Agreed. Further, we have the technology today to turn any cell in the body into a human being. That doesn’t make my skin cells 'persons". Although there is no objective way to determine personhood (a legal, not a scientific term), there are strong arguments against establishing personhood at conception. Those arguments get weaker as time goes on, but we really can’t point to on exact moment and say “now we have a person”.
We can debate the issue of personhood, but that doesn’t change the fact that at conception we have a new human life, one with a singular, linear identity that will pass through all the stages of human development (unless something interrupts the process). That is an objective fact. I understand your point that you believe that’s not the relevant point to debate, but the fact remains that “human life begins at conception” is an objective fact–albeit one that you might find to be less than central to the debate. That’s what I was responding to, the notion that considers “life begins at conception” to be an open question. It isn’t. The value that we assign to that life is a point of debate for many, but it’s a human being at that point nonetheless.
I also agree that “they” should be allowed to run.
Of course a position that Muslims should be taken into concentration camps is chilling. And that would say a lot against a candidate, and make any voting decision simple for me, for one. But there is a lot of ideological distance between mainstream and said position.
Bricker’s question is about amending the Constitution. If there is an amendment or clause regarding “extreme” views, even “dangerous” ones, please tell me what the line-drawing criteria would be.
- Jack
Strat: It is not a fact. It is a belief. Not even one generally held.
Come on now.
No, it’s an indisputable fact. Sorry. I believe you want to debate “personhood,” but that doesn’t change the fact that at conception a human life has commenced. Honestly, how can you dispute that? What aspect of that is open to debate?
Pretty much all of it. The sperm and ova were just as human and just as alive. And morally speaking, personhood is what matters, not “human life”; I destroy human life every time I scratch an itch and destroy some cells.
The fact that it’s a human life. Which is to say, the entirety of it. It’s incredible that you’d come into a thread premised upon the point that it’s so silly to confuse one’s personal beliefs with incontrovertible facts and then stake out this position. “Human life starts at conception” is as far from objective as you can get in this arena.
Just a funny thought, but I’ll bet that if this amendment actually got serious traction, Orrin Hatch would get behind it. He wants his name on an amendment SO BAD, he’d even go for this.
Seriously, I tend to be pro QUALITY of life, so I’m all for keeping abortion legal (with restrictions). Why force someone to have a child they clearly don’t want and then bail? We all know “pro life” people give up on the baby the second it takes it’s first breath.
Wasn’t it Barney Frank who said that Republicans believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth?
Really? So, what actually is created at conception if not a human life? Actually, don’t bother. I have found that those who have a strong emotional stake in denying what is a self-evident biological (not philosophical) fact, aren’t open to real discussion. My assertion is as controversial a statement as “when cattle breed, at the moment of conception a bovine being is created.” It’s undeniable.
Or did you miss the exclusion regarding “personhood”? Seriously, this is a biological fact beyond dispute, except for those with a political axe to grind (e.g., pro-choice politicians).
You are just playing word games. Excluding personhood means you are excluding the only moral and legal reason to opposing killing a “human life” in the first place. Human life isn’t worth anything by itself, it’s just meat.
You are obviously trying to get people to “admit” that a fertilized egg qualifies as a “human life”, then as anti-abortion types always do you’ll pretend that qualifies it as a person and hope we don’t notice the bait-and-switch. You are playing around with the fact that “human life” has two meanings, one of which means “biologically human” and the other meaning “human person”; you obviously intend to switch meanings as soon as you get the “admission” you want.
In Post #22 I spelled out a “scary scenario” if we deem life to begin at conception and was taken to task for it.
After some thought I am standing by it though.
If Bricker and O’Donnell and company want to define human life as beginning at conception then Post #22 is the logical conclusion. That Bricker will accept some lesser punishment for the “crime” of aborting your baby today is merely a tactical necessity. He cannot get such draconian laws passed today so will start on the slippery slope with something less.
It has to be that way though.
You have a woman who was raped and impregnated by her attacker. To trump the woman’s rights in such a case, forcing her to bear a child against her will, demands that the unborn be a human from the get-go. Nothing less suffices and I would agree that murdering another human would supersede the woman’s right to abort (if we accept the zygote as a human).
Now, if the zygote/blastocyte = full blown human sufficient to trump the woman’s rights then it has all the protections you or I have. Killing it is murder. No two ways about it.
If Bricker suggests that some lesser punishment for a woman is in order than would otherwise be doled out to someone who murdered another person then he (or those who would argue this) is conceding the point that the unborn is “lesser” in some fashion. Not human enough to deem it murder. If the unborn is “lesser” then it does not rise to the level of overriding the woman’s rights such that we can force her to bear her attacker’s child.
Missed the edit window and that line was written poorly although I suppose people know what I meant. To be clearer though:
“Nothing less suffices and I would agree that murdering another human is wrong and would supersede the woman’s right to abort (if we accept the zygote as a human).”
Yes, really.
But you’re right; I won’t bother.
If abortion is murder, then misscarriage is invoulantary manslaughter. It’s undeniable.
Seriously, this is a logical and legal fact beyond dispute, except for those with a political axe to grind (e.g., prolife politicians)
What are the elements of involuntary manslaughter? In other words, to sustain a charge of involuntary manslaughter, what does the prosecution have to prove?
Well, to start with, they have to investigate, which is my point. Do we REALLY want our wives and Mothers put through that after the tragedy of a misscarriage?
People keep saying this, but I’d like to see a cite that “they have to investigate”.
When abortion was illegal in 1940, no one felt you had to investigate a miscarriage. On what basis do you assert it would have to be investigated now?
And what happened to, “If abortion is murder, then misscarriage is invoulantary manslaughter. It’s undeniable. Seriously, this is a logical and legal fact beyond dispute…?”
Are you now withdrawing that claim? If not, then please identify the elements of involuntary manslaughter, and let’s see how they map up with the facts of a miscarriage.
Cause we all know that the anti-abortion crew hasn’t tried to keep pro-choice candidates out of office.:rolleyes: