Issues other than abortion

[Vonsalza]

Human beings begin at conception. “Personhood” is used in the abortion debate to determine who’s allowed the basic human right not to be killed. I argue that in this context, “personhood” is a bigoted concept.

You may, but it’s progressive even if you don’t want to admit it. You obtain more rights and privileges as you age. This is the reality in which we find ourselves.

When is a woman of sufficient magnitude to override, i.e. kill, another human being’s body?

Easy. When the survival of that other human being physically depends on her body and is certain to leave it in an altered state when pregnancy concludes.

If might makes right, why is it socially, legally, and ethically frowned upon for her to kill her toddler?

Again, easy. The toddler is not dependent on its mother’s actual, physical body. Anyone can raise that toddler.

Opinion isn’t necessarily invalid. It’s just not something that can necessarily be proven as concretely as, say, the science of embryology.

Fine with me, but that’s a walk-back on the previous statement.

This is incorrect. Using the precautionary principle, I’d argue for keeping both parties alive.

As forcing that upon a would-be mother physically imperils her, she should make that choice.

A fetus is not a parasite because s/he is of the same species as the mother. A fetus is not a tumor because s/he is a separate human being, not part of the mother and not an overgrowth of the mother’s own cells. This is all very real. Very physical. Therefore these references to pre-born human beings would indeed be metaphorical.

the point is that a child is a real, physical hazard to a woman’s health - after the delivery of which her body is ever-changed.

No one has the right to force her to go through that. Period.

As a reminder, abortion is something also being done to somebody else’s body, usually death by crushing inside of a cannula.

Agree, abortion is tragic. But the tragedy doesn’t justify stripping a woman of her right to decide she doesn’t want to do it.

That men have for so often exploited and dominated women throughout history isn’t right. So why is it OK to turn that domination around and impose it on the pre-born?

Of all the women I know who’ve had one, literally none of them did so as a justification to get back at men for the wrongs done to their long-dead female ancestors. To suggest so is, frankly, a little odd.

 

[HopkinsReb]

I agree, but look through this forum. Abortion, abortion, abortion. Yes, abortion is important, but not much is spoken of the other issues.

Well, generally, the other issues don’t involve hacking babies apart and selling their organs.

There’s a little more of a sense of urgency on the abortion issue than on the others.

 

[Vonsalza]

Yes, “personhood” is an artificial concept created to justify the denial of human rights to a specific section of humanity.

Sure. We reserve the right to smoke and die for one’s country to those humans that are 18 years of age or older. Younger persons are barred from this.

It is a creation designed to legitimize a particular action to achieve a specific result.

Sure. Like when we limit the privilege of driving to those persons 16 and older. This is done, presumably, for public safety. We have rights that those persons younger than 16 do not.

Nothing new here.

 

[pnewton]

We know an adult woman is endowed with “humanity”.

For the unborn? That is still in doubt

What species do you thing they are?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

We know an adult woman is endowed with “humanity”.

For the unborn? That is still in doubt

What species do you thing they are?

homo sapiens.

 

[graciew]

The victory is over those who would tell women what to do with their bodies. And these people are usually men. In our species, the males are generally larger than the females.

Really? So how is a personal matter of self esteem,feminism or even learning how to set healthy boundaries redund in a battle men against women and a baby ends up being the victim?
What is that?
How in earth can one compare a baby in the womb with a tumor that may end up with one ‘s life?
It is a very bizarre way to understand freedom…
Those who really fought to set us free did not hesitate for a second to give their lives so that even the unknown to them would survive.
I am sorry, but presented like that, it really sounds like a personal problem to deal with healthy boundaries with men( or other women for the case,I don’t know…) and extending it to the rest of us and imposing it as we we had an issue with men or babies…

 

[pnewton]

Homo sapiens are commonly called humans in English. Thus in English those who are homo sapiens have humanity at least as the English language works.

I think you added quotes to the word to make it into this personhood concept that you speak of. If so, then I am not arguing the definition, but the concept. If the idea of personhood (humanity with quotes) cannot be known and therefore is not useful for incorporation into the law, then being a homo sapien (humanity without quotes) should be used.

 

[Elf01]

We know an adult woman is endowed with “humanity”.

How do we know that?

 

[Vonsalza]

Really? So how is a personal matter of self esteem,feminism or even learning how to set healthy boundaries redund in a battle men against women and a baby ends up being the victim?

That was just a reply to your “pick on someone your own size” line. And, accurately, most of the pro-life crowd are men who are, typically, larger than women.

That’s all that was going on there.

How in earth can one compare a baby in the womb with a tumor that may end up with one ‘s life?

Easy. The expectant mother may not want that baby growing inside of her just like she wouldn’t want a tumor growing inside of her.

It is a very bizarre way to understand freedom…

Not at all. I want the mother to choose instead of letting someone choose for her. That is freedom.

I am sorry, but presented like that, it really sounds like a personal problem to deal with healthy boundaries with men( or other women for the case,I don’t know…) and extending it to the rest of us and imposing it as we we had an issue with men or babies…

The reluctant mother does have an issue with another baby - the bodily damage and awesome financial pressure that it is sure to bring.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

We know an adult woman is endowed with “humanity”.

How do we know that?

In our society it is generally illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex. It’s reasonably codified.

 

[Elf01]

In our society it is generally illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex. It’s reasonably codified.

So humanity is defined by the state?

 

[Vonsalza]

Homo sapiens are commonly called humans in English. Thus in English those who are homo sapiens have humanity at least as the English language works.

I don’t think anyone challenges that there’s a developing homo sapien inside the uterus of an expecting mother.

I think you added quotes to the word to make it into this personhood concept that you speak of.

If I make any in-text quotes, they are generally copy-paste lifted directly from your text. I don’t need intellectual dishonesty in order to make my point.

If the idea of personhood (humanity with quotes) cannot be known and therefore is not useful for incorporation into the law, then being a homo sapien (humanity without quotes) should be used.

Sure. So we know the mother is a homo sapien. But she may not want to carry a baby. So does this homosapien-in-development have a right to exist that trumps the mothers right to not want a baby?

We can’t know for sure.

Thus we default to choice. Ergo I am pro-choice, hoping the mother chooses life but doing absolutely nothing to force her to - especially if I’m not going to help her raise it.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

In our society it is generally illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex. It’s reasonably codified.

So humanity is defined by the state?

The state must define the concepts it is going to enforce…

 

[Elf01]

The state must define the concepts it is going to enforce…

Agreed, but I wasn’t asking about the state. I asked how we can be sure an adult woman has humanity i.e. give me a definition of humanity.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

The state must define the concepts it is going to enforce…

Agreed, but I wasn’t asking about the state. I asked how we can be sure an adult woman has humanity i.e. give me a definition of humanity.

At this point, I’m only concerned with the “law of the land”.

It tells us that all men are created equal. And by men, we also mean women and men of all races. This concept does not appear to extend to the unborn - which makes sense as they are not functionally part of society. They don’t pay taxes nor vote in the next election, for example.

 

[HopkinsReb]

That was just a reply to your “pick on someone your own size” line. And, accurately, most of the pro-life crowd are men who are, typically, larger than women.

Source?

10 char

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

That was just a reply to your “pick on someone your own size” line. And, accurately, most of the pro-life crowd are men who are, typically, larger than women.

Source?

10 char

For what? that most pro-lifers are men or that men are, on average, bigger than women (in our species)?

 

[HopkinsReb]

That most pro-lifers are men.

 

[pnewton]

But she may not want to carry a baby. So does this homosapien-in-development have a right to exist that trumps the mothers right to not want a baby?

We can’t know for sure.

Thus we default to choice

First, the child in the womb is already homo-sapien, as a biological fact. And I default to life, as I believe one’s choice never trumps the life of another.

 

[Ender]

Sure. We reserve the right to smoke and die for one’s country to those humans that are 18 years of age or older. Younger persons are barred from this.

Sure. Like when we limit the privilege of driving to those persons 16 and older. This is done, presumably, for public safety. We have rights that those persons younger than 16 do not.

Nothing new here.

What you are talking about are privileges. What is actually involved here is the most basic human right of all. Those things are not actually comparable. I think most people recognize the disconnect at presenting the right to live as no more significant than the right to drive. I do think, however, that people had better get used to the idea, because this won’t be the only issue where one’s right to live will be subordinated to someone else’s idea of the common good.