doG Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 according to North Dakota's House of Representatives: North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion. The House voted 51-41 this afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person. That means a fetus could not be legally aborted without the procedure being considered murder... More.... Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 according to North Dakota's House of Representatives: Thoughts? One. It's about time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 [math]human\neq{person}[/math] Single celled organisms aren't people. They may be human, but that's not relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 (edited) [math]human\neq{person}[/math] Single celled organisms aren't people. They may be human, but that's not relevant. Actually, it is relevant, because one is then forced to answer the unanswerable question that is so vigorously avoided: At precisely what point does that worthless thing end and the person begin? Edit: And I predict that this thread will soon end in doom. Edited February 19, 2009 by DrDNA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 One of these days, I'm going to get ahold of some spare embryos from a fertility clinic and do 'embryo-shots', just to illustrate the point. Remember, it's not just about drawing a line for a lump of cells, it's about the rights of a woman to control her own body. Even if the embryo is a 'person', we cannot simply assume it's rights supersede those of the woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 (edited) One of these days, I'm going to get ahold of some spare embryos from a fertility clinic and do 'embryo-shots', just to illustrate the point. Remember, it's not just about drawing a line for a lump of cells, it's about the rights of a woman to control her own body. Even if the embryo is a 'person', we cannot simply assume it's rights supersede those of the woman. I'm not sure what point you will illustrate except perhaps that you have a strange appetite. Anyway, I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that this topic was specifically about rights of the fertilized egg/zygote/embryo/fetus (male or female)....not "women's rights". But since you mentioned it. I always have considered it odd that "women's rights" always get confused with and rolled into just about any discussion about the definition of when life begins or doesn't begin. I have always considered them to be completely separate issues, but admit that I generally seem to be in the minority in that view. For example, a component of "women's rights" 'may' be based on the rights of the fetus and when life begins or does not begin. However, in stark contrast, when life begins or does not begin should be able to stand alone and on it's own merit; without involving "women's rights". Even if you do not agree, do you see my point? Edited February 19, 2009 by DrDNA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Since it's illegal, will the woman go to jail for murder after having an abortion? Will she be executed? Will the woman be charged with involuntary manslaughter if she has a miscarriage? What a stupid law. We have enough stupid children on our planet already. If the parent is smart enough to abort it before it's born, then more water and food for the rest of us. Also... DrDNA... would it be possible for you to NOT respond to each and every post made in this thread? I think we all know how you feel on this topic. It might be nice to hear from others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I always have considered it odd that "women's rights" always get confused with and rolled into just about any discussion about the definition of when life begins or doesn't begin. The two are utterly inseparable. By expanding the 'rights' of a blob of cells, you MUST take away rights from women to control their bodies. There is a tradeoff that cannot under any circumstances be separated. The attempt to frame this question *without* reference to women is disingenuous attempt to warp the discussion, just as the religious right and other forces of misogyny have always done. The issues are inseparable, and even attempting to separate them is sexist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bear's Key Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 However, in stark contrast, when life begins or does not begin should be able to stand alone and on it's own merit; without involving "women's rights". Even if you do not agree, do you see my point? Well, let's not do things half-assed. Each time a woman loses the fetus. A criminal investigation should be launched. Death row the woman if she aborted it. Plan a funeral. Or maybe, the best solution would be to leave men out of it and let women alone decide once and for all the issue of pro-choice vs fetal development. A special vote where only the affected sex can participate. Else if you outlaw abortion, then a failed *war on drugs* will have to include the morning-after pills (and other newer, efficient technologies). And how can you ever tell if a women is early-pregnant unless she tells anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudde Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I kind of agree with Mokele. An organism who uses the nourishment and sustenance from another in order to live and grow, while not really adding benefit from the host in any way? I'm not going to call an eventual child a parasite - but if the mother doesn't want the child to begin with, there's little else to compare to. I thought they already tried outlawing abortions in some places? It usually ends up in a dirty back alley with a wire coat hanger somewhere - safer to keep it available at a sterile facility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I'd say that life began a few billion years ago, and that it's a continuous process, and that pretending our various distinctions aren't arbitrary can only take us so far. Actually, it is relevant, because one is then forced to answer the unanswerable question that is so vigorously avoided: At precisely what point does that worthless thing end and the person begin? Dunno. It's a gray area, which is pretty much the whole point. If your rationale for granting personhood to a zygote is to avoid arbitrary distinctions and ethical uncertainties, then I'm afraid you're out of luck. Want some unanswerable questions? Ok, what is it about a human life that is inherently valuable, if a single cell can be a human life? What is it that makes a zygote a person with the same moral status as you and me, while a few seconds before, when it was a separate egg and one of a pack of sperm, it was medical waste? You're seriously going to tell me that's not arbitrary? I thought they already tried outlawing abortions in some places? It usually ends up in a dirty back alley with a wire coat hanger somewhere - safer to keep it available at a sterile facility? And that's one concrete, pragmatic argument in a wishy washy issue. My stance is the same as many: abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. (And yes, it goes without saying that this thread is on thin ice from the beginning.) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
npts2020 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 it is interesting that a blastocyst has "all of the rights of any person" but a child does not. What happens when the day comes when a human can be cloned from other cells without an egg or sperm? Does that mean every cell or organ in the human body will have to be given rights? I wonder how that would affect transplant technology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Oh, you just know that this law isn't going to work. All that will happen now is that they are going to go to another state in order to get the abortion.... It IS a stupid law to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 All that will happen now is that they are going to go to another state in order to get the abortion.... If they could leave North Dakota, why would they still live there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 it is interesting that a blastocyst has "all of the rights of any person" but a child does not. That's just the politicians being cunning. There are obvious consequences if a child is allowed to purchase alcohol, get accepted for a credit card, and marry their partner. In the case of the blastocyst, they're simply incapable of carrying out those tasks e.g filling out the application form for a hefty bank loan. The politicians know this, therefore a blastocyst has the 'right' to do anything a grown adult can. The above is pending the invention of little 'blastocyst friendly' prosthetic limbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I kind of agree with Mokele. An organism who uses the nourishment and sustenance from another in order to live and grow, while not really adding benefit from the host in any way? the problem is, the same definition fits newborn children or the severely handicapped... Yet, in no circumstance is it legal to kill either of these people. It doesn't matter if the mother has the right to not be burdened with a child already born, or if the child's existence is detracting from the health of the mother. The point I'm trying to make is, if you're going to use this definition, why stop at birth? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged In the case of the blastocyst, they're simply incapable of carrying out those tasks e.g filling out the application form for a hefty bank loan. The politicians know this, therefore a blastocyst has the 'right' to do anything a grown adult can. The rights they're talking about is the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or property)" Artificially aborting a fetus sort of makes it hard to experience the "right to life." Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI am, by the way, pro-choice, but I think people who treat "pro-life" as the intellectually inferior position are missing an important part of the debate. The concept that life begins at conception, and so a fertilized egg has the natural rights that need to be protected, is a challenging question that warrants serious ethical, philosophical and biological considerations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 What happens when the day comes when a human can be cloned from other cells without an egg or sperm? Actually in principle this is already possible. If you take a cell from the early stages, it can grow to a whole organism again. Based on this after the first couple of divisions you do not have one potential person, but a dozen of them. Each cell has the potential to grow into a whole person. I call it potential person btw. as conception does not invariably lead to birth. Also, for all intent and purposes the the cells are part of the mother and are not a separate entity (yet), as such imo the mother gets to decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 The point I'm trying to make is, if you're going to use this definition, why stop at birth? Well, it helps to have a generally-agreed-upon 'marker', even if it's not really very accurate. Same as with the voting or drinking age - different people mature at different speeds, and have different views of maturity, but we all sort of came to a compromise at a good ballpark figure. Also, since people who place the 'personhood' marker earlier are free to simply not abort, there's no real reason for society to interfere. The rights they're talking about is the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or property)" Artificially aborting a fetus sort of makes it hard to experience the "right to life." But what about the mother's rights, including to life? Rights aren't absolute, and have tradeoffs. My right to freedom of religion doesn't overrule your right to life if I want to make you a human sacrifice. The problem I have is that the debate is being dishonestly framed as simply about the moment of 'personhood' and the associated rights, rather than what it's *really* about, namely a tradeoff between the rights of the mother vs the fetus (with people occupying all points on a sliding gray-scale between two extremes). I am, by the way, pro-choice, but I think people who treat "pro-life" as the intellectually inferior position are missing an important part of the debate. The concept that life begins at conception, and so a fertilized egg has the natural rights that need to be protected, is a challenging question that warrants serious ethical, philosophical and biological considerations. It's not so much 'intellectual inferiority' that's objected to as the sense that it's not about intellectual debate but about a deeper agenda. When the loudest voices for pro-life are also voices calling for women to stay home and be subservient to their husband, it's hard not to suspect that the issue for them is less about philosophy and more about controlling women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 At precisely what point does that worthless thing end and the person begin? There's no precise points... it's a continuum. However, a fetus/baby, in the womb, is unconscious and more to the point has never been conscious. If something isn't conscious and has never been conscious, why does it deserve more rights than something that has? Why does an undifferentiated cell mass have more rights than, say, an adult pig? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 (edited) Also... DrDNA... would it be possible for you to NOT respond to each and every post made in this thread? I think we all know how you feel on this topic. It might be nice to hear from others. I can not make any promises at this time. But, like your extremely negative, blunt and quite vocal opinions against religion, I do understand and appreciate your desire to see this debate take one and only one direction. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIt usually ends up in a dirty back alley with a wire coat hanger somewhere - safer to keep it available at a sterile facility? Safer for who? Edited February 19, 2009 by DrDNA Consecutive posts merged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I can not make any promises at this time. But, like your extremely negative, blunt and quite vocal opinions against religion, I do understand and appreciate your desire to see this debate take one and only one direction. Yeah, I can see how my comments could come across that way. Not what I intended. I just remember how emotive you got a while back in a thread about abortion, and how you used multiple fallacies and appeals, and never really responded to any of the points of merit with anything but a re-statement that you're against it "because it's life" and you want to "protect life." Here's the thing. If this was about protecting the child (or, more appropriately, the bundle of cells), then one would think that everyone would be calling for measures which are better are protecting the growing bundle of cells... such as free health care for all pregnant women. They're not doing that, though, and I suggest that this isn't about protecting the child, it's about attempts to legislate religiously motivated personal morality onto others. I've got to say, practically nobody is "pro-abortion," but we are all "pro-choice." It's not our call. When asked, those who are for making abortion illegal say that it's not about forcing their own personal morality on to others, but instead they are looking after the welfare of the child. If the childs welfare were truly their primary concern, then there would be a whole gambit of issues they supported, and abortion would not be the only issue discussed. If they were sincere (or, perhaps, to be fair, if they weren't so self-deluded) in their statements, they'd be pushing hard on other issues as well... other issues that would have signifanct impact on the welfare of the child... in my example, free healthcare for the pregnant female and children under 10. They are not. Those who wish to make it illegal for a woman to make this choice herself say NOTHING about providing her healthcare, and her children healthcare. They say NOTHING about other means of protection, and (as Mokele indicated) the mother is completely removed from their arguments as if she's not a factor or plays no role. The reason I have made this point is because it shows how internally inconsistent their position is (when they argue that it's not about their morality, but that it's about protection and well-being). This supports my contention that it's about legislating their personal morality, and not about a simple desire to protect the child. Also... at what point is it life? Should I not be allowed to masturbate and flush the sperm down the shower drain? Is it the instantaneous moment where the sperm hits the egg, or only after it's penetrated it? Is it only after the first cell divides, or is it after some cascade of cell division that it becomes the purview of the government? For a party who wants smaller government and less intrusive laws, the Republicans sure to exhibit dissonance on this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I am, by the way, pro-choice, but I think people who treat "pro-life" as the intellectually inferior position are missing an important part of the debate. The concept that life begins at conception, and so a fertilized egg has the natural rights that need to be protected, is a challenging question that warrants serious ethical, philosophical and biological considerations. But that's just it. Acknowledging that there isn't a clear answer makes one pro-choice by default, which is why both of us are (I assume). You can't both try to codify "life begins at conception, full stop" into law and consider it "a challenging question that warrants serious ethical, philosophical and biological considerations." Can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I think it is obvious that you are not a citizen until you are born, so any citizen rights can't be applied. The unborn can be seen as property of the mother, but I think most would agree that it isn't ethical for her to take drugs/actions that would result in a severely damaged baby and then bring it to term. Also, genetic testing such as trying to make human/animal hybrids, etc should be avoided. But, I see this as an ethical law to protect the human race more so than individual eggs(persons). I agree with iNow's sentiments regarding the hypocrisy of some regarding the care for children. But, we also should recognize the hypocrisy of those who want more social engineering by government(the people) while demanding a 'live and let live' attitude. Just as we demand CEO's take less pay for bailouts, should we demand(legislate) behavior for those getting government support? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 When asked' date=' those who are for making abortion illegal say that it's not about forcing their own personal morality on to others, but instead they are looking after the welfare of the child. If the childs welfare were truly their primary concern, then there would be a whole gambit of issues they supported, and abortion would not be the only issue discussed.[/quote'] To be fair, they do. Support for traditionalized marriage, god in school and law, advocating abstinance, and etc. This is all consistent with their ideas of what makes people morally correct and superior welfare for the child. They believe that the absence of god and his moral code is what creates many of the problems we secularists have 'brought on ourselves'. Support for free healthcare and the like violates their notions of personal responsibility. As usual, most of this is just a clash of value systems. I don't derive right and wrong from gods. Others do. I believe that they believe they are acting in the welfare of life, in general. I think they are misguided, but I don't believe they aren't sincere. My stance is still the same, which matches Mokele's initial post on the matter. You have to violate the woman's rights in order to grant the fetus rights. Also, you must violate her rights or be granted privilege to even know it's a zygote, or whatever. Dr. DNA took offense to my previous arguments on "consequential growth" inside another human being and forcing that human being to give that growth more reverence than the self. I don't believe anyone should have the power to make me let something grow inside me, make me feed it, make me alter my behavior to benefit it, make me suffer any subtending health complications to let it grow, make me hunt and gather additional resources for it, make me risk losing my job or business that I need to get those resources, not to mention putting any current offspring or dependents in jeopardy by taking all of the risks and tasks above.... Screw arbitrary lines in the sand. I say the human being grants rights to anything living inside them, no matter how much everyone else may revere that growth. Be it a tumor or a fetus, no one can give it rights but the owner of the body - after all, it is growing FROM them, in a manner of speaking, so how can it be separate in order to receive any rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudde Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 the problem is, the same definition fits newborn children or the severely handicapped... Yet, in no circumstance is it legal to kill either of these people. It doesn't matter if the mother has the right to not be burdened with a child already born, or if the child's existence is detracting from the health of the mother. The point I'm trying to make is, if you're going to use this definition, why stop at birth? ..... I am, by the way, pro-choice, but I think people who treat "pro-life" as the intellectually inferior position are missing an important part of the debate. The concept that life begins at conception, and so a fertilized egg has the natural rights that need to be protected, is a challenging question that warrants serious ethical, philosophical and biological considerations. I understand where you're coming from with your statement, but while still in the womb, the fetus is consuming the mothers' nutrients from what she eats and does - the same can be said for babies breastfeeding, but I was referring to that 9 month period while growing and living inside the mother. However, that point also validates what I'm trying to say - you obviously don't want this child going through life from foster family to foster family - or living on the streets, or any such future. If a woman who doesn't want the same fate for her child, and knows for a fact she couldn't care for the child once born - why would you force her carry that baby to term? Personally, I don't think anybody else's opinion should count save for the woman wanting the abortion - and for the option to be available for her to do so. I think it was addressed earlier, but that's almost like asserting that your morals and religious values are the standards that need be kept for all others. I apologize if any of what I say comes off as my belittling pro-life supporters, it's never been my intention to call anybody stupid or ignore the other side's point of view - I just find it hard to believe that those fighting so fiercely for human rights is fighting so strongly to remove rights from those already here, to give more rights to something that may or may not come to be. Safer for who? Safer for the woman having the abortion. Whether it's against the law or not, there will be women who refuse to have the baby. I would rather them find an abortion clinic, than to find someone who'll do the same with home equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts