... shouldn't she have the right to defend herself?

Self-defense is not a blanket excuse to kill anybody who may at some point harm you. You can only use lethal force if you believe that there is a reasonable chance for serious injury or death. In other words, a pregnancy without complications doesn't justify this claim.

[Felch]

Poor example. A common fate of conjoined twins is that they are separated and one dies due to e.g. their having shared vital organs. So yes, if their lives are in danger (as is usually the case) as a result of being conjoined then they have the right to be separated at the likely cost of one of their lives.

That's the most common fate, but what about those rare cases where the twins live for extended periods as conjoined twins? Were Chang and Eng Bunker individuals with their own rights or not?

[loinburger]

Poor example. A common fate of conjoined twins is that they are separated and one dies due to e.g. their having shared vital organs. So yes, if their lives are in danger (as is usually the case) as a result of being conjoined then they have the right to be separated at the likely cost of one of their lives.

I do recall a thread about conjoined twins who were going to be separated so that one of them could survive while the other died, the alternative being that both would die. Ben the Uber-Catholic vociferously objected, stating that it was better for both to die.

[loinburger]

That's the most common fate, but what about those rare cases where the twins live for extended periods as conjoined twins? Were Chang and Eng Bunker individuals with their own rights or not?

Sure, I'm not familiar with them but I'm assuming that neither was brain-dead, which is the only thing in my opinion that can turn a human person into a human not-person ("human" being a biological definition that isn't up for debate, but "person" being a legal/ethical definition that is debatable - for example, I don't believe that human rights extend to non-persons such as humans who are brain-dead as a result of injury or drug overdose or whatever). Likewise once an unborn human not-person has the mental capacity to be a human person it should no longer be legal to abort it except in extreme circumstances (e.g. high probability of death of the mother during delivery). IIRC at the third trimester the fetus exhibits brain activity, but not before.

[Felch]

The key word is "usually"... IT HAPPENS. And if you knew somebody who had the wife die giving birth when no complications were expected, maybe you would understand and not make light of it.

I'm not making light of it. I'm saying it's not a legal defense. People die in unexpected ways all the time, but using violence to defend yourself is only justified when you have a reasonable belief that you are in grave danger. You're the one twisting self-defense to mean whatever you want it to mean.

BS... I know biologists that would argue that a fetus is not a human being... they would call it what it is... a fetus.

So what species is it then?

Why don't you come up with evidence that there is universal support of your "opinion"

You want me to provide evidence that a fetus is alive? How about the fact that it metabolizes nutrients, grows, maintains homeostatis, and in all other ways exhibits signs of life?

Yep... a fetus isn't a parasite, but it is a part of the woman's body. To claim otherwise is just plain silly. I respect the right of a woman to make her own choice about her body and her life. A fetus isn't an OTHER, it's a fetus, a part of the woman's body.

Whoever told you that women have a body part called "a fetus" did you a disservice. It is clearly a distinct organism, with its own genetic code and rate of senescence. It is an other, in no uncertain terms.

If you have a problem with abortion... great. ORDER YOUR WOMAN not to do it... since you seem to want to dictate to woman what they can and can not do with their bodies. But I'm going to respect the rights of woman to make their own choice.

I don't own a woman to order around, but passing laws doesn't imply that. You don't have to own me to tell me not to kill people. That's a patently absurd argument.

[Ming]

Corporations are people. Why not extend personhood to a fetus?

Maybe because corporations act in the world... make contracts, can be sued, and consist of a group of people...

The law does not extend human rights to pre-birth humans, but then again, it used to not extend human rights to blacks. Is the law always right, or should we consider changing it?

The majority of people in the US believe that blacks should have the same rights as everybody else, and that's why it's the law... and that's a good thing.
The law does not extend human rights to a fetus because the majority doesn't believe they should... is it a good thing or right... who knows. But I do know that a woman has rights. And right now, the law doesn't support your argument, and probably won't change in the near future.

Self-defense is not a blanket excuse to kill anybody who may at some point harm you. You can only use lethal force if you believe that there is a reasonable chance for serious injury or death. In other words, a pregnancy without complications doesn't justify this claim.

First, I'm not talking about "anybody"... a fetus isn't a person. You can argue that it is, but it's simply an opinion... one not shared by the majority of people.
Second, I am saying that woman has the right to avoid a situation that might kill or hurt her if another person's rights are not being abused. She should be allowed to make the decision since it is HER life at stake.

It must be easy for you to make that decision for her since you will never personally have to make it for yourself...

[Felch]

Sure, I'm not familiar with them but I'm assuming that neither was brain-dead, which is the only thing in my opinion that can turn a human person into a human not-person ("human" being a biological definition that isn't up for debate, but "person" being a legal/ethical definition that is debatable - for example, I don't believe that human rights extend to non-persons such as humans who are brain-dead as a result of injury or drug overdose or whatever). Likewise once an unborn human not-person has the mental capacity to be a human person it should no longer be legal to abort it except in extreme circumstances (e.g. high probability of death of the mother during delivery). IIRC at the third trimester the fetus exhibits brain activity, but not before.

They were the classic "Siamese Twins" of P.T. Barnum's circus. But your argument on brain-death is sound. I'm willing to accept that brain activity is a respectable boundary line for society to draw.

[MikeH]

Labeling your opponents fanatics instead of contributing to a debate. Classy and constructive.

That is genuinely how it is seen by the vast majority in Europe. AFAIK out of all the first world nations this is only controversial in the US.

[Felch]

The majority of people in the US believe that blacks should have the same rights as everybody else, and that's why it's the law... and that's a good thing.
The law does not extend human rights to a fetus because the majority doesn't believe they should... is it a good thing or right... who knows. But I do know that a woman has rights. And right now, the law doesn't support your argument, and probably won't change in the near future.

I'm aware of the law's rejection of human rights for fetal humans. I'm saying we should change it, just as we overturned the Dred Scott decision by amending the Constitution. You're so stuck in your arch-conservative ways that you can't even conceive of a world where human rights are enjoyed by fetuses.

First, I'm not talking about "anybody"... a fetus isn't a person. You can argue that it is, but it's simply an opinion... one not shared by the majority of people.
Second, I am saying that woman has the right to avoid a situation that might kill or hurt her if another person's rights are not being abused. She should be allowed to make the decision since it is HER life at stake.

I'm talking about extending personhood to a fetus, and you're rejecting it because a fetus isn't a person?

It must be easy for you to make that decision for her since you will never personally have to make it for yourself...

I don't have kids, so I'm not allowed to oppose child abuse either. Maybe people who don't own guns shouldn't be able to vote on gun laws.

[Felch]

That is genuinely how it is seen by the vast majority in Europe. AFAIK out of all the first world nations this is only controversial in the US.

We've always been the pioneers. Don't worry, in a few generations Europe will catch up.

[loinburger]

They were the classic "Siamese Twins" of P.T. Barnum's circus.

I just looked them up on Wikipedia. Holy crap. Obviously things worked out in the sack for them, but I've got to think it was a bit awkward at times

[MikeH]

We've always been the pioneers. Don't worry, in a few generations Europe will catch up.

Economically you're a powerhouse, socially you're an out of date religious backwater.