outlawing abortion

[Gomez]

Originally posted by robertliguori
Morally, I say that a child is a thing until it can think. Of course, since children learn to think at different rates, I can accept birth as the cutoff date for thing/person.

How do you define think? Are you using the term as a synonym for baseline sentience (which is achieved in utero BTW) or are you using it as a synonym for demonstrable cognitive ability or does a child have to be able to do the daily crossword before, according to you, it can ‘think?’

Also, your second sentence invalidates your first. It is obvious that newborn infants aren’t able to demonstrate anything but the most basic levels of sentience and as such wouldn’t live up to your definition of ‘think’ unless that definition corresponded to the level demonstrated in utero near the end of the third trimester. Therefore your declaration that birth is an acceptable cutoff point is also a declaration that you are drawing an arbitrary line that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with sentience or the ability to 'think (whatever that means).

Originally posted by robertliguori
And for the record, no, I have no particular problem with infanticide.

Are you seriously telling the world that you have no problem with child murderers? Or am I misunderstanding something?

To summarize: In my perfect world, people would be people when they started to think, and would be legally protected as if they were people at birth, not because they were, but to avoid rather messy legal problems as to when infants start cogitating.

Why not just change the law?

[robertliguori]

Wow. You four dogpile much? But that is irrelavent now.
Beagledave: Like I said, we are arguing philosophy. Besides, your sources were decent biology backing up logical fallacies. I shot down what your sources said was the reason why a z-e-g was a person, and an oocyte/skin cell wasen’t, but because I didn’t cite biology, I was wrong. We are discussing logic and philosophy here. When I make a claim about biology that is erroneous, then call me on cites. As apos pointed out, a skin cell is different than a z-e-f, and both are different from a human being.

JThunder: That was an opening gambit. I assert that people move, talk, think, etc. You’ve just lost the burden-of-proof immunity by making an assertion against common observation: people do x,y,z, and z-e-fs do not, therefore, z-e-fs aren’t people. Aristotealin logic, to be sure, but I need an alternate definition of personhood to fight you, since beagledave seems content to cite his one biology source in an ethical debate. Sorry, beagledave, but the fact that we are both saying the same thing repeatedly is bothering me. Would an outsider care to read our posts and respond? Please?

CMKeller: Well, damn, I did it twice. Sorry about the positioning of that remark. And the totipotence has nothing to do with it: I was just answering the claim that z-e-gs were people because they were capable of totipotent cell division. Since I am a person, and I cannot regenerate neurons, that definition for personhood is bunk.

Damn, I knew I should have left out that perfect world bit. Look, it’s like a driver’s liscense. People may be ready to drive alone before 16, but a cutoff date keeps down the young drivers. Since it would be impractical do demonstrate the date that each baby started to reason, we would simply grandchild* the baby into sentience at birth.
*This is a pun off of being grandfathered into something.

Say reasoning then, instead of thinking. Out of curiosity, what do entities in utero think about, Gomez?
Sigh. Yes I have a problem with child murders. Children are people. They can think.

Also, is there a definition of personhood floating somewhere on this thread that I missed? Please post it in its entirety for me, since beagledave claims it exists and JThunder is expecting me to provide it.

[beagledave]

ROTLFLMAO

**

And for the record, no, I have no particular problem with infanticide.
**

in·fan·ti·cide   Pronunciation Key  (n-fnt-sd)
n.

1. The act of killing an infant.
2. The practice of killing newborn infants.
3. One who kills an infant.

---

[Late Latin nfanticdium, the killing of a child, and nfnticda, killer of a child Latin nfns, nfant-, infant; see infant + Latin -cdiumand -cda, -cide.]

in·fant   Pronunciation Key  (nfnt)
n.

1. A child in the earliest period of life, especially before he or she can walk.
2. Law. A person under the legal age of majority; a minor.
   **

Sigh. Yes I have a problem with child murders.
**

My advice JThunder, Gomez and Chaim?

Walk away.

Quietly.

Pretend it was all a surreal dream. A very surreal dream, having nothing to do with reality. Up is down. Down is up. Black is white.

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by robertliguori *
**Sorry, beagledave, but the fact that we are both saying the same thing repeatedly is bothering me. Would an outsider care to read our posts and respond? Please?

<snip>

Also, is there a definition of personhood floating somewhere on this thread that I missed? Please post it in its entirety for me, since beagledave claims it exists and JThunder is expecting me to provide it. **

I picked up the thread when it was already pretty lengthy, so I may have missed something. And I’m already on record in multiple threads as being in basic agreement with beagledave and JThunder, so I’ll disclose that (meaning, I’m not sure if I’m the “outsider” you were looking for).

In my opinion, you are dancing about between philosophy and biology as it suits your purpose. When you indicated that there’s no biological distinction–and it was absolutely clear you were discussing biological characteristics–between a pre-born child and (as an example) a strand of hair, Dave provided one. You now indicate that you aren’t discussing biology, but philosophy and, in particular, the philosophy of personhood.

beagledave and JThunder not only have addressed “personhood,” they’ve made clear that this notion, in the sense you seem to mean it, is not relevant to their argument, in that for them “personhood” equates with a person’s humanity.

Frankly, it’s difficult to follow your line of thought, and at times it seems deliberately obtuse and contradictory. Speaking as someone removed from the heat of the argument in this thread (for once), I don’t see this leading to any meaningful debate, and that ain’t because of beagledave, JThunder, cmkeller or Gomez.

Anyway, you asked, I answered.

[cmkeller]

robertligouri:

And the totipotence has nothing to do with it: I was just answering the claim that z-e-gs were people because they were capable of totipotent cell division. Since I am a person, and I cannot regenerate neurons, that definition for personhood is bunk.

First of all, that’s not what I said. You said that conception was an arbitrary dividing line, and I answered that it was not because cell division - any kind of cell division, totipotent or otherwise - was not possible for separate sperm and egg, but is within the capabilities of a fertilized egg. And cell division is one of the basic functions of life. Therefore, the line is not arbitrary.

Second of all. I already made the point - to which you agreed - that while you are not capable of regenerating damaged neurons, your body is certainly capable of creating new neurons through the ordinary process of growth, or cell division. So while it is true that you do not have any cells in your body that are totipotent on a cellular level, as a living organism, there is no kind of cell in your body that you cannot continue to generate.

Finally, I never said that cell division is the sole criterion for life or personhood. However, it is a criterion - without the capacity for cell division, an object cannot be said to be a living creature. Thus, conception is not an arbitraty line, as you absurdly attempted to claim it is.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by robertliguori *
**JThunder: That was an opening gambit. I assert that people move, talk, think, etc. You’ve just lost the burden-of-proof immunity by making an assertion against common observation: people do x,y,z, and z-e-fs do not, therefore, z-e-fs aren’t people. **

But as I said, your argument is flawed on multiple counts.

First off, embryos and fetuses DO move. Ergo, that argument against their personhood is invalid.

Furthermore, what of newborns? Newborns do not talk or think either. Should we therefore conclude that you do not consider newborns to be persons? Or should we conclude that your criteria for personhood are incorrect?

And what about those who are crippled from birth, or those who are severely retarded? Should they be disqualified from personhood?

Besides which, you have yet to provide any justification for those criteria… and certainly no justification which is based on prior precedent. Without such justification, your definition is clearly arbitrary and absolutely ad hoc in nature, and so we have no reason to accept it.

[JThunder]

I’d like to revisit a point that pepperlandgirl raised, since it betrays a common fallacy in pro-choice thinking.

*Originally posted by pepperlandgirl *
**
I’m saying it’s very hard to tke your protests and arguments seriously when it appears that you really aren’t all that concerned about it. Lecturing me on how immoral abortion is isn’t really doing much to stop it…Working on the social problems and education is what’s going to stop it. I don’t care if you do think it’s immoral, it just sounds like a bunch of hot air if youdon’t have anything to back your words up. **

p’girl, you care clearly saying that if I’m not working to help people in need, then my arguments are somehow unworthy of consideration. Or, as you subsequently said, you would find it hard to take me seriously if I don’t truly live out these principles.

Now, I’ve already explained how I’ve been actively helping troubled parents, in multiple, highly demanding ways, for a decade now. Even if that were not true though, your argument would be fallacious. Here’s why.

What if I were not actively helping troubled parents? Would this magically invalidate the arguments that I make against abortion? By no means. Rather, it would simply mean that my character was inconsistent… and we all have inconsistencies in our characters.

We should evaluate arguments based on their own merits, rather than the character flaws of their proponents. The statement “You don’t help people in need, therefore your logic is wrong!” is clearly fallacious. In fact, it’s a classic example of ad hominem argumentation – judging an argument based on the personality of its proponent, rather than its own strengths or weaknesses.

Moreover, that tactic can backfire against the pro-choicers. After all, there are MANY pro-choicers who don’t put their money where their mouth is. There are many who don’t sacrifice in any way, thinking that “Have an abortion!” is a sufficiently helpful response. Does this automatically render their viewpoint incorrect?

[robertliguori]

Surreal my ass. No one has yet explained to me why a z-e-f should be accorded more rights than a skin cell. You need to present an argumet before I can argue with you, not just ask for cites and quibble about personhood (beagledave).
And CMKeller, you are confusing the issue. Yes, z-e-fs are alive. So are skin cells. Skin cells are not human beings. Therefore, all living human cells are not human beings.
And JThunder, I’d tell you to drop the self-congratulatory tone, but given the diversity of opinion on this thread, I’d say that you are preaching to the converted.
Look, it’s a simple question. Why does a z-e-f have legal rights that sperm and skin cells do not?

[Iamsocool]

Not to hijack a rapidly spiralling discussion here, but the best analogy I have heard for the pro life position is this:

“A one week old baby is diagnosed with lukemia. The child needs a bone marrow transplant. It is found that the father is the only person who would be a good match. The father says, “No.””

Now, does the state have the right to impose it’s will on the father on purely moral grounds? Can a court legally order the father to submit to the procedure?

I really don’t think so. But, of course we’re talking about a man in this instance…

[Iamsocool]

Oh, nuts! I meant pro choice, of course…sorry!

[JThunder]

Iamsocool, I think that your analogy falls short in several key points.

First, n your analogy, the father is merely withholding support for the child. An abortion, however, constitutes the outright dismemberment of the fetus, which is quite different from merely withholding life support.

Second, parents CAN be prosecuted for refusing to provide life-giving treatment to a child with leukemia. Legal scholars Dennis J. Horan and Burke J. Balch quoted a court ruling which said,

“The parent . . . may not deprive a child of life-saving treatment, however well-intentioned. Even when the parents’ decision to decline necessary treatment is based on constitutional grounds, such as religious beliefs, it must yield to the State’s interests, as parens patriae, in protecting the health and welfare of the child.”

Such phrasing is quite clear, and in absolute consonance with human decency. If a father is free to deny life-saving marrow to his child, then I suggest that this is an inconsistency in that law.

Third, people can be prosecuted for withholding life-giving care – even for a non-family member. Consider the following example of tort law, as provided by Judge John T. Noonan of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On a January night in Minnesota, a cattle buyer, Orlando Depue, asked a family of farmers, the Flateaus, with whom he had dined, if he could remain overnight at their house. The Flateaus refused and, although Depue was sick and had fainted, put him out of the house into the cold night. Imposing liability on the Flateaus for Depue’s loss of his frostbitten fingers, the court said, “In the case at bar defendants were under no contract obligation to minister to plaintiff in his distress; but humanity demanded they do so, if they understood and appreciated his condition . . . . The law as well as humanity required that he not be exposed in his helpless condition to the merciless elements.” Depue was a guest for supper although not a guest after supper. The American Law Institute, generalizing, has said that it makes no difference whether the person is a guest or a trespasser. He has the privilege of staying. His host has the duty not to injure him or put him into an environment where he becomes nonviable. The obligation arises when one “understands and appreciates” the condition of the other.

Finally, even if it is legal for a father to refuse life-giving marrow to his own child, it is certainly not moral, and such callous irresponsibility deserves the utmost contempt.

[Iamsocool]

JThunder,

You definately have a point with the “harm vs. help” weakness of my analogy, but I’d argue that the result end up in the same manner.

As far as your first cite goes - child abuse statutes dictate somewhat vague conditions for child abuse. But, there is no legal precedent for a born child possessing sovereignty over it’s father’s body and tissue. While your site does have interesting arguments against abortion, it definately does not cover the possibility of litigating the use of ones body (unless I read incorrectly).

The second cite merely outlines a societal mandate to render aid - not living tissue, and really does not apply.

I know you want me to argue your last statement about the reprehensible nature of this “father”, but I’m not biting - he may have any number of reservations, to the point of being a hemopheliac who may not survive the procedure.

I cannot find in my searches any reference to a father being forced to submit his body or tissue by a court for the welfare of an infant. Maybe I’m not looking hard enough. I tend to doubt it though, as we have at least 44,000 people waiting for a kidney transplant and the courts cannot even force people to fork over their organs for donation at death - where they won’t even be used.

[robertliguori]

And I’m still waiting on a definition that includes people with
z-e-fs but excludes other living cells.

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by robertliguori *
**And I’m still waiting on a definition that includes people with
z-e-fs but excludes other living cells. **

Since beagledave already addressed that point, it seems to me that you’re going through the motions of waiting.

Besides which, as I pointed out, it’s the pro-choicers who are hinging their case on an alleged distinction in personhood. The burden of providing that definition thus rests on your side, not ours.

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by Iamsocool *
**JThunder,

You definately have a point with the “harm vs. help” weakness of my analogy, but I’d argue that the result end up in the same manner.**

Even if we grant that, I don’t think we can judge actions merely by their end results. After all, shooting your grandmother would have the same result as torturing her to death, yet the latter act is clearly more reprehensible.

And even if we could judge actions merely by their end results, that would not constitute a conscionable defense of abortion. After all, any parent who would deliberately withhold life-saving medical treatment for their child is beyond reprehensible.

**
As far as your first cite goes - child abuse statutes dictate somewhat vague conditions for child abuse. But, there is no legal precedent for a born child possessing sovereignty over it’s father’s body and tissue. **

Maybe, maybe not… but even if we do grant your claim, my cite DID provide a clear legal precedent wherein people can be required to provide life-saving care for a non-family member… and common law mandates that we have much stronger responsibilities toward our own children.

**
The second cite merely outlines a societal mandate to render aid - not living tissue, and really does not apply. **

Not true. The link I provided cited a legal mandate, not merely a statement of general social obligation.

**
I know you want me to argue your last statement about the reprehensible nature of this “father”, but I’m not biting - he may have any number of reservations, to the point of being a hemopheliac who may not survive the procedure. **

I think you’re being disingenuous here. Your example did not specify any such conditions. Or are you now modifying your claim, such that it only applies when the father has some life-threatening condition that would be endangered by donating marrow?

Besides, even if he did, that would not constitute a defense of abortion. The overwhelming majority of women who seek abortions do NOT do so due to any life-threatening medical conditions. It would be intellectually dishonest to say “Well, what if the parent would die?!?!?” and pretend that this excuses abortions in general.

[Iamsocool]

JThunder,

Even if we grant that, I don’t think we can judge actions merely by their end results. After all, shooting your grandmother would have the same result as torturing her to death, yet the latter act is clearly more reprehensible.

And even if we could judge actions merely by their end results, that would not constitute a conscionable defense of abortion. After all, any parent who would deliberately withhold life-saving medical treatment for their child is beyond reprehensible.

I certainly agree with what you are saying here. But, while I believe that your argument has validity, I think it skirts the issue of whether a child - unborn or born - has legal sovereignty over a father’s body and tissue. Moral responsibility, in my opinion, simply shouldn’t be mandated by law. And before you make the rounds, I know there are and have been laws on the books that do this exactly - blue laws, etc. But, I think you’d have to grant, these types of laws do infringe upon a citizen’s constitutional rights.

Maybe, maybe not… but even if we do grant your claim, my cite DID provide a clear legal precedent wherein people can be required to provide life-saving care for a non-family member… and common law mandates that we have much stronger responsibilities toward our own children.

Your cite (actually both cites) outline cases that do give pro lifers a chance at trying to litigate against legal abortion using these precedents. To my knowledge, it’s never been attempted. If I were to guess, I’d guess that no court in the nation would touch this outside of the SJC - and given history, they’d likely take a miss as well.

Not true. The link I provided cited a legal mandate, not merely a statement of general social obligation.

True. My fault for injecting personal opinion into my response to the cite. My apologies for obscuring your point.

I would say that I do not agree with this ruling. We should not be litigating the removal of civil liberties simply because of public opinion. I also think your cite breaks down in the comparison of sovereignty of a home vs sovereignty of one’s own body.

I think you’re being disingenuous here. Your example did not specify any such conditions. Or are you now modifying your claim, such that it only applies when the father has some life-threatening condition that would be endangered by donating marrow?

Besides, even if he did, that would not constitute a defense of abortion. The overwhelming majority of women who seek abortions do NOT do so due to any life-threatening medical conditions. It would be intellectually dishonest to say “Well, what if the parent would die?!?!?” and pretend that this excuses abortions in general.

No, I’m not really being disingenuous - or, at least not intentionally. I thought about my response after I went home last night and didn’t really like it too much.

My point should have been that it doesn’t really matter what people think about the morals, or lack thereof, of a person who withholds his body/tissue. In my mind, the courts should have absolutely no jurisdiction when it comes to the use of a person’s body or tissue.

To sum up, sovereignty of one’s body should not be open to litigation - it opens Pandora’s box for future challenges yet unseen. In saying this, I’m glad I’ve followed this thread. You do make an excellent argument.

[robertliguori]

JThunder: I hearby assert that egg cells, skin cells, and fruit flies are human people too, and that failure to ensure their survival is murder. Again, the burden of proof is in your court. Dammit, things are not given legal status without a definition of why they get it. This burden of proof argument is bunk. Remember:
I came up with a fallacious definition of personhood (move, think, etc.)
You attacked it, but did not give a replacement definition.
Please, just give me a statement “If it does/is x, y, and z, then it is human.”
Beagledave threw out a cite, which had correct biology information and screwey conclusions. You have claimed that you don’t need such things, as you are right by default. Do remember, abortion is legal now. By advocationg a change, you are the one shouldering burden of proof.

[cmkeller]

robertligouri:

Please, just give me a statement “If it does/is x, y, and z, then it is human.”

OK, how about this: anything that meets the following conditions is a living human being:

1. It has the full complement of human chromosomes
2. It performs all life functions essential to individual survival(nutrition, respiration, growth, etc).
3. It fulfills either of the two following conditions:
   a) It is capable of performing those functions without the assistance of other beings, or
   b) It has a genetic code distinct from the being from which it derives said assistance

JThunder, beagledave, Bob Cos…any comments?

Chaim Mattis Keller

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by robertliguori *
JThunder: I hearby assert that egg cells, skin cells, and fruit flies are human people too, and that failure to ensure their survival is murder. Again, the burden of proof is in your court.

No it isn’t, for reasons that I have repeatedly explained. Besides which, beagledave and cmkeller already explained why eggs cells and skin cells are not human beings. As for fruit flies, their genetic structure alone is sufficient to disqualify them as human beings – not to mention the inability of fruitflies to produce fertile offspring with humans, which therefore disqualifies them as belonging to the same species.

[pldennison]

So, Chaim, under your proposed definition (to take a completely outlandish example), a cloned embryo implanted into the uterus of the woman from which it was cloned would not be a living human being? It meets your first two criteria, but does not meet either 3A or 3B.