Person or not a person?

[Temujin]

But you give me no reason, aside from "becasue the law says so" as to why a fetus should not be a person subject to rights. How is "becasue the law says so" an argument for anything?

Because we have nothing else, other than opinion or superstition. The legal position is the only clear objective position we have. If abortion is to be sanctioned, controlled, regulated or prevented, then the law must be involved. What we are discussing is the legality of abortion, which is itself based on what is legally considered to be a person. The only reality is the legal reality.

Your "Becasue the law says so" is nothing but question begging. The debate here is not what the law says, but whether the law accurately reflects reality.

This is like saying "There are no human beings that are enslaved, becasue the law does not recognize the humanity of black people" during times of slavery.

You keep banging on about slavery. There is a similarity to slavery here, but as with so much else, you have it the wrong way round. Slaves are owned. They have no rights even over their own bodies or their own reproduction functions. When you deny a woman an abortion, you make her a slave, a mere broodmare, used by society to produce yet another unwanted, unhappy, disadvantaged child.

This is why you leftists don't seem to grasp about truth. There is no "Her truth" "His truth" "Truth as you see it" there is just Truth. One's subjective opinions about what is true don't create Truth. I can subjectively believe that grass has no color becasue I cannot perceive color in grass. That does not entail there is no color in grass. What that means is that I have a problem with perception. My perception is wrong, due to a defect in my eyes. I say this for example. I am not colorblind.

And what does this have to do with anything?

No, abortion is legal precisely becasue the majority perception, namely, that a fetus is not a human being, is wrong.

If the fetus was not a human being, sure it would! If the fetus was not a human being, I would be standing with all the abortion supporters defending a woman's right to "choose."

No, it is legalized precisely becasue people are blind to the injustice done to the fetus. They wrongly think that a fetus is not a human person subject to rights.

We certainly are not. The pro-abortion movement has a perception problem, just like the slave owners did. Like the slave owners, they are attempting to define what is and is not a human person based on what is good for them, rather than what is true.

"This is why you leftists don't seem to grasp about truth. There is no "Her truth" "His truth" "Truth as you see it" there is just Truth. One's subjective opinions about what is true don't create Truth".
Leaving aside the fact that abortion has no more to do with political leanings than it does with religious leanings, this paragraph of yours is ironically the nub of the whole matter. Personhood is not a physical property like colour or mass or velocity. It is a human construct, entirely abstract, without reference in the physical world at all. It has no truth value. Like solidarity, patriotism, justice, elitism, it means different things to different people depending on circumstances. The only Truth, in the sense of an objective definition that we have, is the legal one. You are claiming Truth, but on what basis? You haven't said anything about WHY your position is the Truth. It is in fact your opinion, which has no more authority than any other opinion, including mine. On this subject, subjective opinion is all there is. Like beauty, personhood, less the legal definition, is in the eye of the beholder. What you behold as Truth, I behold as dangerous nonsense.

So , since I state that you have not explained what your notion of Truth is, I should surely explain mine, which contrary to what you say, is not based on the legal definition. It's difficult to tie down in words what a person is, except by giving examples. A newborn baby is clearly a person. It is independent, has agency, is an individual human being, which though very vulnerable is not dependent on any one particular other person, but can be cared for by anyone. A newly fertilised egg is clearly not a person. It has a small number of amorphous cells, it has no independence and cannot be transferred from one uterus to another. It cannot even be described as individual, since it has the capacity to split into two or more separate individuals. It has unique human DNA but so has a cancer cell. It doesn't look like or act like a recognisable human being. It has no agency.

So at some point between fertilization and birth the organism becomes a person. In most cases, I am content to leave it at that, respecting the mother's feelings in the matter. However, solely for the purpose of law, it is necessary to draw a line. The simplest place to draw a line is birth, and for all practical purposes, that's what everyone does, and always have done. Korean law has just been changed to recognise this reality. But I accept that if we are talking about abortion, then the moment of delivery is not an appropriate place to draw the line. I say that we draw the line when the foetus is sufficiently developed to survive delivery, whether or not it is delivered. So no abortion for third trimester pregnancy except where the foetus is malformed to the point of not being viable. Sadly, not all pregnancies are the same, and that point is not precisely determinable. I personally, would set the limit at twenty weeks, but I would not quibble with twenty four or with sixteen. Most abortions take place before twelve weeks, and after that there are normally unusual circumstances in play.

So, human, alive and capable of surviving and thriving after birth. Not very precise, but as honest as I can be. That's my version of the Truth. And it is just as true and valid and authentic as yours, the basis of which you have not explained so far.

 

[BMS]

Because we have nothing else, other than opinion or superstition.

We have the observable reality that the human being is in the womb, its the same entity and so whether we call it a person and you call it a foetus doesn't change it being the same human being. That means its superstition as far as your opinion goes.

The legal position is the only clear objective position we have.

But its not though. That is the point of the thread. You are ignoring the UK law.

If abortion is to be sanctioned, controlled, regulated or prevented, then the law must be involved.

It is, its the thread, the OP and the legal case in it.

What we are discussing is the legality of abortion, which is itself based on what is legally considered to be a person. The only reality is the legal reality.

No, I am discussing that, you aren't

When you deny a woman

What do you mean by a woman?

If you want to discuss what you think truth is, first you need to abandon the lies that you peddle, not least gender identity and the Offenses against the person UK law. At the moment you are posturing as though you alone know what truth is.

So at some point between fertilization and birth the organism becomes a person.

Depends who thinks so.

 

[BMS]

What is abortion, sir? What happens in an abortion? What does the doctor do in an abortion?

Hi romishpopishorganist. I would be interested in your appraisal of my post #62

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Hi romishpopishorganist. I would be interested in your appraisal of my post #62

Very good!

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Because we have nothing else, other than opinion or superstition. The legal position is the only clear objective position we have.

The very laws you appeal to are based on the exact same opinion and superstition you accuse me of.

If truth is relative, the only reason the law is what it is, is becasue at this time a majority of the people happen to support abortion. The reason the law is what it is, is not becasue it is correct, only becasue this is where the majority is at the time.

If abortion is to be sanctioned, controlled, regulated or prevented, then the law must be involved. What we are discussing is the legality of abortion, which is itself based on what is legally considered to be a person. The only reality is the legal reality.

As I said, the "legal reality" you keep appealing to is no more objective than my or your views. The "legal reality" right now is only what it is becasue a majority of people subjectively believe that a fetus is not a person.

You keep banging on about slavery. There is a similarity to slavery here, but as with so much else, you have it the wrong way round. Slaves are owned. They have no rights even over their own bodies or their own reproduction functions. When you deny a woman an abortion, you make her a slave, a mere broodmare, used by society to produce yet another unwanted, unhappy, disadvantaged child.

Sir, when we are discussing abortion, I do not care what a woman wants to do with HER body. I care what she wants to do to the body of someone else. Outside of cases of rape or incest, the woman choose to get pregnant. That was her choice. No one forced her into that. She could have chosen to take a number of steps to avoid pregnancy, she chose not to do so. She has to accept the consequences of her actions. There is a human being growing inside of her that she does not get to murder---just becasue it is there. The time to think about whether one wants to be pregnant or not--is BEFORE they get pregnant!

Abortion is about what women want to do to their unborn child, not THEIR bodies. As I continue to say to you sir, if a woman goes to the doctor and wants her Gall Bladder taken out, no one cares. If a woman wants a leg cut off, no one cares. If a woman wants have her womb taken out so she cannot get pregnant, no one cares. Why? Because none of that involves human people.

You abortion supporter types keep talking about the woman's body, but forget about the body of the fetus.

"This is why you leftists don't seem to grasp about truth. There is no "Her truth" "His truth" "Truth as you see it" there is just Truth. One's subjective opinions about what is true don't create Truth". Leaving aside the fact that abortion has no more to do with political leanings than it does with religious leanings,

What does that have to do with anything? It is true that leftists tend to see abortion as a sacrament, conservatives are against it. What does that have to do with abortion itself, however?

this paragraph of yours is ironically the nub of the whole matter. Personhood is not a physical property like colour or mass or velocity. It is a human construct, entirely abstract, without reference in the physical world at all.

Sir, just becasue it is not a SCIENTIFIC, just becasue personhood is "abstract" and not something you can put under a "scope" in some lab some place does not entail it is SUBJECTIVE. This is the problem with you "science" and only "science" types. You think anything that cannot be determined using the tools of scientific inquiry is subjective. Science gives us knowledge about certain aspects of our world. Science cannot give us answers about everything however.

It has no truth value. Like solidarity, patriotism, justice, elitism, it means different things to different people depending on circumstances. The only Truth, in the sense of an objective definition that we have, is the legal one. You are claiming Truth, but on what basis? You haven't said anything about WHY your position is the Truth. It is in fact your opinion, which has no more authority than any other opinion, including mine. On this subject, subjective opinion is all there is. Like beauty, personhood, less the legal definition, is in the eye of the beholder. What you behold as Truth, I behold as dangerous nonsense.

People have different concepts about what is beautiful. It does not entail that there is no objective beauty. Everyone agrees that beauty exists, even if they cannot agree on what is or is not beautiful. Everyone agrees that justice exists, even if they do not always agree on what is or is not just.

If a fetus isn't a person, then what IS it? A horse? A cat? A dog? A brain cell? A Nephron? A Loop of Henle? A Gall Bladder? What? Tell me what it is!

So , since I state that you have not explained what your notion of Truth is, I should surely explain mine, which contrary to what you say, is not based on the legal definition. It's difficult to tie down in words what a person is, except by giving examples. A newborn baby is clearly a person. It is independent, has agency, is an individual human being, which though very vulnerable is not dependent on any one particular other person, but can be cared for by anyone.

Why should "independence" be the hallmark of personhood? On what basis do you make "independence" the basis of personhood?

A newly fertilised egg is clearly not a person. It has a small number of amorphous cells, it has no independence and cannot be transferred from one uterus to another.

So? What does this have to do with personhood?

It cannot even be described as individual, since it has the capacity to split into two or more separate individuals. It has unique human DNA but so has a cancer cell. It doesn't look like or act like a recognisable human being. It has no agency.

The Zygote has human DNA, a cancer cell has human DNA, therefore, a cancer is a zygote!

This reminds me of Family Guy where and Peter's logic: "Brian, Kerosine is fuel, Red Bull is fuel, therefore Kerosine is Red Bull."

I didn't realize that doctors treat pregnancy with Chemotherapy and radiation. I didn't realize that Zygotes could metastasize. Is a woman 6 months along in her pregnancy--what--at---stage 6 cancer? Once she gets to 9 months it is all over? Does a woman say "I have terminal Zygote cancer. I have 9 months to live!"

The fact that you compare a fetus to cancer shows the utter desperation you have in justifying abortion. Women get to murder their unborn children becasue cancer has human DNA just like a Zygote.

What does appearance have to do with human personhood? There are a lot of people who do not look at all human becasue of some tragic injury. Are they not human becasue they do not look human?

So at some point between fertilization and birth the organism becomes a person.

At some point that you arbitrarily determine.

In most cases, I am content to leave it at that, respecting the mother's feelings in the matter.

But the mother's subjective whims, emotions, and passions have nothing to do with anything here. It doesn't matter how she subjectively feels about the pregnancy. That is no bearing on what the fetus is.

However, solely for the purpose of law, it is necessary to draw a line. The simplest place to draw a line is birth, and for all practical purposes, that's what everyone does, and always have done.

That isn't true. Ever hear of "Partial birth abortion?" What was it before birth? Why is birth the line?

Korean law has just been changed to recognise this reality. But I accept that if we are talking about abortion, then the moment of delivery is not an appropriate place to draw the line. I say that we draw the line when the foetus is sufficiently developed to survive delivery, whether or not it is delivered.

Well we are getting some place then. Suppose medical technology advances to the point where a Zygote could now live outside the womb and continue to develop and grow. Would that make it a person then?

 

[mikeT]

The very laws you appeal to are based on the exact same opinion and superstition you accuse me of.

Except, of course, that codified laws are objective, and not subjective like opinions are. That's all objectivity is in the human world. An objectively real thing exists such that most (if not all) people can perceive it and agree that it exists.

A posted speed limit is an objective law; it is not subject to human opinions about what speed they think they should be able to drive. Test the speed you're driving at, and most (if not all people) will be able to know whether you've violated the law.

That's how stable human societies are built, and will continue to be built into the distant future.

You would not enjoy one based upon human opinion...

 

[Temujin]

The very laws you appeal to are based on the exact same opinion and superstition you accuse me of.

So what? Not that this is true, but it doesn't affect my point of it is.

If truth is relative, the only reason the law is what it is, is becasue at this time a majority of the people happen to support abortion. The reason the law is what it is, is not becasue it is correct, only becasue this is where the majority is at the time.

I didn't say that truth is relative. But essentially what you say about the law is true. It is mutable.

As I said, the "legal reality" you keep appealing to is no more objective than my or your views. The "legal reality" right now is only what it is becasue a majority of people subjectively believe that a fetus is not a person.

. The legal reality is objective because it is the same for everyone, whether or not they agree with it. Objective doesn't mean the same thing as unchanging.

Sir, when we are discussing abortion, I do not care what a woman wants to do with HER body. I care what she wants to do to the body of someone else. Outside of cases of rape or incest, the woman choose to get pregnant. That was her choice. No one forced her into that. She could have chosen to take a number of steps to avoid pregnancy, she chose not to do so. She has to accept the consequences of her actions. There is a human being growing inside of her that she does not get to murder---just becasue it is there. The time to think about whether one wants to be pregnant or not--is BEFORE they get pregnant!

Abortion is about what women want to do to their unborn child, not THEIR bodies. As I continue to say to you sir, if a woman goes to the doctor and wants her Gall Bladder taken out, no one cares. If a woman wants a leg cut off, no one cares. If a woman wants have her womb taken out so she cannot get pregnant, no one cares. Why? Because none of that involves human people.

You abortion supporter types keep talking about the woman's body, but forget about the body of the fetus.

That's because , until birth occurs, the foetus is an extension of the woman's body . It certainly isn't in a position to claim it for itself. It has profound effects on her body, many of them potentially harmful. She has every right to take steps to prevent these harmful effects.

What does that have to do with anything? It is true that leftists tend to see abortion as a sacrament, conservatives are against it. What does that have to do with abortion itself, however?

nothing as far as I'm concerned. You brought it up. Why?

Sir, just becasue it is not a SCIENTIFIC, just becasue personhood is "abstract" and not something you can put under a "scope" in some lab some place does not entail it is SUBJECTIVE. This is the problem with you "science" and only "science" types. You think anything that cannot be determined using the tools of scientific inquiry is subjective. Science gives us knowledge about certain aspects of our world. Science cannot give us answers about everything however.

People have different concepts about what is beautiful. It does not entail that there is no objective beauty. Everyone agrees that beauty exists, even if they cannot agree on what is or is not beautiful. Everyone agrees that justice exists, even if they do not always agree on what is or is not just.

Nobody disputes that personhood exists as a concept, but they have different ideas about what it should include.

If a fetus isn't a person, then what IS it? A horse? A cat? A dog? A brain cell? A Nephron? A Loop of Henle? A Gall Bladder? What? Tell me what it is!

It's a foetus. Specifically a human foetus. Why should that make it a person?.

Why should "independence" be the hallmark of personhood? On what basis do you make "independence" the basis of personhood?

On the basis of my opinion.

The Zygote has human DNA, a cancer cell has human DNA, therefore, a cancer is a zygote!

The Zygote has human DNA, a cancer cell has human DNA, therefore having human DNA is not proof of personhood. Your logic is completely screwed. Try to read more carefully next time.

What does appearance have to do with human personhood? There are a lot of people who do not look at all human becasue of some tragic injury. Are they not human becasue they do not look human?

Shrug. Tell that to the Pro-life propagandists and their photos. As you say, appearance has nothing to do with personhood.

At some point that you arbitrarily determine.

That's right. An arbitrary point drawn through a fuzzy and indeterminate process. Because the law doesn't deal with fuzzy indeterminate processes. If there's to be any legal control of abortion at all, then an arbitrary point must be selected.

But the mother's subjective whims, emotions, and passions have nothing to do with anything here. It doesn't matter how she subjectively feels about the pregnancy. That is no bearing on what the fetus is.

It has every bearing on how the foetus should be treated.

Well we are getting some place then. Suppose medical technology advances to the point where a Zygote could now live outside the womb and continue to develop and grow. Would that make it a person then?

No, it wouldn't make it a person, but it would radically change the landscape for both abortion and adoption. It's a shame nobody is working on it. I presume that any worthwhile research would be unethical.

I note that you still haven't explained why you think that a foetus should be a person. Perhaps you forgot...

 

[BMS]

In UK law the unborn human being in the womb is sometimes considered a person as the OP shows.
The case in the OP and thread was indeed specifically posted because Temujin specifically denies it.
Now we see the measure of his bigotry.

 

[BMS]

So what? Not that this is true, but it doesn't affect my point of it is.
I didn't say that truth is relative. But essentially what you say about the law is true. It is mutable.

. The legal reality is objective because it is the same for everyone, whether or not they agree with it. Objective doesn't mean the same thing as unchanging.

That's because , until birth occurs, the foetus is an extension of the woman's body . It certainly isn't in a position to claim it for itself. It has profound effects on her body, many of them potentially harmful. She has every right to take steps to prevent these harmful effects.

nothing as far as I'm concerned. You brought it up. Why?

Nobody disputes that personhood exists as a concept, but they have different ideas about what it should include.

It's a foetus. Specifically a human foetus. Why should that make it a person?.

On the basis of my opinion.

The Zygote has human DNA, a cancer cell has human DNA, therefore having human DNA is not proof of personhood. Your logic is completely screwed. Try to read more carefully next time.

Shrug. Tell that to the Pro-life propagandists and their photos. As you say, appearance has nothing to do with personhood.

That's right. An arbitrary point drawn through a fuzzy and indeterminate process. Because the law doesn't deal with fuzzy indeterminate processes. If there's to be any legal control of abortion at all, then an arbitrary point must be selected.

It has every bearing on how the foetus should be treated.
No, it wouldn't make it a person, but it would radically change the landscape for both abortion and adoption. It's a shame nobody is working on it. I presume that any worthwhile research would be unethical.

I note that you still haven't explained why you think that a foetus should be a person. Perhaps you forgot...

Cis-personhood or trans-personhood?

 

[BMS]

Except, of course, that codified laws are objective, and not subjective like opinions are. That's all objectivity is in the human world. An objectively real thing exists such that most (if not all) people can perceive it and agree that it exists.

A posted speed limit is an objective law; it is not subject to human opinions about what speed they think they should be able to drive. Test the speed you're driving at, and most (if not all people) will be able to know whether you've violated the law.

That's how stable human societies are built, and will continue to be built into the distant future.

You would not enjoy one based upon human opinion...

That doesnt really make sense. Subjective is by definition where there are opinions and emotions involved whereas objective means opinions and emotions make no difference.
The speed limit is subjective. The law has been determined by what people subjectively set the speed limit at. The speed is objective, people cant say 30 mph is 40 mph in my view.
The abortion time limits are subjective. 24 weeks in one country and 11 in another. One based on survivability outside the womb and the other based on sentience. The time is objective, one cant say my 11 weeks for you would be 15.

 

[Temujin]

As I have posted several times now on this thread, I think it would be sensible to actually reply directly to the OP despite me having him on ignore.

Essentially the OP makes two points. He asks whether prison is an appropriate sentence for the case in his link, and also asserts that the mere existence of the case is sufficient to prove that the foetus is regarded as a person. I'll take this point first, and apologies in advance to non-Brits as it involves some arcane details of British law.

A woman who took abortion medication far later in pregnancy than permitted, was convicted under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act and sent to jail. This doesn't indicate that the foetus is a person for four distinct reasons.
1. Chopping someone's leg off with a machete is an offence against the person, but this doesn't mean that the severed leg is a person. The person is the victim. Administering noxious substances in order to induce a miscarriage is an offence against the person who is pregnant. This applies even if that person consents, or indeed if it is then that is administering the poison. Can't commit a crime against yourself? Of course you can, at least until 1961 when attempting suicide was decriminalised.

2. The name of an Act does not imply that all offences under that Act are described by that name. For example, in the UK, if you break into someone's house with intent to rape, you are committing burglary, which is an offence under the Theft Act. Thus the name Offences Against the Person Act 1861, does not imply that all offences described in it are offences against a person.

3. In 2014 a case was brought by a local authority acting on behalf of a girl with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, seeking criminal damages.
It was alleged that her mother had committed a crime under section 23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; namely that she had unlawfully administered to “any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing” and as a result had inflicted grievous bodily harm. There was no dispute that the mother had administered the relevant “thing” as a result of her excessive alcohol consumption or that CP (the girl in question) had sustained the necessary degree of harm – what was in issue was whether CP was “any other person.”
The Court of Appeal found that the foetus is not a person, citing an earlier ruling by the House of Lords. Hence the assertion made by the OP, that the case he links to shows that UK law , in particular the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, treats the foetus as a person, has been tested directly by the courts and found to be false.

4. The judgement of the House of Lords referred to above can be found in the link below. It's a long read but it establishes beyond doubt that firstly the foetus is not a person until born, and that this has been recognised since medieval times. Secondly it finds quite categorically that a foetus cannot be a victim of crime, and in particular cannot be subject to murder.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd970724/gneral05.htm

Apologies again to anyone still reading for the length of this post. Suffice to say that once again the OP has been shown to be making unfounded assertions, based on faulty and superficial reading of events, without bothering to perform any checking. He will doubtless respond to this post with continued faulty blusters, but I won't be reading them as I continue to have him on ignore. I will however, address the second element of his op in a separate post.

 

[Temujin]

But the mother's subjective whims, emotions, and passions have nothing to do with anything here. It doesn't matter how she subjectively feels about the pregnancy. That is no bearing on what the fetus is.

I answered this by say that the mother's feelings have everything to do with how the foetus is treated. I think that this is worth expanding. Take the case of two women in identical circumstances, in late pregnancy and diagnosed with a serious medical condition such as cancer, the treatment of which would be hazardous for the foetus. The only difference between them is that one suffers from cognitive disability beyond the point where she is able to make decisions regarding her own care. Those making decisions for her care are required by UK law to take the safe delivery of a healthy foetus as a desirable outcome, and to try and arrange treatment options that would enable this, where possible. In contrast, the woman who has capacity to make her own decisions is under no such obligation. She can, if she wishes, disregard the potential outcome for her foetus entirely when choosing treatment options. That is specifically the law in the UK, and I agree with it, not because it is the law but because I think it is reasonable. The whole essence the Pro-Choice position is that the pregnant woman is free to choose from legal options, what to do with her body, whatever the consequences for her foetus and whether or not other people approve. So in answer to your post, the mother's subjective whims, emotions, and passions have EVERYTHING to do with what we are discussing here, and can never be dismissed out of hand.

 

[BMS]

Appolgies to anyone who has had to read the attempt by Temujin to try and save face. He must have spent ages trying to find something.
Sadly for Temujin there is no direct reference to the foetus not being a person, only an opinion that it isnt a living person. Well if it isnt a living person it would be a dead person.
Naah. Just goes to show how much woke will not accept evidence reason or logic

 

[romishpopishorganist]

The legal reality is objective because it is the same for everyone, whether or not they agree with it. Objective doesn't mean the same thing as unchanging.

When I use the word "objective" I mean "In accord with Truth" that is to say "conforms to what reality truly is." For example, "The sky is usually colored blue" is true becasue--the sky is usually colored blue. It is a true statement becasue it accurately captures reality. That the sky is usually colored blue is true regardless if whether one believes this to be the case, can see that this is the case, or perceives that the sky is usually green. If someone perceives the sky to be a different color than blue---we would say--the person's perception is off. We would not say "Oh, well, the sky must not be blue!"

That's because , until birth occurs, the foetus is an extension of the woman's body.

Um, no, it certainly is not an "extension" of the woman's body. The woman and the fetus are two distinct beings. The fetus is connected to his or her mother, yes, but the fetus exists independently of the woman. The fetus depends on his or her mother for nutrients, yes, but the fetus is an independent being.

It certainly isn't in a position to claim it for itself. It has profound effects on her body, many of them potentially harmful. She has every right to take steps to prevent these harmful effects.

Which is why if a pregnancy puts the life of the mother danger--that is---the mother will die unless her child is removed from the womb, I believe it is moral to remove the child from the womb. But in such case, the doctors should do all they can to save the life of the child if the child is viable. If the child is not viable, than allow the child to pass away.

Nothing as far as I'm concerned. You brought it up. Why?

Your post seemed to suggest that the reason conservatives are pro-life is not becasue they want to protect the rights of the unborn but becasue they want to control women. They fear in this modern world loss of power and privilege.

Nobody disputes that personhood exists as a concept, but they have different ideas about what it should include.

Yes, this is true. The problem is that every idea about what includes "personhood" threatens the lives of those outside the womb under certain conditions. This is the danger of arbitrarily defining personhood any other way but the capacity for rational thought.

It's a foetus. Specifically a human foetus. Why should that make it a person?

Because it has the capacity for rational thought. This is what makes a human being a human being: the capacity for rational thought.

The Zygote has human DNA, a cancer cell has human DNA, therefore having human DNA is not proof of personhood. Your logic is completely screwed. Try to read more carefully next time.

I didn't say DNA proves that a fetus is human, did I? In fact, I think DNA is irrelevant--since our DNA is something like 99% similar to a Chimp. If we define human being by DNA, we might as well be glorified monkeys, rather than human beings. We are all in trouble in such a case.

Shrug. Tell that to the Pro-life propagandists and their photos. As you say, appearance has nothing to do with personhood.

I agree. This is why I think the pro-lifers should not emphasize appearance. That said-------if you want to go by appearance, then it is clear that abortion can and should be banned after a certain stage in the pregnancy.

That's right. An arbitrary point drawn through a fuzzy and indeterminate process. Because the law doesn't deal with fuzzy indeterminate processes. If there's to be any legal control of abortion at all, then an arbitrary point must be selected.

Then there is no reason to draw the line at conception. We should err on the side of caution when there is dispute, don't you think? The safer course is to err on the side of life and love, than not.

It has every bearing on how the foetus should be treated.

Yeah? Does an infant's rights depend on the mother's passions, whims and subjective emotions on how it should be treated? Does a woman get to say "I don't want to be a mother anymore, so I get to kill my infant child!" No.

No, it wouldn't make it a person,

Then your argument about viability and independence is irrelevant--hence why I asked the question. You don't really care about "viability" or "independence."

but it would radically change the landscape for both abortion and adoption. It's a shame nobody is working on it. I presume that any worthwhile research would be unethical.

I note that you still haven't explained why you think that a foetus should be a person. Perhaps you forgot...

A fetus is a human person becasue it has the capacity for rational thought.

Please do not respond with "But, but, but, wait! Dolphin's have been show to be able to reason through and complete tasks! By your logic, Dolphins are human too! So there!" This tends to be the response of abortion supporters to this argument, and it is a stupid argument.

The capacity for rational thought involves more than "training" an animal to do tricks on command, and more than even being able to reason out to be able to complete very basic tasks.

To put it simply: can Dolphin's even come close to doing what we are doing right now? Can any animal? No.

 

[BMS]

Good reply romish

 

[romishpopishorganist]

I answered this by say that the mother's feelings have everything to do with how the foetus is treated. I think that this is worth expanding. Take the case of two women in identical circumstances, in late pregnancy and diagnosed with a serious medical condition such as cancer, the treatment of which would be hazardous for the foetus. The only difference between them is that one suffers from cognitive disability beyond the point where she is able to make decisions regarding her own care. Those making decisions for her care are required by UK law to take the safe delivery of a healthy foetus as a desirable outcome, and to try and arrange treatment options that would enable this, where possible. In contrast, the woman who has capacity to make her own decisions is under no such obligation. She can, if she wishes, disregard the potential outcome for her foetus entirely when choosing treatment options. That is specifically the law in the UK, and I agree with it, not because it is the law but because I think it is reasonable. The whole essence the Pro-Choice position is that the pregnant woman is free to choose from legal options, what to do with her body, whatever the consequences for her foetus and whether or not other people approve. So in answer to your post, the mother's subjective whims, emotions, and passions have EVERYTHING to do with what we are discussing here, and can never be dismissed out of hand.

And I have already showed why "pro-choice" is a lie.

You do not believe people should have the right to choose to keep arms for the purposes of self defense. In this country, many "pro-choicers" do not believe that one should have the right to "choose" the best school for their children. Government will tell them where to send their children to school unless they can afford to send their children to private school. Many pro-choicers do not believe people should be free to choose whether to take an experimental vaccine. Government will order you to take the vaccine or else.

Thus, pro-choice is a lie. Pro-choicers aren't for choice and "options" they are for abortion. Period.

 

[Temujin]

When I use the word "objective" I mean "In accord with Truth" that is to say "conforms to what reality truly is." For example, "The sky is usually colored blue" is true becasue--the sky is usually colored blue. It is a true statement becasue it accurately captures reality. That the sky is usually colored blue is true regardless if whether one believes this to be the case, can see that this is the case, or perceives that the sky is usually green. If someone perceives the sky to be a different color than blue---we would say--the person's perception is off. We would not say "Oh, well, the sky must not be blue!"

which is the same way I define it and the reason why legal reality is objective. There's no rationale way to say that legal reality is not True .

Your post seemed to suggest that the reason conservatives are pro-life is not becasue they want to protect the rights of the unborn but becasue they want to control women. They fear in this modern world loss of power and privilege.

I'm glad that this is what my post suggests, as it is what I meant to suggest. Though I should add that not all conservatives are pro-life so this is not meant as a universal condemnation, just a statement of opinion.

Yes, this is true. The problem is that every idea about what includes "personhood" threatens the lives of those outside the womb under certain conditions. This is the danger of arbitrarily defining personhood any other way but the capacity for rational thought.

Not if, as is actually the case, being born is one of the defining characteristics.

Because it has the capacity for rational thought. This is what makes a human being a human being: the capacity for rational thought.

Hahaha 🤣🤣🤣 Hahaha!!!. What an absurd statement. For most of the period for which abortion is permitted, the foetus doesn't even have a brain. There's certainly no rational thought going on until well after birth, arguably well after the first birthday. My son works with profoundly disabled young adults, some incapable of rationale thought at any stage of their lives. Are they then not persons? Should we be euthanasing all those incapable of rational thought, from those with dementia to those who are blind drunk? Chimpanzees have the capacity for rational thought, similar to a three year old child. They are better than many humans at mental mathmatics. The capacity for rational thought is the most bizarrely stupid idea for personhood I have heard yet.

Perhaps you meant that the foetus has the potential for rational thought at some future point. Well of course, but no-one argues that the foetus will not become a person at some future point. The issue is about now. Why should a foetus be treated as a person now, just because it might become a person in the future. That's like building a bridge out of acorns.

I didn't say DNA proves that a fetus is human, did I?

. I didn't say that you did, did I? The fact is that some do, including my little stalker who is convinced that human DNA is in fact the defining characteristic of a person.

I agree. This is why I think the pro-lifers should not emphasize appearance. That said-------if you want to go by appearance, then it is clear that abortion can and should be banned after a certain stage in the pregnancy.

I have always agreed that abortion should be banned after a certain stage of pregnancy, except in very extreme circumstances.

Then there is no reason to draw the line at conception. We should err on the side of caution when there is dispute, don't you think? The safer course is to err on the side of life and love, than not.

I agree totally. There's no reason to draw the line at conception. That would be bizarre. There's every reason to er on the side of caution, which is why I would set the limit at 24 weeks even though very few survive if delivered at that point. I am completely on board with the life and love of the mother by supporting her in her wishes, whether I personally agree with them or not.

Yeah? Does an infant's rights depend on the mother's passions, whims and subjective emotions on how it should be treated? Does a woman get to say "I don't want to be a mother anymore, so I get to kill my infant child!" No.

Of course not, because the infant is a person.

Then your argument about viability and independence is irrelevant--hence why I asked the question. You don't really care about "viability" or "independence."

Viability is not affected by your hypothetical. Independence is. The result of your hypothetical would be to remove personhood from the debate, since it would be possible to abort a pregnancy without the inevitable death of the foetus.

A fetus is a human person becasue it has the capacity for rational thought.

. See above for my thoughts on this. I'd love to know where you got this risible idea from.

Please do not respond with "But, but, but, wait! Dolphin's have been show to be able to reason through and complete tasks! By your logic, Dolphins are human too! So there!" This tends to be the response of abortion supporters to this argument, and it is a stupid argument.

The capacity for rational thought involves more than "training" an animal to do tricks on command, and more than even being able to reason out to be able to complete very basic tasks.

To put it simply: can Dolphin's even come close to doing what we are doing right now? Can any animal? No.

Can any animal do better than a foetus at rational thought? Virtually any animal with a brain, yes.[/Qu

 

[Temujin]

And I have already showed why "pro-choice" is a lie.

No, you have not. Stating your opinion is not equivalent to showing that your opinion is true. Particularly when your opinion, as here is manifestly stupid.

]
You do not believe people should have the right to choose to keep arms for the purposes of self defense. In this country, many "pro-choicers" do not believe that one should have the right to "choose" the best school for their children. Government will tell them where to send their children to school unless they can afford to send their children to private school. Many pro-choicers do not believe people should be free to choose whether to take an experimental vaccine. Government will order you to take the vaccine or else.

Thus, pro-choice is a lie. Pro-choicers aren't for choice and "options" they are for abortion. Period.

There are a great many things about which people should not be allowed a choice. They should not be allowed to steal other people's possessions, to drive while intoxicated, to use violence against others without good reason. Other things they should have choice about, the choice of political candidate, the choice of which TV station to watch and newspaper to read, the choice of where to live. The Pro-Choice position refers purely to abortion, just as the Pro-life position does. Pro-Choice wants abortion to be one of those things that every pregnant should have the chance to choose. It doesn't advocate total freedom of choice in every aspect of life. The word for that position is anarchist. Just as Pro-life supporters are not pro-life in every circumstance. All you are doing is demonstrating hypocrisy, since if the Pro-Choice position is a lie because supporters are against choice in the area of gun control ( something that you have not shown to be true, incidentally), then the Pro-life position is a lie because supporters are in favour of the death penalty, or indeed in the right to shoot people they feel threatened by.

Your argument is a total bust.
Period.

 

[BMS]

The OP is a case highlighting the foetus being treated in law as a person.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

There are a great many things about which people should not be allowed a choice. They should not be allowed to steal other people's possessions, to drive while intoxicated, to use violence against others without good reason.

Well, of course I agree with this! I never claimed that being pro-choice means allowing people to "choose" to commit crimes!

And by the way----using a gun for self defense is not violence. Violence involves attacking another person and attempting to seriously hurt them or kill them for whatever reason. If a gun or other weapon is used in an attack, then it would be an act of violence. But the use of a gun or other weapon to repel an attack is not violence. That is legitimate self-defense.

Self defense involves the use of force, even deadly force to repel or stop the attack. The reason I feel the need to point this out is becasue the left doesn't seem to grasp the distinction between self-defense and violence. Some of the most radical left do not even believe we have the right to defend ourselves if we are attacked! The lawyer prosecuting Kyle Rittenhouse actually argued with a straight face "Sometimes we have a duty to just take the beating." Yeah---no. Whatever you believe about Rittenhouse--assuming you know what I am referring to---we do not have a duty to take a beating.

The point is----self defense with a weapon like a gun is not violence. Defense is not violence.

Other things they should have choice about, the choice of political candidate, the choice of which TV station to watch and newspaper to read, the choice of where to live.

This much is true. I never said pro-choicers want to deny people these rights.

The Pro-Choice position refers purely to abortion, just as the Pro-life position does.

Then why can't you say what you are really about? THAT is my point! Why speak in euphemisms? Why not say "Yes, I am pro-abortion, and proudly so! I would tell a woman to have an abortion at any time, for any reason, and I would do it twice on Sunday!"

The fact that abortion supporters have to speak in euphemisms says something. They are dishonest.

And yes, I agree that pro-lifers are really about abortion too. I can't stand it when people start talking about a "Consistent Life Ethic" becasue that is a Red Herring. It allows abortion supporters to change the subject so they don't have to talk about abortion.

Pro-Choice wants abortion to be one of those things that every pregnant should have the chance to choose. It doesn't advocate total freedom of choice in every aspect of life.

Then stop with the euphemisms! Just say "I am pro-abortion, and twice on Sunday!" At least then--you will be honest.

The word for that position is anarchist.

No it isn't. I never claimed that being pro-choice means supporting the right to choose to commit crimes. You say the examples I have. None of those examples involve committing crimes.

Just as Pro-life supporters are not pro-life in every circumstance.

Correct! Suppose I support the use of the death penalty--and--suppose---I grant that this makes me a hypocrite. So what? It has nothing to do with abortion. It would not follow abortion is justifiable becasue I support the death penalty. It would just make me a hypocrite.

The reason pro-lifers coined the term "pro-life" was becasue abortion supporters insist on speaking in euphemisms like "choice" as if choice was the issue. If abortion supporters would just be honest and say "Yes, I am pro-abortion, and twice on Sunday" then pro-lifers could rightly say they are "anti-abortion."

All you are doing is demonstrating hypocrisy, since if the Pro-Choice position is a lie because supporters are against choice in the area of gun control ( something that you have not shown to be true, incidentally), then the Pro-life position is a lie because supporters are in favour of the death penalty, or indeed in the right to shoot people they feel threatened by.

I do not at all grant that this is the case. You are comparing apples and oranges for starters. This, not to mention that no one who supports second amendment rights supports the right to use a gun for the purposes of violence or to break the law. But even if I grant your argument, that does not prove that pro-lifers are wrong about abortion, sir. Abortion is the issue here.