No more than I am astounded at how many Americans go through life without a clue to the meaning of inalienable or self-retained right of liberty.
Peace
rwjefferson
Surely murder and robbery laws deny the liberty to rob and murder? By the logic of purely denial of liberty being a bad thing, then there should be no laws, no jails, no police.
You cannot deny what has already been forfeit.
A murderer or robber forfeits liberty as he or she denies liberty.
Governments are instituted to secure the inalienable and self-retained right of liberty for all.
No one has the right of liberty to murder or rob of take from another’s body without permission.
Peace only through Liberty
rwjefferson
But an owner of something denies the liberty to have it taken, be that an object or their life. If to forfeit liberty all we need do is not respect that of others, we are all at fault, unless we make no moves to protect or preserve what is ours.
There is no right of liberty to take of ones health for another. It is thus I stand to protect and preserve what is ultimately our own: our life and our health and our bodies.
Please forgive.
I simply do not understand why this is this such a difficult concept for so many.
Peace
rwjefferson
You’re welcome! And thanks for your responses as well.
Ok. Think of a sentient android… like Lietenanant Commander Data from Star Trek. I would argue that if such a being existed, he should be recognized as having the same rights as a human.
There was a stage in Data’s life where he was just a bunch of circuits stuffed into a human like exterior. Before his inventor, Dr. Noonien Soong, loaded the software into his positronic brain he was nothing more than a machine. But at a certain point he became a unique person. He interacted with the world, and via this interaction he was able to define his own sense of purpose in relation to that world.
Think of a human being as a sophisticated biological machine. His brain has “software” which combined with the hardware of his body, sense organs, and brain allows him to interact with the world. People have “programming” that they’ve gained through years of interacting with other people. The program (personality) may be switched off at times (sleeping and anesthesia) but as long as the program is still retrievable there’s a tangible loss that occurs if you break the machine.
Just as destroying Data’s android body prior to any software being loaded into him would not have been a tangible loss to the universe, so too is destroying a fetus not a loss. You cannot destroy what hasn’t come into existence yet. You can’t consider potential future existence purely by itself, because to do so would force us to consider every human cell capable of being cloned as a unique individual, which leads to an absurd result.
But the only tangible loss is his future consciousness, same as a fetus’s. This distinction seems (to me) to serve no purpose other than to permit abortion while protecting the flatliner (or Data, if his battery ran out), when there is no meaningful difference in their current mental state or future mental state. The software is nothing (in terms of mental activity) it it’s “off,” and a fetus could just as validly be described as having the programming that will lead inexorably to consciousness.
Katharine Hepburn and Frank Sinatra both remarked in separate interviews before Roe v. Wade that they’d known several people who’d had miscarriages, but had never known them- even the religious ones- to have funeral services for them, which made them believe the religious did not see it as fully a person either.
I see abortion as a very personal choice that works fairly well as currently legislated. If you are morally opposed to it then nobody should require you to have it (unless you’re both mentally impaired and your life is in danger). It’s not just a clump of cells and it’s not a person but something that’s more than fish and less than fowl, a potential rather than a realization.
Virtually every cell of a body could be cloned and could potentially be a unique consciousness given the right conditions. Unless we give some sort of preference to previously arisen consciousness, we’d be forced to maximize the number of beings in existence lest we be considered murderers. Your line of reasoning results in the mere addition paradox and the “repugnant conclusion.” Which I can’t accept.
For the last 25 years I have been very unimpressed with the pro-choice leadership in politics.
Why the FUCK can’t they get an attorney to come forward with a case on behalf of some 13 year old who was being parentally pressured to have an abortion, and make an issue of it (preferably inside the courtroom but if need be outside of it) towards establishing her right as the decision-maker to decline an abortion and have her baby, thus underlining the notion that it is, indeed, her decision to make?
One other thing about clones is that nothing is added to the cell, no new information, the process just gives the cell a growth medium where it can develop. It really is quite amazing when you think about it, your body given the right conditions could grow trillions of human beings.
But there’s a difference, isn’t there, between a fetus and a skin cell. A fetus is a distinct entity with a unity of identity that will lead, unbroken, through every phase of human development. It is already “in motion,” so to speak, just as you and I are, and a skin cell is not. The skin cell requires some active step to become a distinct human entity with the singular unity of identity previously described.
Every time we don’t clone, or a couple doesn’t have sex, it is possible that a new human being would not have been created. But I don’t believe we have any obligation to create new humans, only to respect the ones that already exist. I don’t believe your paradox applies.
And I’m still not seeing why previously arisen consciousness is a factor in your position, even if you believe the paradox is in play. Seems an irrelevancy.
What if a pregnant woman simply decides to stop eating for a couple weeks, and in the process, her fetus dies? She hasn’t taken any “active steps”, has she?
I’m pretty sure my pit bull is concious so does that make him human?
What makes humans unique is metacognition. We can think about thinking.
To define personhood based on DNA alone is an insult to what makes humanity great, and is basically just speciesm.
Ah so when did you develop the awesome gift to read the minds of pit bulls? Okay so what’s he thinking now? and now? …this is so cool!
Not sure how this relates to my point that an active step to create a life isn’t an obligation, that we only need to respect the lives that already exist. Starving one’s baby isn’t reflective of a respect for that life, whether or not you’d categorize that as a passive act.
The problem is that if it were demonstrated to our satisfaction that a fetus is a person, I and the vast majority of pro-choice people would likely abandon the pro-choice position.
Lets take the hypothetical situation you alluded to earlier. Suppose I woke up and discovered that I had been unconscious due to some sort of horrific accident that affected both me and you. Due to the bizarre and unprecedented nature of the accident, it was determined by a doctor on the scene that the only way to save you was to hook you up to me so that my heart pumped the blood for both of us, and this is the situation we are in when I awaken. The situation is temporary; the doctors assure me that in about nine or ten months, you will be able to be safely unhooked, but until then, the only way to disconnect us is by killing you.
I firmly believe that I would have no moral right to disconnect myself from you based merely upon my personal choice. (There may or may not be circumstances that would justify me killing you in order to separate us, but merely being dissatisfied with being temporarily stuck hooked up to you would not be one of them.)
I would believe that I should be legally free to disconnect myself from you only because I believed it would be impractical to legislate against it without causing greater harm. Otherwise I would have no problem with making it illegal for me to kill you.
If the situation were instead that I was a bystander and that you were hooked up to my sister or my mother, who temporarily depended upon the connection for her life, I would have very little compunction about shooting you in the head rather than allow you to kill her in order to sever the connection, if your body could still somehow preserve the life of my family member. I would believe that such homicide should be legal, if making it so did not cause greater harms. I would bear the legal penalty if it were not so.
I believe that a substantial number of pro-choice people would agree with me. We are pro-choice precisely because we believe that a fetus has no personhood and for no other reason. Don’t be so quick to wish that we abandoned our one reason for agreeing with you.
well if you want to start any sort of real and intelligent conversation about an explosive topic, you might want to start with some basic, 5th grade debating skills…such as:
“how can anybody” which instantly implies anyone who might disagree is horrible human being. not a good way to start it off.
“killing an unborn child,” what’s your definition of unborn?
“killing,” says who, you? how so? where is your support for this declaration of “killing?”
“which is what it is,” where is your argument, evidence, credentials…anything to support why you are so sure abortion is killing?
i hope with all these responses, no one bothered to waste a brain cell by responding to an argument you obviously can care less about actually backing up.