 |
| |
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
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.
|
Each is genetically unique. Do you think zygotes, embryos and fetuses conceived by artificial insemination should have the same rights as those conceived naturally? i.e. the method by which the DNA is combined is irrelevant to their "nature as persons?" 
quote:
At that stage, such organs are not a prerequisite for survival.
|
They're a prerequisite for survival as an independent entity, i.e. as a separate person. If you want to argue that the zygote or embryo is simply a genetically distinct cell mass that is an integral part of a womans body and dependent on it for it's continued existence, that's ok.
quote:
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.
|
One then either changes environment directly, adapts to it, or changes location. Of course, if the entire surface of the earth turns to molten lava and the oceans boil away, we're all SOL and the entire point is moot.
quote:
No different from the unborn child, in that at that stage, his environment is inside the womb.
|
Actually, very different - in your first scenario, there is the option to change the environment or location. Inside the womb, there is no internal or external possibility of changing the environment or transplanting to a different environment until viability.
quote:
Right, but is an abortion clinic an objectively neutral setting for the child?
|
If the "child" can walk out, be carried out, or be delivered and sustained separately from the woman's body carrying the child, then certainly. Otherwise, you don't have a "child."
quote:
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.
|
Of course, one could point out that such actions weren't murder at common law, but lesser offenses, so there was (a) a recognition that the full legal status of being a "person" didn't apply prior to birth; and (b) the law(s) which generally governed such offenses was the law of chattels and that of the master-servant relationship which governed the husband-wife relationship. The issues at common law were not based on a notion of a "right to life" of a "person" not yet born.
quote:
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.
|
Not really - pregancy could be assumed from symptoms, and quickening could be merely assumed as reaching  a certain stage of development. Women had figured out that puking in the morning and missing one's period were pretty likely indicators way before quickening. Not 100% indicators, but commonly reliable indicators.
quote:
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.
|
Wrong. "Protection" changed (at quickening) from none to lesser offenses analogous to damage against chattel or a servant, and (at birth) from such lesser offenses to murder. The common law clearly recognized stages of fetal/neonate development, without having the medical language to explicitly describe those stages. The nature of the legal "protection" changed abrubtly at those stages of development.
quote:
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?
|
I see red herring is in season. We were discussing the power of the state to define for itself it's prerogatives for taking life, not any actions by a fetus, which by definition can't violate any statutes, since it's not a legal person.
quote:
That's not exactly the position of the founders in your Constitution, MtG.
|
They were idealists. King George III wasn't.
quote:
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?
|
The state de facto has those powers - martial law, states of emergency, wartime powers, or mere tyranny. The only ultimate "remedy" if the state is not responsive to the expressed desires of the people is the remedy of rebellion.
quote:
And I think the life of another person constitutes compelling interest, which is why Roe scrupulously avoids the definition of a human person.
|
Actually, Roe avoids the definition because the legislatures and common law have defined it - at birth.
quote:
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?
|
The only difference is the DNA sequencing of a single celled organism. What it would become later is irrelevant to what it is at the moment.
quote:
The pill eh?
Because that is not the sole purpose of using the pill.
|
I'll try that as a defense to murder - Gee, your honor, killing my neighbors wasn't my sole purpose in demolishing the building they lived in while they slept, I really just wanted to improve my view of downtown and Mission Bay. 
quote:
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.
|
{Sam Waterston voice}The knowledge is widely and readily available. They acted with depraved indifference.
If a conceived zygote is a "person" why is taking a pill without knowledge of how the pill works a defense to killing the zygote? In fact, let's get to early prenatal care and healthy lifestyles. If it's a child, let's go prosecute any woman who engages in behavior we consider risky for early embryonic and fetal development. Why not? It's at least consistent with the view that the conceived zygote is a legal person and the state has a compelling interest in that "person's" life and well-being.
quote:
A better course would be to require all contraceptives to remove all abortifacient side-effects in order to be approved for use.
|
Well, first we'd better outlaw the existing ones, require women to turn them in, and hunt down and destroy these WMDs.
quote:
Why? Because they don't look the way that we expect people to look like after they are born?
|
It has nothing to do with looks. It has to do with the presence of essential parts. Maybe I should sell you a car without an engine and transmission for full price. It's the same car, just at a different stage of development.
quote:
That's a poor argument. The person looks different because that is how they are supposed to look at that stage of development.
|
Looks aren't the issue. Structure is.
quote:
Just use unborn child and avoid that complication altogether.
|
It's not an unborn child until late fetal development.
quote:
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.
|
Since you're not there now, you presumably had some means to get there and supplies to consume while you were on the way.
Last edited by MichaeltheGreat on 31-07-2004 at 05:37
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
Each is genetically unique. Do you think zygotes, embryos and fetuses conceived by artificial insemination should have the same rights as those conceived naturally? i.e. the method by which the DNA is combined is irrelevant to their "nature as persons?"
|
Yes.
Why would I think otherwise?
Part of the opposition to IVF of the Catholic church stems from the fact that many of the embryos created by IVF are killed. This only makes sense if one believes that the method of their conception is irrelevant to their status as a person.
quote:
They're a prerequisite for survival as an independent entity, i.e. as a separate person. If you want to argue that the zygote or embryo is simply a genetically distinct cell mass that is an integral part of a womans body and dependent on it for it's continued existence, that's ok.
|
How many eyes does a pregnant woman have, Mtg?
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.
In fact, I could argue that an organ is an integral part of the human body, but it is not genetically distinct from the body. Therefore, the first statement contradicts the second.
quote:
Actually, very different - in your first scenario, there is the option to change the environment or location. Inside the womb, there is no internal or external possibility of changing the environment or transplanting to a different environment until viability.
|
Without transportation, such capacity would also be unavailable to us.
quote:
If the "child" can walk out, be carried out, or be delivered and sustained separately from the woman's body carrying the child, then certainly. Otherwise, you don't have a "child."
|
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.
Yet, we consider the infant a child and the embryo not to be a child.
Independence is irrelevant to personhood.
quote:
The issues at common law were not based on a notion of a "right to life" of a "person" not yet born.
|
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.
quote:
Women had figured out that puking in the morning and missing one's period were pretty likely indicators way before quickening. Not 100% indicators, but commonly reliable indicators.
|
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.
And I think it's rather difficult to prove the last condition in court.
quote:
We were discussing the power of the state to define for itself it's prerogatives for taking life, not any actions by a fetus, which by definition can't violate any statutes, since it's not a legal person.
|
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.
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.
It's also a subtle point that distinguishes prolifers from each other. I just prefer to affirm that the state has no such right to take human life, but that is not something on which everyone agrees.
quote:
They were idealists. King George III wasn't.
|
Good thing Idealism trumps Realism in this case, eh?
quote:
The state de facto has those powers - martial law, states of emergency, wartime powers, or mere tyranny. The only ultimate "remedy" if the state is not responsive to the expressed desires of the people is the remedy of rebellion.
|
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.
quote:
Actually, Roe avoids the definition because the legislatures and common law have defined it - at birth.
|
So, does this mean that the legislatures can redefine this definition, regardless of the participation of the courts? 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.
quote:
The only difference is the DNA sequencing of a single celled organism.
|
Which affirms what I'm trying to say, that the distinction exists at conception.
quote:
Gee, your honor, killing my neighbors wasn't my sole purpose in demolishing the building they lived in while they slept, I really just wanted to improve my view of downtown and Mission Bay.
|
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.
quote:
The knowledge is widely and readily available. They acted with depraved indifference.
|
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.
quote:
If it's a child, let's go prosecute any woman who engages in behavior we consider risky for early embryonic and fetal development. Why not? It's at least consistent with the view that the conceived zygote is a legal person and the state has a compelling interest in that "person's" life and well-being.
|
Why use a mailed fist, when a velvet glove will work just as well?
Removing the abortifacient side-effect accomplishes the end desired, which is to prevent the early abortions caused by the pill.
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.
quote:
Well, first we'd better outlaw the existing ones, require women to turn them in, and hunt down and destroy these WMDs.
|
Tackle the supply end. Birth control pills lose their effectiveness quickly.
quote:
It has nothing to do with looks. It has to do with the presence of essential parts. Maybe I should sell you a car without an engine and transmission for full price. It's the same car, just at a different stage of development.
|
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.
quote:
Since you're not there now, you presumably had some means to get there and supplies to consume while you were on the way.
|
Same with the unborn child. She needs supplies before she will be ready to get there.
And her transportation is not yet ready either.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-07-2004 15:21
|