Topic: The bass ackwards state of Mississippi is giving a fetus "Personhood".
Nexus !jNexusRe/. started this discussion 15 years ago #12,933
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/10/mississippi_personhood_amendment.html
Amendment 26 "The Personhood Amendment":
A very good "Liberal" source
Fucking seriously? Why are fundies so god damn crazy?
The anti-abortion movement's tactic known as a "personhood amendment," which legally defines a person as existing at the moment of fertilization, has been rejected twice in recent years by voters in Colorado.
But the effort has found new life in Mississippi, where a personhood amendment will appear on the Nov. 8 ballot. Mississippi is, by some measures, the nation's most conservative state, and the proposal has earned the support of both the Democratic and Republican candidates for governor, the majority of attorney general candidates, and a host of other state leaders.
If Proposition 26 passes, abortion foes hope it will build momentum for a broader national assault on Roe vs. Wade. Supporters say similar propositions will be featured on ballots in Florida, South Dakota and Ohio in 2012.
Both sides in the debate agree that the measure would outlaw abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest. But there is disagreement about what other, potentially wide-ranging effects it may have.
"Part of the concern is that it's not entirely clear what will happen if this passes," Mississippi College law professor Jonathan Will told the Jackson Clarion-Ledger recently.
The text of the measure proposes that the definition of "person" in the state constitution include "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."
Opponents fear that could ban some fertility treatments and birth-control methods, including IUDs, which prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs. In the Clarion-Ledger, Will raised the possibility that the legal voting age would actually be 17 years and 3 months after birth, and that population figures might have to be calculated with the frozen embryos housed in fertility clinics taken into account.
But the effort has found new life in Mississippi, where a personhood amendment will appear on the Nov. 8 ballot. Mississippi is, by some measures, the nation's most conservative state, and the proposal has earned the support of both the Democratic and Republican candidates for governor, the majority of attorney general candidates, and a host of other state leaders.
If Proposition 26 passes, abortion foes hope it will build momentum for a broader national assault on Roe vs. Wade. Supporters say similar propositions will be featured on ballots in Florida, South Dakota and Ohio in 2012.
Both sides in the debate agree that the measure would outlaw abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest. But there is disagreement about what other, potentially wide-ranging effects it may have.
"Part of the concern is that it's not entirely clear what will happen if this passes," Mississippi College law professor Jonathan Will told the Jackson Clarion-Ledger recently.
The text of the measure proposes that the definition of "person" in the state constitution include "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."
Opponents fear that could ban some fertility treatments and birth-control methods, including IUDs, which prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs. In the Clarion-Ledger, Will raised the possibility that the legal voting age would actually be 17 years and 3 months after birth, and that population figures might have to be calculated with the frozen embryos housed in fertility clinics taken into account.
Amendment 26 "The Personhood Amendment":
“Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Mississippi: SECTION 1. Article III of the constitution of the state of Mississippi is hereby amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION TO READ: Section 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof." This initiative shall not require any additional revenue for implementation.â€
A very good "Liberal" source
Fucking seriously? Why are fundies so god damn crazy?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #232,898
What's your problem with this legislation?
Nexus !jNexusRe/. (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #232,899
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #232,902
@previous (Nexus !jNexusRe/.)
> Its insane
Why?
> A fetus is not a person
In the state of Mississipi it is
> its a parasite at best
lol now THAT'S insane
> Its insane
Why?
> A fetus is not a person
In the state of Mississipi it is
> its a parasite at best
lol now THAT'S insane
!hEyBrieeXM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #232,904
> "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."
i think they need to write a new draft or something, because this language won't accomplish what they're trying to do.
i think they need to write a new draft or something, because this language won't accomplish what they're trying to do.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 52 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #232,907
Nexus !jNexusRe/. (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 28 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #232,908
@232,902 (B)
So you believe that a woman should have her rights stripped just because she is pregnant? She should not be allowed to have an abortion just because some batshit fundies find it morally wrong?
> In the state of Mississipi it is
Not until November 8th, even then, It will be struck down in the supreme court. Roe v. Wade assures that.
> lol now THAT'S insane
How is that insane? The fetus cannot live outside the womb without the host, the fetus leeches all the nutrients it requires from the host. Its an over glorified parasite.
So you believe that a woman should have her rights stripped just because she is pregnant? She should not be allowed to have an abortion just because some batshit fundies find it morally wrong?
> In the state of Mississipi it is
Not until November 8th, even then, It will be struck down in the supreme court. Roe v. Wade assures that.
> lol now THAT'S insane
How is that insane? The fetus cannot live outside the womb without the host, the fetus leeches all the nutrients it requires from the host. Its an over glorified parasite.
!hEyBrieeXM replied with this 15 years ago, 30 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #232,909
@232,907 (B)
it's like defining a word by using the word your're trying to define.
they need to also re-define the term 'human being' before using it in this way.
it's like defining a word by using the word your're trying to define.
they need to also re-define the term 'human being' before using it in this way.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #232,912
@232,908 (Nexus !jNexusRe/.)
> So you believe that a woman should have her rights stripped
What rights? The right to stick a coat-hanger up her vagina? Should she be stripped of that right just because there is a fetus in her now?
Let me ask you this: Should I be stripped of my right to punch the air just because a person has occupied that space?
> She should not be allowed to have an abortion just because some batshit fundies find it morally wrong?
She should not be allowed to murder just because some batshit fundies find it morally wrong?
She should not be allowed to steal just because some batshit fundies find it morally wrong?
How far do you want to go bud?
> Not until November 8th, even then, It will be struck down in the supreme court. Roe v. Wade assures that.
LOL I very much doubt that. Roe vs Wade is widely acknowledged to be a very poor ruling. It has almost zero legal basis.
> How is that insane? The fetus cannot live outside the womb without the host, the fetus leeches all the nutrients it requires from the host. Its an over glorified parasite.
It's one thing to support abortion, it's another to say fetuses are parasites. You're embarassing yourself and your cause.
> So you believe that a woman should have her rights stripped
What rights? The right to stick a coat-hanger up her vagina? Should she be stripped of that right just because there is a fetus in her now?
Let me ask you this: Should I be stripped of my right to punch the air just because a person has occupied that space?
> She should not be allowed to have an abortion just because some batshit fundies find it morally wrong?
She should not be allowed to murder just because some batshit fundies find it morally wrong?
She should not be allowed to steal just because some batshit fundies find it morally wrong?
How far do you want to go bud?
> Not until November 8th, even then, It will be struck down in the supreme court. Roe v. Wade assures that.
LOL I very much doubt that. Roe vs Wade is widely acknowledged to be a very poor ruling. It has almost zero legal basis.
> How is that insane? The fetus cannot live outside the womb without the host, the fetus leeches all the nutrients it requires from the host. Its an over glorified parasite.
It's one thing to support abortion, it's another to say fetuses are parasites. You're embarassing yourself and your cause.
Anonymous B double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #232,914
@232,909 (!hEyBrieeXM)
No, lol, you don't have to define every word that is in legislation. Can you imagine that? Defining "the", "is", "a", "of" &c. lol. This amendment will ensure that current protections to persons will be extended to fetuses. Technically one could argue that the present text already ensures that protection, but this is designed to remove ambiguity.
No, lol, you don't have to define every word that is in legislation. Can you imagine that? Defining "the", "is", "a", "of" &c. lol. This amendment will ensure that current protections to persons will be extended to fetuses. Technically one could argue that the present text already ensures that protection, but this is designed to remove ambiguity.
!hEyBrieeXM replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #232,929
@previous (B)
but the current definition of a human being doesn't include fetii, so the amendment fails to actually change anything.
but the current definition of a human being doesn't include fetii, so the amendment fails to actually change anything.
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 seconds later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #232,930
Without defining a fetus in a way that gives it some value as a person, what rights does a woman or family have if she loses a pregnancy because of, say, medical malpractice or criminal assault or something of that nature? (In many places, none beyond the damage to the woman: it's too problematic to consider a fetus both a person and a non-person depending on the context.) But some very pro-choice people do support limited personhood for that reason.
(Edited 27 minutes later.)
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #232,938
Just what we need, more people from Mississippi. Fuck.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 35 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #232,947
@232,929 (!hEyBrieeXM)
Yeah, it does. "Human being" isn't defined by legislation, so it has no specific meaning, but is defined as extending to fertilization, so yes, it does change things.
Yeah, it does. "Human being" isn't defined by legislation, so it has no specific meaning, but is defined as extending to fertilization, so yes, it does change things.
Anonymous B double-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #232,949
@232,930 (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
> inb4 Nexus claims they were done a favor by having the parasite removed
As much as I want to let people do their own things and live life how they want, I can't manage to support abortion. It is unconsensual, and a violation of individual liberty. Whether or not the fetus is a "person" is largely irrelevant because it will be a person.
> inb4 Nexus claims they were done a favor by having the parasite removed
As much as I want to let people do their own things and live life how they want, I can't manage to support abortion. It is unconsensual, and a violation of individual liberty. Whether or not the fetus is a "person" is largely irrelevant because it will be a person.
!hEyBrieeXM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #232,951
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 27 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #232,954
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #232,955
bookshelf !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 49 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #232,963
Nah, i will always side with abortion. This is just more failed legislation, mississippi really pays their senators to sit around writing bills like this?
How about this, I'll vote against abortion when jesus comes back and lobbies congress himself. Until then, ladies, scrape whatever you want to out of your body.
How about this, I'll vote against abortion when jesus comes back and lobbies congress himself. Until then, ladies, scrape whatever you want to out of your body.
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 29 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #232,965
People always get so irrational about abortion, sometimes they are justified (late-term etc), but defining a mass of cells that has the potential to become human as a person is quite a stretch. Next masturbation will be murder.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #232,967
An early fetus is a person like a seed is a tree.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #232,988
@232,949 (B)
> Whether or not the fetus is a "person" is largely irrelevant because it will be a person.
so will all those sperms you fap out onto the floor, you greasy wop.
> Whether or not the fetus is a "person" is largely irrelevant because it will be a person.
so will all those sperms you fap out onto the floor, you greasy wop.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 44 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,002
@232,965 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
WTF are you talking about? Do you even know what rationality is about?
It is entirely RATIONAL to expect the mass of cells in question will develop into a person under normal circumstances. Observation and reason tells us this is indeed the most probable outcome. The medical justifications you're referring to are not the usual course of events.
I hate government telling me what to do with my body as much as the next guy, but you're just plain wrong dude. There is absolutely nothing irrational about presuming a fertilized egg is on track to successfully develop into a human being. It's basic fucking science.
WTF are you talking about? Do you even know what rationality is about?
It is entirely RATIONAL to expect the mass of cells in question will develop into a person under normal circumstances. Observation and reason tells us this is indeed the most probable outcome. The medical justifications you're referring to are not the usual course of events.
I hate government telling me what to do with my body as much as the next guy, but you're just plain wrong dude. There is absolutely nothing irrational about presuming a fertilized egg is on track to successfully develop into a human being. It's basic fucking science.
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,004
@previous (L)
You should read my post again. I don't know how you leaped to concluding I implied a mass of cells wouldn't become a human.
You should read my post again. I don't know how you leaped to concluding I implied a mass of cells wouldn't become a human.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,008
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Whatev. You only used the word irrational to masturbate your own ego and dissociate from the scientific truth of the matter.
Choose more correct words next time, illiterate.
Whatev. You only used the word irrational to masturbate your own ego and dissociate from the scientific truth of the matter.
Choose more correct words next time, illiterate.
!hEyBrieeXM replied with this 15 years ago, 34 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,009
i wonder how long the sentence for taking a morning after pill will be...
would it be murder? or would they need to come up with a new name for the crime?
would it be murder? or would they need to come up with a new name for the crime?
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,010
@previous (!hEyBrieeXM)
I have always held that random families should be forced to get abortions by the state. That way people will understand the importance of being free to choose.
I have always held that random families should be forced to get abortions by the state. That way people will understand the importance of being free to choose.
!hEyBrieeXM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,011
bookshelf !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,014
Just let dudes have the choice if their women get abortions. I think this would make everyone happy.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,016
@previous (bookshelf !hbZVTk6JYc)
I support this and all other measures returning female reproductive organs to their rightful owners, MEN!
I support this and all other measures returning female reproductive organs to their rightful owners, MEN!
bookshelf !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,017
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,021
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,025
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,026
@233,017 (bookshelf !hbZVTk6JYc)
It's only fair. Haven't women used matrimony, monogamy, alimony and child support to claim ownership of our penises? Men must be recompensed somehow.
It's only fair. Haven't women used matrimony, monogamy, alimony and child support to claim ownership of our penises? Men must be recompensed somehow.
bookshelf !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,027
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,029
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,032
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,045
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Look guy. I was just giving you some advice for the future. What you said was transparently self serving to your own position on the subject. Intelligent people will see though that. It's just friendly advice to help you communicate more effectively in the future. I'm sorry if you don't wish to improve. It's just some advice, take it or leave it.
> but defining a mass of cells that --has the potential-- will most probably become human as a person is --quite a-- not really a stretch.
FTFY
Look guy. I was just giving you some advice for the future. What you said was transparently self serving to your own position on the subject. Intelligent people will see though that. It's just friendly advice to help you communicate more effectively in the future. I'm sorry if you don't wish to improve. It's just some advice, take it or leave it.
> but defining a mass of cells that --has the potential-- will most probably become human as a person is --quite a-- not really a stretch.
FTFY
(Edited 44 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,053
@previous (L)
It's most likely that once I graduate college I will be employed. Should I be paid a wage before I am hired for a job? Also, what percentage of pregnancies end up as miscarriages, stillbirths, horrible deformities etc.?
It's most likely that once I graduate college I will be employed. Should I be paid a wage before I am hired for a job? Also, what percentage of pregnancies end up as miscarriages, stillbirths, horrible deformities etc.?
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,063
@233,045 (L)
Again you take me out of context. Can you read? I never said it was irrational to think an embryo will become a person. You can read right? I clearly stated people become irrational about abortion. You're resorting to MM tactics to shit up a topic and troll.
Again you take me out of context. Can you read? I never said it was irrational to think an embryo will become a person. You can read right? I clearly stated people become irrational about abortion. You're resorting to MM tactics to shit up a topic and troll.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,065
WHy is the state with the most niggers trying to pass anti-abortion legislation?Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,107
dreamworksage !AUIkTW/L46 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,111
sluggy joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,121
I believe in post-partum abortion. If I met casey anthony, I'd ask for her picture with me. I would treat her nicely. A child would need to be pretty awful for a parent to want to kill them, or the parent is just fucked up. Either way, if its not my kid, then what say do I have? If parents can indoctrinate their children into religion, I don't see what difference it is if you kill them.
its basically the same thing.
its basically the same thing.
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,136
@233,107 (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
Who knows? All I know is that they are baptists and that's all I needed to know.
nigger isn't race-exclusive in this case
Who knows? All I know is that they are baptists and that's all I needed to know.
nigger isn't race-exclusive in this case
advi !!3gpAcg/hF joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,137
Abortion is just a topic used by political figures to distract people from real issues.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 31 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,148
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,283
@232,963 (bookshelf !hbZVTk6JYc)
Abortion has nothing to do with "Jesus", it has to do with the protection of life. Unless you are suggesting murder is only wrong because of Jesus??
Abortion has nothing to do with "Jesus", it has to do with the protection of life. Unless you are suggesting murder is only wrong because of Jesus??
hamfist !!snnYcROO9 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,291
I think abortions should only be allowed when the mother's life is at risk or if it's a result of rape so I guess I'm pro-lifeAnonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,292
@232,965 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
That doesn't make any sense. Semen leaves the male without masturbation. Please heed your own advice and stay rational.
That doesn't make any sense. Semen leaves the male without masturbation. Please heed your own advice and stay rational.
Anonymous B double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,295
Anonymous B triple-posted this 15 years ago, 25 seconds later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,296
Anonymous B quadruple-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,297
@233,009 (!hEyBrieeXM)
There would be no proof of a crime occurring? I imagine very little would/could be done.
There would be no proof of a crime occurring? I imagine very little would/could be done.
Anonymous B quintuple-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,298
@233,010 (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
> I have always held that random families should be murdered by the state. That way people will understand the importance of being free to choose to murder.
Logic; do you know what it is?
> I have always held that random families should be murdered by the state. That way people will understand the importance of being free to choose to murder.
Logic; do you know what it is?
Anonymous B sextuple-posted this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,302
@233,053 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> It's most likely that once I graduate college I will be employed.
Not in any way a logical necessity though. Employment is not CAUSED by education.
> Should I be paid a wage before I am hired for a job?
There's no question of should or should not. Whatever your employer wishes to do. If he wishes to start paying you now to lay a claim to you so that you will enter employment with him directly after college, he should.
> Also, what percentage of pregnancies end up as miscarriages, stillbirths, horrible deformities etc.?
Irrelevant. Industrial accidents and disease hardly justify murdering adults.
> It's most likely that once I graduate college I will be employed.
Not in any way a logical necessity though. Employment is not CAUSED by education.
> Should I be paid a wage before I am hired for a job?
There's no question of should or should not. Whatever your employer wishes to do. If he wishes to start paying you now to lay a claim to you so that you will enter employment with him directly after college, he should.
> Also, what percentage of pregnancies end up as miscarriages, stillbirths, horrible deformities etc.?
Irrelevant. Industrial accidents and disease hardly justify murdering adults.
Anonymous B septuple-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,303
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,307
@233,302 (B)
> Not in any way a logical necessity though. Employment is not CAUSED by education.
That's not what he was arguing, but okay. It's not logically necessary that a zygote will develop into a person, either. It's a possibility, but it is in no way guaranteed.
> There's no question of should or should not. Whatever your employer wishes to do
That's not really what I was trying to get at. The point I was trying to make is that just because I have the potential to become X does not mean I am treated like I already am X. Likewise, unless you're defining life as beginning at the moment of conception (which is a proposition in need of defending), then just because a zygote has the potential to become life does not in any way entail that we treat it as if it is alive.
> Irrelevant. Industrial accidents and disease hardly justify murdering adults.
No, it's not irrelevant. He said that the pre-fetal cells would most probably become a living thing. If more than half of all pregnancies end up as miscarriages, stillbirths or horrible deformities, then it is not most probable that a pre-fetal group of cells would become a living thing.
> Not in any way a logical necessity though. Employment is not CAUSED by education.
That's not what he was arguing, but okay. It's not logically necessary that a zygote will develop into a person, either. It's a possibility, but it is in no way guaranteed.
> There's no question of should or should not. Whatever your employer wishes to do
That's not really what I was trying to get at. The point I was trying to make is that just because I have the potential to become X does not mean I am treated like I already am X. Likewise, unless you're defining life as beginning at the moment of conception (which is a proposition in need of defending), then just because a zygote has the potential to become life does not in any way entail that we treat it as if it is alive.
> Irrelevant. Industrial accidents and disease hardly justify murdering adults.
No, it's not irrelevant. He said that the pre-fetal cells would most probably become a living thing. If more than half of all pregnancies end up as miscarriages, stillbirths or horrible deformities, then it is not most probable that a pre-fetal group of cells would become a living thing.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,358
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> That's not what he was arguing, but okay. It's not logically necessary that a zygote will develop into a person, either. It's a possibility, but it is in no way guaranteed.
"he"? It is a logical necessity - doesn't mean that it will always practically happen.
> That's not really what I was trying to get at. The point I was trying to make is that just because I have the potential to become X does not mean I am treated like I already am X. Likewise, unless you're defining life as beginning at the moment of conception (which is a proposition in need of defending), then just because a zygote has the potential to become life does not in any way entail that we treat it as if it is alive.
You're begging the question. The law defines personhood as starting at conception. There is then no question of "potential of becoming x" - it is already x. You are assuming that the fetus is not already a person. Also, the question is not whether the fetus is alive (which it definitely is) but whether it's life is protected by virtue of personhood.
> No, it's not irrelevant. He said that the pre-fetal cells would most probably become a living thing. If more than half of all pregnancies end up as miscarriages, stillbirths or horrible deformities, then it is not most probable that a pre-fetal group of cells would become a living thing.
It's not a probability thing - but the unencumbered progression. I don't see how this helps your argument anyway...
> That's not what he was arguing, but okay. It's not logically necessary that a zygote will develop into a person, either. It's a possibility, but it is in no way guaranteed.
"he"? It is a logical necessity - doesn't mean that it will always practically happen.
> That's not really what I was trying to get at. The point I was trying to make is that just because I have the potential to become X does not mean I am treated like I already am X. Likewise, unless you're defining life as beginning at the moment of conception (which is a proposition in need of defending), then just because a zygote has the potential to become life does not in any way entail that we treat it as if it is alive.
You're begging the question. The law defines personhood as starting at conception. There is then no question of "potential of becoming x" - it is already x. You are assuming that the fetus is not already a person. Also, the question is not whether the fetus is alive (which it definitely is) but whether it's life is protected by virtue of personhood.
> No, it's not irrelevant. He said that the pre-fetal cells would most probably become a living thing. If more than half of all pregnancies end up as miscarriages, stillbirths or horrible deformities, then it is not most probable that a pre-fetal group of cells would become a living thing.
It's not a probability thing - but the unencumbered progression. I don't see how this helps your argument anyway...
(Edited 8 minutes later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,365
@previous (B)
> "he"?
I have no idea how many anons in this thread you are, nor do I really care, so I just assume that every anon with a unique letter is a different person.
> It is a logical necessity - doesn't mean that it will always practically happen.
Then I don't see the point of this objection.
> You're begging the question. The law defines personhood as starting at conception.
No, the law currently does not do that. This new law wants to assert a new definition of life that begins at conception. Is that the current scientific consensus? As far as I know, medical ethics says that abortions are morally permissable 1" rel="nofollow">. If that is the case, then the law is in direct conflict with current medical opinion, and as such ought to be rejected.
> "he"?
I have no idea how many anons in this thread you are, nor do I really care, so I just assume that every anon with a unique letter is a different person.
> It is a logical necessity - doesn't mean that it will always practically happen.
Then I don't see the point of this objection.
> You're begging the question. The law defines personhood as starting at conception.
No, the law currently does not do that. This new law wants to assert a new definition of life that begins at conception. Is that the current scientific consensus? As far as I know, medical ethics says that abortions are morally permissable 1" rel="nofollow">. If that is the case, then the law is in direct conflict with current medical opinion, and as such ought to be rejected.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,371
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> I have no idea how many anons in this thread you are, nor do I really care, so I just assume that every anon with a unique letter is a different person.
I was quoting your argument, not "his".
> Then I don't see the point of this objection.
It means your objection is invalid.
> No, the law currently does not do that.
Rightly or wrongly. is≠ought
> This new law wants to assert a new definition of life that begins at conception.
It wants to define personhood at conception. Life indisputably begins at conception.
> Is that the current scientific consensus?
Who cares? I am asking you to philosophically justify views, not to state what other people think.
> As far as I know, medical ethics says that abortions are morally permissable 1" rel="nofollow">. If that is the case, then the law is in direct conflict with current medical opinion, and as such ought to be rejected.
Appeal to authority, please attempt to justify your views.
> I have no idea how many anons in this thread you are, nor do I really care, so I just assume that every anon with a unique letter is a different person.
I was quoting your argument, not "his".
> Then I don't see the point of this objection.
It means your objection is invalid.
> No, the law currently does not do that.
Rightly or wrongly. is≠ought
> This new law wants to assert a new definition of life that begins at conception.
It wants to define personhood at conception. Life indisputably begins at conception.
> Is that the current scientific consensus?
Who cares? I am asking you to philosophically justify views, not to state what other people think.
> As far as I know, medical ethics says that abortions are morally permissable 1" rel="nofollow">. If that is the case, then the law is in direct conflict with current medical opinion, and as such ought to be rejected.
Appeal to authority, please attempt to justify your views.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 49 seconds later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,373
You missed the point.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,381
@233,371 (B)
> It means your objection is invalid.
On what grounds?
> It wants to define personhood at conception. Life indisputably begins at conception.
Fair enough
> Appeal to authority, please attempt to justify your views.
You've failed to grasp what the "appeal to authority" fallacy is. The fallacy occurs when an appeal is made to an illegitimate authority, not any authority whatsoever. Hence, in the context of a debate about medical ethics, it is not fallacious to quote an authority on medical ethics.
Personhood ought to be ascribed to those things which possess qualities that are consistent with personhood. A person possesses moral agency, self-consciousness, etc. It also must possess these qualities in itself and not be dependent on external forces for its possession of these characteristics. A zygote fails all of these tests. Fetuses at viability posses enough of these traits to make their termination a morally complex issue. Once they are fully developed and born, they are granted personhood.
> It means your objection is invalid.
On what grounds?
> It wants to define personhood at conception. Life indisputably begins at conception.
Fair enough
> Appeal to authority, please attempt to justify your views.
You've failed to grasp what the "appeal to authority" fallacy is. The fallacy occurs when an appeal is made to an illegitimate authority, not any authority whatsoever. Hence, in the context of a debate about medical ethics, it is not fallacious to quote an authority on medical ethics.
Personhood ought to be ascribed to those things which possess qualities that are consistent with personhood. A person possesses moral agency, self-consciousness, etc. It also must possess these qualities in itself and not be dependent on external forces for its possession of these characteristics. A zygote fails all of these tests. Fetuses at viability posses enough of these traits to make their termination a morally complex issue. Once they are fully developed and born, they are granted personhood.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,400
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> On what grounds?
I reread the thread, I was disputing your employment analogy.
> You've failed to grasp what the "appeal to authority" fallacy is. The fallacy occurs when an appeal is made to an illegitimate authority, not any authority whatsoever. Hence, in the context of a debate about medical ethics, it is not fallacious to quote an authority on medical ethics.
I am asking for more than just an appeal to authority. Post their arguments if you don't have your own. "A is true because X says so" is not a very convincing argument.
> Personhood ought to be ascribed to those things which possess qualities that are consistent with personhood. A person possesses moral agency, self-consciousness, etc. It also must possess these qualities in itself and not be dependent on external forces for its possession of these characteristics. A zygote fails all of these tests. Fetuses at viability posses enough of these traits to make their termination a morally complex issue. Once they are fully developed and born, they are granted personhood.
> Personhood ought to be ascribed to those things which possess qualities that are consistent with personhood.
Once again this begs the question. You present a consistent system which could work, but there is no requirement for your system to be true.
> On what grounds?
I reread the thread, I was disputing your employment analogy.
> You've failed to grasp what the "appeal to authority" fallacy is. The fallacy occurs when an appeal is made to an illegitimate authority, not any authority whatsoever. Hence, in the context of a debate about medical ethics, it is not fallacious to quote an authority on medical ethics.
I am asking for more than just an appeal to authority. Post their arguments if you don't have your own. "A is true because X says so" is not a very convincing argument.
> Personhood ought to be ascribed to those things which possess qualities that are consistent with personhood. A person possesses moral agency, self-consciousness, etc. It also must possess these qualities in itself and not be dependent on external forces for its possession of these characteristics. A zygote fails all of these tests. Fetuses at viability posses enough of these traits to make their termination a morally complex issue. Once they are fully developed and born, they are granted personhood.
> Personhood ought to be ascribed to those things which possess qualities that are consistent with personhood.
Once again this begs the question. You present a consistent system which could work, but there is no requirement for your system to be true.
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,401
@233,381 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Kids don't possess these traits either till what, a few years in at least?
Kids don't possess these traits either till what, a few years in at least?
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,406
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,418
@232,929 (!hEyBrieeXM)
brie
i'm not going to read anything else in this thread and i only read until this reply but you are dumb
go die
brie
i'm not going to read anything else in this thread and i only read until this reply but you are dumb
go die
!hEyBrieeXM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,420
bookshelf !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 45 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,446
I'm just glad I'm a guy and I really don't have to worry about anything. If roe-v-wade proved anything it's that I really have zero say in the matter. I mean, unless they keep it, and I don't have any say in that, either. The female get's to decide, "hmmm, dependent, or no dependent? What shall I do?" The guy doesn't get to do that, if she chooses to keep it then there may be court ordered responsibilities in the worst case. Best case you got a kid.
But, them's the breaks. Point is, we need more stem cells.
But, them's the breaks. Point is, we need more stem cells.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,459
> extending civil liberties
> bass ackwards
typical regressive
> bass ackwards
typical regressive
Anonymous V joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,537
ITT: Mountainman argues for legislating compulsory motherhood and state controlled wombs.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,551
hehe, "bass ackwards"
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,552
@233,537 (V)
> legislating compulsory motherhood
Motherhood is not the issue here, but infanticide.
> state controlled wombs.
Are prohibitions against murder because of state control of our bodies, or precisely the opposite - individual control of one's body?
> legislating compulsory motherhood
Motherhood is not the issue here, but infanticide.
> state controlled wombs.
Are prohibitions against murder because of state control of our bodies, or precisely the opposite - individual control of one's body?
Triptych !LightPenis joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 45 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,564
[^_^] !yyQ9.ZkX3. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,565
@previous (Triptych !LightPenis)
If i had been aborted I wouldn't have comitted a federal felony! :D
If i had been aborted I wouldn't have comitted a federal felony! :D
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
armoredzombie !prw5BjXTeI joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 19 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,566
How about it's their baby they can do what they want with it?
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,567
@233,564 (Triptych !LightPenis)
> What if the adult the child grows up to be would rather have been molested?
Terrible argument please don't use it!
> What if the adult the child grows up to be would rather have been molested?
Terrible argument please don't use it!
Anonymous B double-posted this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,569
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 13 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,570
@233,565 ([^_^] !yyQ9.ZkX3.)
If I had been aborted, I wouldn't now be told how much it is hoped that I was switched at birth. :')
If I had been aborted, I wouldn't now be told how much it is hoped that I was switched at birth. :')
Triptych !LightPenis double-posted this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,571
Anonymous V replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,581
@233,552 (B)
> Motherhood is not the issue here
I'm afraid motherhood is the (forced) consequence of what we are discussing.
> but infanticide.
The term "infant" is generally only applied to children following their birth. I'm afraid "infanticide" is not the issue here at all.
> Are prohibitions against murder because of state control of our bodies, or precisely the opposite - individual control of one's body?
I assume you can read the possible consequences of the legislation as well as I can, and legally requiring women to carry a child to term, even in cases of rape, incest, or a potentially dangerous pregnancy does not fall in line with "individual control of one's body" at all.
The personhood movement wants to assign rights to what cannot be considered in any sense or capacity an individual person. The only argument that can be drummed up in favor of doing so is that the potential exists for it to become a human life at some point, but even this, as we have established, isn't necessarily true in all cases. Undeterred by such a shaky foundation, the personhood movement wants to grant rights and "personhood" to any fertilized cell -- Not some rights, not a legal obligation to consider its well being, but full personhood and the state protections that come with it. Furthermore, it wants to assign these rights across the board without regard to any personal or professional consideration of well being to the individual who will have to support this new "person" and carry it to term. It opens the door to allow the state to make decisions for people (actual, fully realized, individual people in this case) in the interests of blindly protecting a perceived potential for life. Pitting the rights of the mother against the "rights" of a fertilized cell in all cases and without considering other factors and based on only speculative "potential" is dangerous and incredibly ill conceived.
> Motherhood is not the issue here
I'm afraid motherhood is the (forced) consequence of what we are discussing.
> but infanticide.
The term "infant" is generally only applied to children following their birth. I'm afraid "infanticide" is not the issue here at all.
> Are prohibitions against murder because of state control of our bodies, or precisely the opposite - individual control of one's body?
I assume you can read the possible consequences of the legislation as well as I can, and legally requiring women to carry a child to term, even in cases of rape, incest, or a potentially dangerous pregnancy does not fall in line with "individual control of one's body" at all.
The personhood movement wants to assign rights to what cannot be considered in any sense or capacity an individual person. The only argument that can be drummed up in favor of doing so is that the potential exists for it to become a human life at some point, but even this, as we have established, isn't necessarily true in all cases. Undeterred by such a shaky foundation, the personhood movement wants to grant rights and "personhood" to any fertilized cell -- Not some rights, not a legal obligation to consider its well being, but full personhood and the state protections that come with it. Furthermore, it wants to assign these rights across the board without regard to any personal or professional consideration of well being to the individual who will have to support this new "person" and carry it to term. It opens the door to allow the state to make decisions for people (actual, fully realized, individual people in this case) in the interests of blindly protecting a perceived potential for life. Pitting the rights of the mother against the "rights" of a fertilized cell in all cases and without considering other factors and based on only speculative "potential" is dangerous and incredibly ill conceived.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,637
@previous (V)
> I'm afraid motherhood is the (forced) consequence of what we are discussing.
In what sense are you using motherhood? Giving birth, or caring for a child? Clearly it does not apply to the latter. The mother must give "birth" even if she kills the fetus; it must leave her body somehow (birth: the emergence of a baby or other young from the body of its mother).
Either way, it does not force motherhood; this would involve impregnating people. It merely prevents mothers from committing acts of aggression against the fetus that they have already created.
> The term "infant" is generally only applied to children following their birth. I'm afraid "infanticide" is not the issue here at all.
Infanticide in the sense of killing one's offspring. I don't know a more broad term than infanticide, sorry.
> I assume you can read the possible consequences of the legislation as well as I can, and legally requiring women to carry a child to term, even in cases of rape, incest, or a potentially dangerous pregnancy does not fall in line with "individual control of one's body" at all.
One has individual control of one's own body; not the body of other's. Rape and incest have no bearing on one's individual rights (one might think people would be more reticent to argue that one's individual rights are contingent upon one's lineage [slavery lol] in this day and age). Dangerous pregnancy will continue to be a morally grey area, much like separating conjoined twins.
> The personhood movement wants to assign rights to what cannot be considered in any sense or capacity an individual person.
Begging the question. "A fetus is not a person because a fetus is not a person."
> The only argument that can be drummed up in favor of doing so is that the potential exists for it to become a human life at some point, but even this, as we have established, isn't necessarily true in all cases.
It is 100% true that fetuses develop into "people". That circumstances can and may interfere and disrupt or interrupt this process is irrelevant to a logical consideration of the matter.
> Undeterred by such a shaky foundation, the personhood movement wants to grant rights and "personhood" to any fertilized cell -- Not some rights, not a legal obligation to consider its well being, but full personhood and the state protections that come with it. Furthermore, it wants to assign these rights across the board without regard to any personal or professional consideration of well being to the individual who will have to support this new "person" and carry it to term.
Indiviual rights are not dependant upon the "personal or professional" needs of others. i.e. murder can not be justified by another's hunger, theft of my lawnmower can not be justified by your professional need for a lawnmower as part of your yard care business.
> It opens the door to allow the state to make decisions for people (actual, fully realized, individual people in this case) in the interests of blindly protecting a perceived potential for life.
No decisions are being made; rather, actions are being prevented. Negative vs Positive rights. Fetuses are indisputably animate - the discussion is whether they constitute protected life. Non-human animals and plants are examples of unprotected life.
> Pitting the rights of the mother against the "rights" of a fertilized cell in all cases and without considering other factors and based on only speculative "potential" is dangerous and incredibly ill conceived.
When pitting negative rights against positive rights, the negative rights must take precedence.
> I'm afraid motherhood is the (forced) consequence of what we are discussing.
In what sense are you using motherhood? Giving birth, or caring for a child? Clearly it does not apply to the latter. The mother must give "birth" even if she kills the fetus; it must leave her body somehow (birth: the emergence of a baby or other young from the body of its mother).
Either way, it does not force motherhood; this would involve impregnating people. It merely prevents mothers from committing acts of aggression against the fetus that they have already created.
> The term "infant" is generally only applied to children following their birth. I'm afraid "infanticide" is not the issue here at all.
Infanticide in the sense of killing one's offspring. I don't know a more broad term than infanticide, sorry.
> I assume you can read the possible consequences of the legislation as well as I can, and legally requiring women to carry a child to term, even in cases of rape, incest, or a potentially dangerous pregnancy does not fall in line with "individual control of one's body" at all.
One has individual control of one's own body; not the body of other's. Rape and incest have no bearing on one's individual rights (one might think people would be more reticent to argue that one's individual rights are contingent upon one's lineage [slavery lol] in this day and age). Dangerous pregnancy will continue to be a morally grey area, much like separating conjoined twins.
> The personhood movement wants to assign rights to what cannot be considered in any sense or capacity an individual person.
Begging the question. "A fetus is not a person because a fetus is not a person."
> The only argument that can be drummed up in favor of doing so is that the potential exists for it to become a human life at some point, but even this, as we have established, isn't necessarily true in all cases.
It is 100% true that fetuses develop into "people". That circumstances can and may interfere and disrupt or interrupt this process is irrelevant to a logical consideration of the matter.
> Undeterred by such a shaky foundation, the personhood movement wants to grant rights and "personhood" to any fertilized cell -- Not some rights, not a legal obligation to consider its well being, but full personhood and the state protections that come with it. Furthermore, it wants to assign these rights across the board without regard to any personal or professional consideration of well being to the individual who will have to support this new "person" and carry it to term.
Indiviual rights are not dependant upon the "personal or professional" needs of others. i.e. murder can not be justified by another's hunger, theft of my lawnmower can not be justified by your professional need for a lawnmower as part of your yard care business.
> It opens the door to allow the state to make decisions for people (actual, fully realized, individual people in this case) in the interests of blindly protecting a perceived potential for life.
No decisions are being made; rather, actions are being prevented. Negative vs Positive rights. Fetuses are indisputably animate - the discussion is whether they constitute protected life. Non-human animals and plants are examples of unprotected life.
> Pitting the rights of the mother against the "rights" of a fertilized cell in all cases and without considering other factors and based on only speculative "potential" is dangerous and incredibly ill conceived.
When pitting negative rights against positive rights, the negative rights must take precedence.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,638
@233,570 (Triptych !LightPenis)
> If I had been aborted, I wouldn't now be told how much it is hoped that I was switched at birth. :')
What a horrible thing to say to someone.
> If I had been aborted, I wouldn't now be told how much it is hoped that I was switched at birth. :')
What a horrible thing to say to someone.
Anonymous V replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,677
@233,637 (B)
> Begging the question.
Stop with the begging the question routine and reread what I wrote. A fetus can in no way be considered an individual person. Blindly pretending it can be treated the same way as any other "person" without realizing that it is biologically dependent on the mother is short-sighted and potentially dangerous.
> "personal or professional" needs
Again you seem to be rephrasing and picking your own interpretation. The "personal or professional consideration of well being" I was referring to involved a woman's consideration of her particular circumstances during pregnancy and any professional medical advice she may receive in deciding what actions to take in regard to that pregnancy.
> fetuses develop into "people".
Some fetuses end up developing into people, but sometimes that doesn't happen. I'm referring here to miscarriages and pregnancies that would put a woman's health or life in danger. One of the dangers in giving personhood to any fertilized cell is that you are equating the rights of a conscious and developed individual with the rights of a lump of developing cells even if that lump of developing cells is endangering the individual that the state has decided must support it. This move puts even medically necessary abortions on shaky legal ground by trading the rights of one individual for the rights of a potential individual, even if that potential individual is unlikely to develop fully or may harm another in doing so. I understand that the thrust of the measure is to outlaw abortion, but it is one of the more irresponsible and potentially harmful ways to accomplish that.
> No decisions are being made; rather, actions are being prevented.
Yes, decisions are being made. Legislation is being proposed that makes those decisions for people. The state has decided that if a woman ends up with a fertilized cell that may develop into a child -whether that happened by her choice or not and before any health risks are considered- inside her womb, then that life (and its dependence her her body) must be protected as a person at the expense of her right to exercise control over her own body. The actions being prevented here are those of an individual woman's control of her body, which is happily being traded for state mandated pregnancy.
> Begging the question.
Stop with the begging the question routine and reread what I wrote. A fetus can in no way be considered an individual person. Blindly pretending it can be treated the same way as any other "person" without realizing that it is biologically dependent on the mother is short-sighted and potentially dangerous.
> "personal or professional" needs
Again you seem to be rephrasing and picking your own interpretation. The "personal or professional consideration of well being" I was referring to involved a woman's consideration of her particular circumstances during pregnancy and any professional medical advice she may receive in deciding what actions to take in regard to that pregnancy.
> fetuses develop into "people".
Some fetuses end up developing into people, but sometimes that doesn't happen. I'm referring here to miscarriages and pregnancies that would put a woman's health or life in danger. One of the dangers in giving personhood to any fertilized cell is that you are equating the rights of a conscious and developed individual with the rights of a lump of developing cells even if that lump of developing cells is endangering the individual that the state has decided must support it. This move puts even medically necessary abortions on shaky legal ground by trading the rights of one individual for the rights of a potential individual, even if that potential individual is unlikely to develop fully or may harm another in doing so. I understand that the thrust of the measure is to outlaw abortion, but it is one of the more irresponsible and potentially harmful ways to accomplish that.
> No decisions are being made; rather, actions are being prevented.
Yes, decisions are being made. Legislation is being proposed that makes those decisions for people. The state has decided that if a woman ends up with a fertilized cell that may develop into a child -whether that happened by her choice or not and before any health risks are considered- inside her womb, then that life (and its dependence her her body) must be protected as a person at the expense of her right to exercise control over her own body. The actions being prevented here are those of an individual woman's control of her body, which is happily being traded for state mandated pregnancy.
(Edited 34 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 37 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,687
@previous (V)
> Stop with the begging the question routine
lol I am the one in a position to be saying this! You keep putting forward arguments that assume they are correct as a starting point - "A fetus is not a person because a fetus is not a person".
> and reread what I wrote. A fetus can in no way be considered an individual person. Blindly pretending it can be treated the same way as any other "person" without realizing that it is biologically dependent on the mother is short-sighted and potentially dangerous.
Conjoined twins are similarly codependent yet (I hope!) you do not advocate the removal of their rights!
> Again you seem to be rephrasing and picking your own interpretation. The "personal or professional consideration of well being" I was referring to involved a woman's consideration of her particular circumstances during pregnancy and any professional medical advice she may receive in deciding what actions to take in regard to that pregnancy.
lol but you must show how this is different to the examples I stated! Not merely state it again...
> Some fetuses end up developing into people, but sometimes that doesn't happen. I'm referring here to miscarriages and pregnancies that would put a woman's health or life in danger.
I have already answered the woman's health question. Similarly, the fact that not all people die of old age is no justification for murder.
> One of the dangers in giving personhood to any fertilized cell is that you are equating the rights of a conscious and developed individual with the rights of a lump of developing cells even if that lump of developing cells is endangering the individual that the state has decided must support it.
It is very dangerous to link individual rights with consciousness and "development" - the unconscious and the "undeveloped" (however one wants to define this - underneath a certain age, a certain size, a certain IQ, a certain level of evolution ["scientific" justification for slavery lol]) retain their individual rights.
> This move puts even medically necessary abortions on shaky legal ground by trading the rights of one individual for the rights of a potential individual, even if that potential individual is unlikely to develop fully or may harm another in doing so.
I have already answered this objection. Conjoined twins must sometimes be separated, even if one is likely to perish; lest they both perish. This is not because of of the twins is not a person and has no individual rights.
> I understand that the thrust of the measure is to outlaw abortion, but it is one of the more irresponsible and potentially harmful ways to accomplish that.
It is a philosophically consistent proposal.
> Yes, decisions are being made. Legislation is being proposed that makes those decisions for people. The state has decided that if a woman ends up with a fertilized cell that may develop into a child -whether that happened by her choice or not and before any health risks are considered- inside her womb, then that life (and its dependence her her body) must be protected as a person at the expense of her right to exercise control over her own body. The actions being prevented here are those of an individual woman's control of her body, which is happily being traded for state mandated pregnancy.
I have already shown that the pregnancy is not state mandated. The pregnancy occurs prior and is antecedent to this legislation having any force.
My positive right to do what I want with my body ends when it interferes with another's negative right to not be molested.
> Stop with the begging the question routine
lol I am the one in a position to be saying this! You keep putting forward arguments that assume they are correct as a starting point - "A fetus is not a person because a fetus is not a person".
> and reread what I wrote. A fetus can in no way be considered an individual person. Blindly pretending it can be treated the same way as any other "person" without realizing that it is biologically dependent on the mother is short-sighted and potentially dangerous.
Conjoined twins are similarly codependent yet (I hope!) you do not advocate the removal of their rights!
> Again you seem to be rephrasing and picking your own interpretation. The "personal or professional consideration of well being" I was referring to involved a woman's consideration of her particular circumstances during pregnancy and any professional medical advice she may receive in deciding what actions to take in regard to that pregnancy.
lol but you must show how this is different to the examples I stated! Not merely state it again...
> Some fetuses end up developing into people, but sometimes that doesn't happen. I'm referring here to miscarriages and pregnancies that would put a woman's health or life in danger.
I have already answered the woman's health question. Similarly, the fact that not all people die of old age is no justification for murder.
> One of the dangers in giving personhood to any fertilized cell is that you are equating the rights of a conscious and developed individual with the rights of a lump of developing cells even if that lump of developing cells is endangering the individual that the state has decided must support it.
It is very dangerous to link individual rights with consciousness and "development" - the unconscious and the "undeveloped" (however one wants to define this - underneath a certain age, a certain size, a certain IQ, a certain level of evolution ["scientific" justification for slavery lol]) retain their individual rights.
> This move puts even medically necessary abortions on shaky legal ground by trading the rights of one individual for the rights of a potential individual, even if that potential individual is unlikely to develop fully or may harm another in doing so.
I have already answered this objection. Conjoined twins must sometimes be separated, even if one is likely to perish; lest they both perish. This is not because of of the twins is not a person and has no individual rights.
> I understand that the thrust of the measure is to outlaw abortion, but it is one of the more irresponsible and potentially harmful ways to accomplish that.
It is a philosophically consistent proposal.
> Yes, decisions are being made. Legislation is being proposed that makes those decisions for people. The state has decided that if a woman ends up with a fertilized cell that may develop into a child -whether that happened by her choice or not and before any health risks are considered- inside her womb, then that life (and its dependence her her body) must be protected as a person at the expense of her right to exercise control over her own body. The actions being prevented here are those of an individual woman's control of her body, which is happily being traded for state mandated pregnancy.
I have already shown that the pregnancy is not state mandated. The pregnancy occurs prior and is antecedent to this legislation having any force.
My positive right to do what I want with my body ends when it interferes with another's negative right to not be molested.
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,775
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 30 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,785
I need a summary of this thread. :-/
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,789
@233,775 (Triptych !LightPenis)
I meant it's a horrible thing to tell someone you wish they had been switched at birth.
I meant it's a horrible thing to tell someone you wish they had been switched at birth.
bookshelf !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,793
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,794
Sometimes, you just wanna get into the KILLDOZER and drive to Triptych's house.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,813
@233,793 (bookshelf !hbZVTk6JYc)
> "i'm right, you're wrong, i know what is best for everyone."
MM in a nutshell.
> "i'm right, you're wrong, i know what is best for everyone."
MM in a nutshell.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,818
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 34 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,847
@233,789 (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
Pffft, if you say so.
@233,794 (K)
Oh yay. Why?
Pffft, if you say so.
@233,794 (K)
Oh yay. Why?
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
armoredzombie !prw5BjXTeI replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,856
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,858
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,861
Green !6PPj7P5Iag joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,879
swamplights !!V3J448+/B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,901
swamplights !!V3J448+/B double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,904
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 40 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,971
Look. Call a fetus what you want, but no one has any right to tell a woman you must carry this thing for 9 months.
I think men should stay out of the abortion debate. Seriously, except when we need to tell women what's right, of course.
I think men should stay out of the abortion debate. Seriously, except when we need to tell women what's right, of course.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,993
lol where did Nexus go?
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,996
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,074
Anonymous V replied with this 15 years ago, 54 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,140
@233,687 (B)
> lol but you must show how this is different to the examples I stated! Not merely state it again...
I was restating what I said because you rephrased it and took it to mean something different.
> I have already answered the woman's health question.
Perhaps you could clarify this? I seem to have missed it.
> It is very dangerous to link individual rights with consciousness and "development"
Sure, it is, but that is at the very heart of the abortion issue. You can argue that the personhood argument is consistent because blindly assigns rights across the board to any potential life from the moment of fertilization, but that does not automatically make it a good idea to do so. In fact, my objection is that doing so is dangerous to the individual rights of the mother.
> I have already shown that the pregnancy is not state mandated. The pregnancy occurs prior and is antecedent to this legislation having any force.
Fertilization is antecedent. The pregnancy (and it being carrying to term) is what is mandated.
> My positive right to do what I want with my body ends when it interferes with another's negative right to not be molested.
That's fine when you are talking about another individual, but you are simplifying the issue without addressing the problem that one is dependent on the other. The issue you seem to be dancing around here is that this legislation has the potential to pit a woman's right to control and make decisions regarding her own body and her developing child's need to use her body to develop. This legislation is dangerous in that it grants the latter in all cases without making any concessions to the former.
> lol but you must show how this is different to the examples I stated! Not merely state it again...
I was restating what I said because you rephrased it and took it to mean something different.
> I have already answered the woman's health question.
Perhaps you could clarify this? I seem to have missed it.
> It is very dangerous to link individual rights with consciousness and "development"
Sure, it is, but that is at the very heart of the abortion issue. You can argue that the personhood argument is consistent because blindly assigns rights across the board to any potential life from the moment of fertilization, but that does not automatically make it a good idea to do so. In fact, my objection is that doing so is dangerous to the individual rights of the mother.
> I have already shown that the pregnancy is not state mandated. The pregnancy occurs prior and is antecedent to this legislation having any force.
Fertilization is antecedent. The pregnancy (and it being carrying to term) is what is mandated.
> My positive right to do what I want with my body ends when it interferes with another's negative right to not be molested.
That's fine when you are talking about another individual, but you are simplifying the issue without addressing the problem that one is dependent on the other. The issue you seem to be dancing around here is that this legislation has the potential to pit a woman's right to control and make decisions regarding her own body and her developing child's need to use her body to develop. This legislation is dangerous in that it grants the latter in all cases without making any concessions to the former.
!hEyBrieeXM replied with this 15 years ago, 27 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,172
lol guise, under this legislation if a woman wants to have an abortion all she has to do is serve the fetus an eviction notice and it will have 30 days to vacate the premises or it will be removed by law enforcement.
trufax.
trufax.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,225
@234,140 (V)
> I was restating what I said because you rephrased it and took it to mean something different.
Exactly... Don't just restate it! Show how my scenarios differ from yours. Don't just say they are different, demonstrate that they are.
> Perhaps you could clarify this? I seem to have missed it.
There are many "grey areas" in medical ethics currently, such as the separation of conjoined twins. The issue is not a "dealbreaker", there are many alternatives to killing the fetus. We have the ability to care for fetuses outside the womb, and this ability will only increase in the future. One can not make the difficult choice of choosing between the mother's life and the fetus' life easier by denying the fetus' rights.
> Sure, it is, but that is at the very heart of the abortion issue. You can argue that the personhood argument is consistent because blindly assigns rights across the board to any potential life from the moment of fertilization, but that does not automatically make it a good idea to do so. In fact, my objection is that doing so is dangerous to the individual rights of the mother.
"blindly"? You're striking out here, your argument would have been better if you'd kept to the facts and kept perjoratives and emotions out. "potential life" The fetus is indisputably animate, but whether it is protected life (a person) or unprotected life (like plants) is the issue here.
> Fertilization is antecedent. The pregnancy (and it being carrying to term) is what is mandated.
If someone carries a fertilized ovum within them they are pregnant. Carrying to term is not and can not be mandated (miscarriages); rather aggression against the fetus is being prevented.
> That's fine when you are talking about another individual, but you are simplifying the issue without addressing the problem that one is dependent on the other. The issue you seem to be dancing around here is that this legislation has the potential to pit a woman's right to control and make decisions regarding her own body and her developing child's need to use her body to develop. This legislation is dangerous in that it grants the latter in all cases without making any concessions to the former.
The exact same argument could made against child neglect laws.
You have also yet to prove that the legislation prohibits any rights and prevents any decisions other than that of aggression to the fetus.
> I was restating what I said because you rephrased it and took it to mean something different.
Exactly... Don't just restate it! Show how my scenarios differ from yours. Don't just say they are different, demonstrate that they are.
> Perhaps you could clarify this? I seem to have missed it.
There are many "grey areas" in medical ethics currently, such as the separation of conjoined twins. The issue is not a "dealbreaker", there are many alternatives to killing the fetus. We have the ability to care for fetuses outside the womb, and this ability will only increase in the future. One can not make the difficult choice of choosing between the mother's life and the fetus' life easier by denying the fetus' rights.
> Sure, it is, but that is at the very heart of the abortion issue. You can argue that the personhood argument is consistent because blindly assigns rights across the board to any potential life from the moment of fertilization, but that does not automatically make it a good idea to do so. In fact, my objection is that doing so is dangerous to the individual rights of the mother.
"blindly"? You're striking out here, your argument would have been better if you'd kept to the facts and kept perjoratives and emotions out. "potential life" The fetus is indisputably animate, but whether it is protected life (a person) or unprotected life (like plants) is the issue here.
> Fertilization is antecedent. The pregnancy (and it being carrying to term) is what is mandated.
If someone carries a fertilized ovum within them they are pregnant. Carrying to term is not and can not be mandated (miscarriages); rather aggression against the fetus is being prevented.
> That's fine when you are talking about another individual, but you are simplifying the issue without addressing the problem that one is dependent on the other. The issue you seem to be dancing around here is that this legislation has the potential to pit a woman's right to control and make decisions regarding her own body and her developing child's need to use her body to develop. This legislation is dangerous in that it grants the latter in all cases without making any concessions to the former.
The exact same argument could made against child neglect laws.
You have also yet to prove that the legislation prohibits any rights and prevents any decisions other than that of aggression to the fetus.
Anonymous V replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,342
@previous (B)
> Exactly... Don't just restate it!
I'll stop restating what I say when you stop rephrasing what I say.
> "blindly"? You're striking out here
No "blindly" is appropriate in describing the process of granting rights to any fertilized cell without regard.
> Carrying to term is not and can not be mandated
So legally requiring a woman to carry a child in order to avoid "aggression to the fetus" is... what?
> The exact same argument could made against child neglect laws.
No, children can be cared for by others. You are still ignoring that the fetus is biologically dependent on the mother, and that the proposed legislation protecting a fetus' right to be free from "aggression" involves curtailing the rights of another individual to control her body.
> Exactly... Don't just restate it!
I'll stop restating what I say when you stop rephrasing what I say.
> "blindly"? You're striking out here
No "blindly" is appropriate in describing the process of granting rights to any fertilized cell without regard.
> Carrying to term is not and can not be mandated
So legally requiring a woman to carry a child in order to avoid "aggression to the fetus" is... what?
> The exact same argument could made against child neglect laws.
No, children can be cared for by others. You are still ignoring that the fetus is biologically dependent on the mother, and that the proposed legislation protecting a fetus' right to be free from "aggression" involves curtailing the rights of another individual to control her body.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,344
@previous (V)
> I'll stop restating what I say when you stop rephrasing what I say.
Now you're being childish. Defend your statements against my objections; don't just restate them, but show why the objections dont apply.
> No "blindly" is appropriate in describing the process of granting rights to any fertilized cell without regard.
> without regard
Regard has been given. You merely don't agree with the decision. It is ultimately irrelevant how the decision was made as long as the decision is good. It does your argument no good to be arguing against the decision-making process.
> So legally requiring a woman to carry a child in order to avoid "aggression to the fetus" is... what?
As I said: A woman can not be required to carry a child to term - it is outside of her control if the fetus develops an illness, or if she and the fetus are victims of external aggression, or merely an accident. All that the legislation requires is for the mother to abstain from acts of aggression towards the fetus.
> No, children can be cared for by others.
What relevance is that? Would you grant that "a developing child's need to use" a "body to develop" is more important than "a woman's right to control and make decisions regarding her own body"?
> You are still ignoring that the fetus is biologically dependent on the mother, and that the proposed legislation protecting a fetus' right to be free from "aggression" involves curtailing the rights of another individual to control her body.
I am not ignoring this; I have answered it several times quite succinctly: Positive rights are abrogated when they violate negative rights.
> I'll stop restating what I say when you stop rephrasing what I say.
Now you're being childish. Defend your statements against my objections; don't just restate them, but show why the objections dont apply.
> No "blindly" is appropriate in describing the process of granting rights to any fertilized cell without regard.
> without regard
Regard has been given. You merely don't agree with the decision. It is ultimately irrelevant how the decision was made as long as the decision is good. It does your argument no good to be arguing against the decision-making process.
> So legally requiring a woman to carry a child in order to avoid "aggression to the fetus" is... what?
As I said: A woman can not be required to carry a child to term - it is outside of her control if the fetus develops an illness, or if she and the fetus are victims of external aggression, or merely an accident. All that the legislation requires is for the mother to abstain from acts of aggression towards the fetus.
> No, children can be cared for by others.
What relevance is that? Would you grant that "a developing child's need to use" a "body to develop" is more important than "a woman's right to control and make decisions regarding her own body"?
> You are still ignoring that the fetus is biologically dependent on the mother, and that the proposed legislation protecting a fetus' right to be free from "aggression" involves curtailing the rights of another individual to control her body.
I am not ignoring this; I have answered it several times quite succinctly: Positive rights are abrogated when they violate negative rights.
Anonymous V replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,347
@previous (B)
> Now you're being childish.
Now you are hurling insults?
> > No "blindly" is appropriate in describing the process of granting rights to any fertilized cell without regard.
> Regard has been given.
No it has not. Please reread the proposed changes in case you have forgotten:
"The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."
> All that the legislation requires is for the mother to abstain from acts of aggression towards the fetus.
Which would require her to carry the child.
> I am not ignoring this; I have answered it several times quite succinctly: Positive rights are abrogated when they violate negative rights.
You are ignoring this. You are hiding behind the same argument that the rights of the fetus must be protected while ignoring the fact that the consequence of that involves curtailing the rights of the mother. Why are you so eager to give the state power over this decision rather than the individual whose body is being used to carry it out?
> Now you're being childish.
Now you are hurling insults?
> > No "blindly" is appropriate in describing the process of granting rights to any fertilized cell without regard.
> Regard has been given.
No it has not. Please reread the proposed changes in case you have forgotten:
"The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."
> All that the legislation requires is for the mother to abstain from acts of aggression towards the fetus.
Which would require her to carry the child.
> I am not ignoring this; I have answered it several times quite succinctly: Positive rights are abrogated when they violate negative rights.
You are ignoring this. You are hiding behind the same argument that the rights of the fetus must be protected while ignoring the fact that the consequence of that involves curtailing the rights of the mother. Why are you so eager to give the state power over this decision rather than the individual whose body is being used to carry it out?
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #234,358
@previous (V)
> Now you are hurling insults?
Please stop arguing me and argue the arguments. It seems you have entirely conceded this point but wish to save face.
> No it has not. Please reread the proposed changes in case you have forgotten:
> "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."
...
Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it more true? I have shown that this line of discussion is entirely irrelevant to whether the decision is good.
> Which would require her to carry the child.
We have decisively established that this is not the case, nor could it be: carrying a child to term is outside the control of the mother. Refraining from overt actions of aggression towards the fetus is within the control of the mother.
> You are ignoring this.
Compelling argument. In case you have never had a discussion before, here's how it works: one person puts forward an argument; another puts forward objections to this argument. The first person then: concedes his argument is faulty, or refutes the objection, by showing the objection is faulty. You do not just keep saying the same thing over and over.
> You are hiding behind the same argument that the rights of the fetus must be protected while ignoring the fact that the consequence of that involves curtailing the rights of the mother.
Please stop arguing me and argue the arguments. What you should do here is give examples of other situations where the positive rights of a person outweigh the negative rights of another person.
> Why are you so eager to give the state power over this decision rather than the individual whose body is being used to carry it out?
One need not advocate the state have this power for one to support the logic of this proposition, but this is, nonetheless, a valid objection. I would maintain that this is, however, one of the fundamental functions of even the most minimalistic states: the protection of life.
If I were arguing on your side I would have more strongly stressed indirect acts of aggression such as consuming alcohol or narcotics during pregnancy. This would be a more valid route of discussion.
> Now you are hurling insults?
Please stop arguing me and argue the arguments. It seems you have entirely conceded this point but wish to save face.
> No it has not. Please reread the proposed changes in case you have forgotten:
> "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."
...
Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it more true? I have shown that this line of discussion is entirely irrelevant to whether the decision is good.
> Which would require her to carry the child.
We have decisively established that this is not the case, nor could it be: carrying a child to term is outside the control of the mother. Refraining from overt actions of aggression towards the fetus is within the control of the mother.
> You are ignoring this.
Compelling argument. In case you have never had a discussion before, here's how it works: one person puts forward an argument; another puts forward objections to this argument. The first person then: concedes his argument is faulty, or refutes the objection, by showing the objection is faulty. You do not just keep saying the same thing over and over.
> You are hiding behind the same argument that the rights of the fetus must be protected while ignoring the fact that the consequence of that involves curtailing the rights of the mother.
Please stop arguing me and argue the arguments. What you should do here is give examples of other situations where the positive rights of a person outweigh the negative rights of another person.
> Why are you so eager to give the state power over this decision rather than the individual whose body is being used to carry it out?
One need not advocate the state have this power for one to support the logic of this proposition, but this is, nonetheless, a valid objection. I would maintain that this is, however, one of the fundamental functions of even the most minimalistic states: the protection of life.
If I were arguing on your side I would have more strongly stressed indirect acts of aggression such as consuming alcohol or narcotics during pregnancy. This would be a more valid route of discussion.
Anonymous V replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #234,420
@previous (B)
Did you just spend that whole post complaining about me? It would be compelling if you weren't doing the very thing you are complaining about. Also, sidestepping objections with phrases like "We have decisively established" or "I have shown" when you haven't doesn't make your case any stronger.
> What you should do here is give examples of other situations where the positive rights of a person outweigh the negative rights of another person.
Why are you only assigning these negative rights to the fetus? What of the mother's right to control her own body or her right to life when either of these are threatened by the fetus? I am not seeing how this is purely a positive vs. negative issue.
Also, I am unclear how you see drawing the distinction between negative and positive rights as useful here. A fetus cannot engage in willful action, voluntarily consent to anything, or be held to any obligations, so it makes the distinction a bit one sided in considering any potentially conflicting rights of mother and fetus. I think that to move forward as if we were talking about the rights of two grown individuals is a bit dishonest.
Did you just spend that whole post complaining about me? It would be compelling if you weren't doing the very thing you are complaining about. Also, sidestepping objections with phrases like "We have decisively established" or "I have shown" when you haven't doesn't make your case any stronger.
> What you should do here is give examples of other situations where the positive rights of a person outweigh the negative rights of another person.
Why are you only assigning these negative rights to the fetus? What of the mother's right to control her own body or her right to life when either of these are threatened by the fetus? I am not seeing how this is purely a positive vs. negative issue.
Also, I am unclear how you see drawing the distinction between negative and positive rights as useful here. A fetus cannot engage in willful action, voluntarily consent to anything, or be held to any obligations, so it makes the distinction a bit one sided in considering any potentially conflicting rights of mother and fetus. I think that to move forward as if we were talking about the rights of two grown individuals is a bit dishonest.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #234,423
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 12 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #234,966
@234,420 (V)
> Did you just spend that whole post complaining about me? It would be compelling if you weren't doing the very thing you are complaining about. Also, sidestepping objections with phrases like "We have decisively established" or "I have shown" when you haven't doesn't make your case any stronger.
Argue the arguments, not me.
> Why are you only assigning these negative rights to the fetus?
I don't only assign negative rights to the fetus.
> What of the mother's right to control her own body or her right to life when either of these are threatened by the fetus?
To do whatever you want with your own body is a positive right that ends when it violates another negative right. Both the mother and the fetus have a right to life, making this a morally grey area.
> Also, I am unclear how you see drawing the distinction between negative and positive rights as useful here. A fetus cannot engage in willful action, voluntarily consent to anything, or be held to any obligations, so it makes the distinction a bit one sided in considering any potentially conflicting rights of mother and fetus. I think that to move forward as if we were talking about the rights of two grown individuals is a bit dishonest.
What relevance does wilful action, consent, and obligations have to do with one's rights? You have merely stated this as though it means something, without showing that it does.
A child can not consent to anything and can not be held to any obligations, yet I take it that you do not attempt to deny their rights? Although your last sentence makes it sound as if you are...
> Did you just spend that whole post complaining about me? It would be compelling if you weren't doing the very thing you are complaining about. Also, sidestepping objections with phrases like "We have decisively established" or "I have shown" when you haven't doesn't make your case any stronger.
Argue the arguments, not me.
> Why are you only assigning these negative rights to the fetus?
I don't only assign negative rights to the fetus.
> What of the mother's right to control her own body or her right to life when either of these are threatened by the fetus?
To do whatever you want with your own body is a positive right that ends when it violates another negative right. Both the mother and the fetus have a right to life, making this a morally grey area.
> Also, I am unclear how you see drawing the distinction between negative and positive rights as useful here. A fetus cannot engage in willful action, voluntarily consent to anything, or be held to any obligations, so it makes the distinction a bit one sided in considering any potentially conflicting rights of mother and fetus. I think that to move forward as if we were talking about the rights of two grown individuals is a bit dishonest.
What relevance does wilful action, consent, and obligations have to do with one's rights? You have merely stated this as though it means something, without showing that it does.
A child can not consent to anything and can not be held to any obligations, yet I take it that you do not attempt to deny their rights? Although your last sentence makes it sound as if you are...
Anonymous V replied with this 15 years ago, 1 day later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #235,718
@previous (B)
> To do whatever you want with your own body is a positive right
We aren't talking about her privileges here. To be free from another's interference and control sounds more like a negative right.
> Both the mother and the fetus have a right to life, making this a morally grey area.
Super! One of the problems with the personhood movement is that it doesn't even admit that much.
> What relevance does willful action, consent, and obligations have to do with one's rights?
You can't ask a fetus to respect another's rights. You can't serve it with an eviction notice. If the fetus' interference with the mother's body is unwanted or harmful, how does the mother protect her rights from someone who won't stop violating them? In the case of unwanted or harmful interference, the mother's actions would be akin to self-defense. Even if we accept the fetus' right to life, it's a stretch to maintain that includes the right to interfere with another person's body for nine months.
> To do whatever you want with your own body is a positive right
We aren't talking about her privileges here. To be free from another's interference and control sounds more like a negative right.
> Both the mother and the fetus have a right to life, making this a morally grey area.
Super! One of the problems with the personhood movement is that it doesn't even admit that much.
> What relevance does willful action, consent, and obligations have to do with one's rights?
You can't ask a fetus to respect another's rights. You can't serve it with an eviction notice. If the fetus' interference with the mother's body is unwanted or harmful, how does the mother protect her rights from someone who won't stop violating them? In the case of unwanted or harmful interference, the mother's actions would be akin to self-defense. Even if we accept the fetus' right to life, it's a stretch to maintain that includes the right to interfere with another person's body for nine months.
Anonymous Z-6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #235,827
@previous (V)
> We aren't talking about her privileges here. To be free from another's interference and control sounds more like a negative right.
This is a valid line of argument, but to allow it one would have to follow it to it's conclusion, which would be the abolition of the state and the coercive justice system. I favor this line of reasoning, and so can not argue against it too strongly lol, but I will allow that if one accepts the current statist justice paradigm this legislation is a valid interference.
> Super! One of the problems with the personhood movement is that it doesn't even admit that much.
It is only a morally grey area because of personhood. Without fetal personhood, it is not a morally grey area.
> You can't ask a fetus to respect another's rights. You can't serve it with an eviction notice. If the fetus' interference with the mother's body is unwanted or harmful, how does the mother protect her rights from someone who won't stop violating them? In the case of unwanted or harmful interference, the mother's actions would be akin to self-defense. Even if we accept the fetus' right to life, it's a stretch to maintain that includes the right to interfere with another person's body for nine months.
Compelling argument (first time i've said this literally lol).
Sometimes I feel like we are rebelling against nature, that our arguments have so little relativity to biological reality. While I agree with the logic of your posts, I find the notion of self-defence against a fetus pretty humorous. I think you've managed to show that fetal personhood is not incongruent with abortion, which would disturb many proponents lol. It would prevent aggression against the fetus by parties other than the mother, though.
> We aren't talking about her privileges here. To be free from another's interference and control sounds more like a negative right.
This is a valid line of argument, but to allow it one would have to follow it to it's conclusion, which would be the abolition of the state and the coercive justice system. I favor this line of reasoning, and so can not argue against it too strongly lol, but I will allow that if one accepts the current statist justice paradigm this legislation is a valid interference.
> Super! One of the problems with the personhood movement is that it doesn't even admit that much.
It is only a morally grey area because of personhood. Without fetal personhood, it is not a morally grey area.
> You can't ask a fetus to respect another's rights. You can't serve it with an eviction notice. If the fetus' interference with the mother's body is unwanted or harmful, how does the mother protect her rights from someone who won't stop violating them? In the case of unwanted or harmful interference, the mother's actions would be akin to self-defense. Even if we accept the fetus' right to life, it's a stretch to maintain that includes the right to interfere with another person's body for nine months.
Compelling argument (first time i've said this literally lol).
Sometimes I feel like we are rebelling against nature, that our arguments have so little relativity to biological reality. While I agree with the logic of your posts, I find the notion of self-defence against a fetus pretty humorous. I think you've managed to show that fetal personhood is not incongruent with abortion, which would disturb many proponents lol. It would prevent aggression against the fetus by parties other than the mother, though.
Triptych !LightPenis joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #236,218
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 2 weeks later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #248,844
Jesus!
"Polling finds that, hours before tomorrow’s vote, 45 percent of voters supported the amendment, while 44 percent opposed it."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/mississippi-personhood-amendment-poised-to-pass/2011/11/07/gIQA3xlYvM_blog.html
"Polling finds that, hours before tomorrow’s vote, 45 percent of voters supported the amendment, while 44 percent opposed it."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/mississippi-personhood-amendment-poised-to-pass/2011/11/07/gIQA3xlYvM_blog.html