Look, either debate honestly, answer the question, or shut up.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Lord Ashtar

Oh, so that’s how it works. :dubious:

Yes, that’s how it works. The “personhood” of a fetus is purely in the eye of the beholder.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Dead Badger

But it is your subjective opinion that this is the only factor which matters. It simply defies belief that you can’t see this crucial distinction.

That IS the legal question which is being decided. The question is whether or not the state has a compelling interest in restricting a woman’s default right to privacy. It is up to the state to prove that another interest should override that default right. Whether some individual’s have a personal, religious belief that a fetus is a person is not legally relevant. The religious opinions of others does not trump the default civil rights of women. That’s what the Roe decision says:

we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake.

The Roe decision also says that the question of whether the fetus is a person is irrelevant:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

So the Supreme Court has already said that the perceived “personhood” of a fetus has no bearing on the issue.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Cheesesteak

Look, let’s keep these arguments straight. I jumped in when you said “even a full grown adult doesn’t have the right, blah blah”. Your claim is that even if a fetus is a full person, the woman still has the right to abort. You can’t go back now and just claim it’s not a person.

Quite right, my personal opinion that it’s absurd to call a zygote a person is not relevant to the real issues.

Let’s try again:
If a fetus is a person, it’s pretty irresponsible to make choices that create it and then kill it because you don’t want to carry it around for 9 months.

Wahen you say “if a fetus is a person,” you are implying that the question has any potential answer. It does not. It’s not an unsolved mystery or a question with an objective but unknown answer. It’s just a question of individual perception. You might as well argue about whether KFC is or is not truly “finger licking good.”

The way I see it, if fetuses are people, then the pregnant woman is in the same moral boat as the father of an infant. You have played your part in creating a human being, you can’t just back out now and let it suffer/die. You are responsible for the well being of that young human, whether it be for a 9mo pregnancy or an 18+ year financial commitment.

The way you see it is too subjective and frankly faith-based to codify into law.

[Excalibre]

@Diogenes the Cynic

That IS the legal question which is being decided. The question is whether or not the state has a compelling interest in restricting a woman’s default right to privacy. It is up to the state to prove that another interest should override that default right. Whether some individual’s have a personal, religious belief that a fetus is a person is not legally relevant. The religious opinions of others does not trump the default civil rights of women. That’s what the Roe decision says:

The Roe decision also says that the question of whether the fetus is a person is irrelevant:

So the Supreme Court has already said that the perceived “personhood” of a fetus has no bearing on the issue.

It’s fascinating to me that you’re willing to stake all this on a Constitutional right many scholars don’t believe exists.

[John_Mace]

@Diogenes the Cynic

That IS the legal question which is being decided. The question is whether or not the state has a compelling interest in restricting a woman’s default right to privacy. It is up to the state to prove that another interest should override that default right. Whether some individual’s have a personal, religious belief that a fetus is a person is not legally relevant. The religious opinions of others does not trump the default civil rights of women. That’s what the Roe decision says:

The Roe decision also says that the question of whether the fetus is a person is irrelevant:

So the Supreme Court has already said that the perceived “personhood” of a fetus has no bearing on the issue.

But there is no truth value in the SCOTUS decision. The court could just as easily have ruled that it is relavent whether or not the fetus is a person. Would you then be telling us that that was “already decided”?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@John Mace

But there is no truth value in the SCOTUS decision. The court could just as easily have ruled that it is relavent whether or not the fetus is a person. Would you then be telling us that that was “already decided”?

Yes.

Who else is going to decide what’s legally relevant if not the Supreme Court?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Excalibre

It’s fascinating to me that you’re willing to stake all this on a Constitutional right many scholars don’t believe exists.

The Supreme Court has said it exsists, therefore it exists. Constitution means whatever SCOTUS says it mean.

[Cheesesteak]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Wahen you say “if a fetus is a person,” you are implying that the question has any potential answer.

No. When I say “if a fetus is a person” I’m setting the assumptions for this particular thought experiment. I agree with you that in the real world, it’s a matter of opinion, and in fact my opinion is the same as yours. I’m still going down the path of disagreeing with this prior statment

The debate is about the WOMAN’S rights, not the fetus’s. Even a full grown adult doesn’t have a right to live inside another person, so the ridiculous religious belief that a fetus is a person has never been anything but an irrelevant red herring.

The argument that you have proposed is that the status of the fetus is irrelevent, so we hypothetically give the fetus full personhood status, and examine the situation with those assumptions.

I claim that if you give a fetus the same moral status as a born child, then you cannot support the idea of allowing abortions because the woman doesn’t want to carry the fetus to term. Other reasons prompting an abortion may be supportable.

Why is this an important exercise? It allows you to understand WHY a person might be disagreeing with you. Not all your enemies are demons, they may just be looking at things from a different perspective.

[Excalibre]

@Diogenes the Cynic

The Supreme Court has said it exsists, therefore it exists. Constitution means whatever SCOTUS says it mean.

Ahh, but do you think the current court would uphold that reasoning? Is it something we can depend on?

There is a major difference between the Constitution’s actual, enumerated rights and those just inferred from it. Given the erosion of the very concept of the right to privacy in recent jurisprudence, it’s certainly not something you can expect with any certainty to survive any future court challenges.

You’re building your house on a crummy foundation, Diogenes.

[Sarahfeena]

@Cheesesteak

The argument that you have proposed is that the status of the fetus is irrelevent, so we hypothetically give the fetus full personhood status, and examine the situation with those assumptions.

Let’s face it. Diogenes wants the status of the fetus as human vs. not human to be irrelevant, because that way, he wins the debate. Bascially, he is trying to set the rules of the debate so he can’t lose. If the fetus is not a person, then of course it means that it has no rights, and certainly no rights that trump the mother’s. I think that given the presumption that the fetus is not a person, it can’t possibly be argued that the fetus has rights. So, he states this as a given. It’s a clever technique, but I find it interesting that so many people who agree with him on the issue can see through it as bullshit.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Cheesesteak

No. When I say “if a fetus is a person” I’m setting the assumptions for this particular thought experiment. I agree with you that in the real world, it’s a matter of opinion, and in fact my opinion is the same as yours. I’m still going down the path of disagreeing with this prior statment The argument that you have proposed is that the status of the fetus is irrelevent, so we hypothetically give the fetus full personhood status, and examine the situation with those assumptions.

Legally, SCOTUS has already ruled that the “moral status” of the fetus is irresolvable and irrelevant.

I claim that if you give a fetus the same moral status as a born child, then you cannot support the idea of allowing abortions because the woman doesn’t want to carry the fetus to term. Other reasons prompting an abortion may be supportable.

But your initial assumption (that a fetus is a person) can never be anything other than subjective (and often religious). It’s not something you can prove and you need more than a personal moral perception to override other people’s pre-existing rights. You have to show a compelling state interest, and as long as you can’t prove a fetus is a person, you can’t prove a compelling state interest in abridging a woman’s right to privacy.

To compare it to another debate, think of the PeTA radicals who think that chickens and cows are something akin to “persons” and that eating them is “murder.” Does their belief really translate into anything but a belief? Should their belief, no matter how sincere, ever be allowed to override the rights of others to slaughter cows and sell the meat? Can they ever actually prove that eating cows is “murder” and that the state therefore has a compelling interest in stopping the beef industry?

Why is this an important exercise? It allows you to understand WHY a person might be disagreeing with you. Not all your enemies are demons, they may just be looking at things from a different perspective.

I don’t think most pro-lifers are demons, and I understand the impulse to want to protect what they perceive as unborn children. I have two children of my own and thought of them as my children from the day I knew my wife was pregnant. I think that most pro-lifers (most, not all – some really are just fanatics or misogynists) are operating from an impulse of compassion and distress for the perceived victimization of the helpless…but the same can be said for PeTA. I see most pro-lifers (and PeTA members) as more misguided than evil (sorry if that sounds condescending. I couldn’t think of a more respectful way to express it).

[Excalibre]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Legally, SCOTUS has already ruled that the “moral status” of the fetus is irresolvable and irrelevant.

That’s not really true. Roe v. Wade did not, as far as I remember, rule that fetuses are humans with particular rights. But the trimester framework they use acknowledges that states do have a legitimate purpose in limiting late-term abortions, which obviously implies that fetuses do have some sort of rights, at least late in pregnancy, that states can make laws to protect.

[Cheesesteak]

Since when does the SCOTUS have a direct connection to your brain, such that you can’t support your own thoughts without defering to them? You said fetal status was irrelevant, support that statement. Explain to me how a fetus that is accorded all the moral status of a 1 day old infant can be aborted in good faith.

It’s really not that difficult a concept to understand, it isn’t subjective, it isn’t religious. Imagine that the 1 week old fetus is exactly the same as a 1 day old infant, just smaller, and support your claim.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Excalibre

Ahh, but do you think the current court would uphold that reasoning? Is it something we can depend on?

There is a major difference between the Constitution’s actual, enumerated rights and those just inferred from it. Given the erosion of the very concept of the right to privacy in recent jurisprudence, it’s certainly not something you can expect with any certainty to survive any future court challenges.

I think that the chance of the Court overturning Griswold (the basis for the Right to Privacy found in those infamous “penumbras and emanations” in the Bill of Rights) is probably pretty low. It would be politically unpopular and it would be too easy for the Court to appeal to stare decisis and I believe that’s exactly what they would do.

You’re building your house on a crummy foundation, Diogenes.

If the Court ever reverses itself then my arguments will no longer be valid. That’s correct. So what? If I can’t base a legal argument on the current status of the law, what CAN I base it on?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Excalibre

That’s not really true. Roe v. Wade did not, as far as I remember, rule that fetuses are humans with particular rights. But the trimester framework they use acknowledges that states do have a legitimate purpose in limiting late-term abortions, which obviously implies that fetuses do have some sort of rights, at least late in pregnancy, that states can make laws to protect.

I agree it seems somewhat contradictory. The ruling explains it in terns of the state having a compelling interest in protecting “potential life” (whatever that is) which grows more compelling the closer it gets to birth. here’s how the decision phrases it:

We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes “compelling.”

Whatever that means.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Cheesesteak

Since when does the SCOTUS have a direct connection to your brain, such that you can’t support your own thoughts without defering to them?

We’re talking about the law, aren’t we? Who else should I defer to?

You said fetal status was irrelevant, support that statement.

It’s LEGALLY irrelevant because the Supreme Court said so.

Explain to me how a fetus that is accorded all the moral status of a 1 day old infant can be aborted in good faith.

Accorded by who? Why would I want to do that? If you think it’s a person then it would be immoral for YOU to get an abortion.

It’s really not that difficult a concept to understand, it isn’t subjective, it isn’t religious. Imagine that the 1 week old fetus is exactly the same as a 1 day old infant, just smaller, and support your claim.

Imagine that a chicken has the same “moral status” as a 1 day old baby and tell me how you could then justify killing and eating them.

Personal opinions about “moral status” of a fetus can never be any more substantive or legally relevant than opinions about the moral status of chickens.

[John_Mace]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Yes.

Who else is going to decide what’s legally relevant if not the Supreme Court?

So, you’ve changed your mind since your last staement about the SCOTUS being “wrong” when they came to a conclusion you disagreed with?

[Mtgman]

@hawthorne

OK, I’ve had you, Diogenes the Cynic. I’ve seen you post rambunctious stuff and thought that sometimes passions overcome reason (or smudges its marks). I’ve seen decent stuff and given you a smidge more benefit of the doubt. But I’ve seen enough now.

Can I consider you a convert to my grassroots movement to have Diogenes the Cynic renamed to Diogenes the Self-Righteous? The truthiness of the movement is undeniable.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@John Mace

So, you’ve changed your mind since your last staement about the SCOTUS being “wrong” when they came to a conclusion you disagreed with?

I don’t know. When was that?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Mtgman

Can I consider you a convert to my grassroots movement to have Diogenes the Cynic renamed to Diogenes the Self-Righteous? The truthiness of the movement is undeniable.

Enjoy,
Steven

Funny that I get called self-righteous when I’m not the one who wants to codify my religious opinions into law or make it illegal for others to do things I think are “immoral.”