A Call for Consistency

[Jedidiah]

But it is a human - and it is a being - and it is biological dependent on another beibng in an exclusive relationship that has no other parallel in the species. In every other being-to-being relationship - there are choices. This one intrinsically binds the being to one another.

Once again the choice was made when the decision was made to engage in sex. Sex always has the possibility of leading to pregnancy.

[Jedidiah]

A fertilized embryo in a petrie dish will not survive if left untreated.

How is this different?

It was the result of someone's decision. That person has the responsibility to protect it.

[Jedidiah]

So my response with the finger parallel. It meets all your criteria.

No it does not.

[carpedm9587]

Baloney no matter how thin you slice it.

Assertion

[carpedm9587]

Once again the choice was made when the decision was made to engage in sex. Sex always has the possibility of leading to pregnancy.

I don't disagree, Jed. As I have stated several times, my belief is that it is life and killing it is immoral.

I have also stated that telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body is also immoral.

It is a quandary that can only be avoided - not solved.

[carpedm9587]

It was the result of someone's decision. That person has the responsibility to protect it.

Assertion

[carpedm9587]

No it does not.

Assertion - you will need to show how it does not.

A human finger has human genome.
It is living.

Ergo it is human life.

So it should have all of the rights of a human being. Amputating it, for whatever reason, would be immoral.

If you disagree - you need to make a rational case. Assertions don't cut it.

[carpedm9587]

The concept of personhood has only one function, to rationalize killing of an innocent baby.

Actually - it does not. The concept of "personhood" is deeply imbedded in both Roman and English law, which serve as the foundation for our current legal system. It comes to play at end of life, at start of life, and it has been used to determine the rights and reponsibilities of a corporation. It comes to play in legal cases dealing with those who are mentally compromised. Someday, it will also be at the heart of arguments about the "personhood" of self-aware, autonomous, "artificial" life. Sooner or later, we will be addressing the question of when a computer-based system achieves self-awareness, and what rights it thereby has.

Law is about personhood. We permit dismemberment of a corpse for medical research purposes - because it is human, but it is not living and is not considered a human life. We permit termination of life support when the heart and longs are completely dependent upon machines if there is no brain activity - despite the fact that it is human and living - but we do not consider it a person. Nothing of the "person" remains.

Those who use the same criteria for a fetus are being internally consistent. I do not agree with them - nor do you - but their position cannot be refuted rationally because both positions are rational, assuming the same pre-suppositions.

[Psychic Missile]

I would not, but that is not what we are arguing here. I personally think a life in the womb is worth 9 months of "slavery" no matter what, considering the alternative is murder.

If the only applicable choice is choosing to have sex or choosing not to have sex and both choices have the same result then there is no choice which means yours and Jed's argument against carp is invalid.

[carpedm9587]

If the only applicable choice is choosing to have sex or choosing not to have sex and both choices have the same result then there is no choice which means yours and Jed's argument against carp is invalid.

I don't understand this argument...

Specifically, the "and both choices have the same result" part...

[Psychic Missile]

A totally separate issue.

You said there was choice involved. That argument leaves out a relevant issue. I don't see how its separate.

[carpedm9587]

For most of the history of this nation the law agreed with the morality. It is only liberal activist judges that have made the difference in this sad age.

While it is true that legal issues have historically aligned with moral issues, it does NOT mean that legal issues and moral issues are the same. There are many legal issues which are morally neutral (e.g., the prohibition against going above a certain speed, or the requirement to pay taxes, or the prohibition against public urination). Legal and moral are not the same thing.

And, from my perspective, the legal system is staying in line with the moral system. It's just that the moral system is shifting, so the legal system is shifting with it.

Of course, that is going to open up the whole subjective/objective relative/absolute specific/universal discussion about morality. We're doing that in another thread. Seems silly to replicate the whole thing here.

[carpedm9587]

I love it when someone claims to be pro-life, then proceeds to roll out every pro-abortion argument in the book.

I have noted several times that I am adopting the position of the opposition so as to better understand it. I am both pro-life AND pro-choice, and recognize that those are irreconcilable differences. Hence my suggestion that we need an approach that intercedes BEFORE the pregnancy occurs. "Stange game.... etc."

[Psychic Missile]

I don't understand this argument...

Specifically, the "and both choices have the same result" part...

Your* argument was that making abortion illegal means forces a woman to do something for 9 months, which is government intrusion. Jed and Sparko think that there was a choice concerning whether or not to have sex. If a woman is raped, then she chooses to not have sex and it ends up being irrelevant. To put it another way, if you have two choices, and they both result in the same outcome, it cannot be said that you made a meaningful choice.

*I understand you are not advocating but exploring.

[carpedm9587]

This is a phony argument. A dead human has no rights, a dead human leg has no rights, an ancient bone has no rights. This does not in any way reflect upon the rights of a living human being.

I never said differently, Jedidiah. I noted that any argument made is going to bring into it things people do not accept as "living human beings." If you use genome, you end up with one odd result If you use "living" you end up with other odd results. If you try to combine all of them, you end up with abortion up to time X.

This is not a discussion that can be rationally proven because it hinges on words like "life" - which even the philosophers cannot agree to. Is a crystal life? It meets many of the criteria.

So here is your challenge - contrive a definition of "human life" that will clearly include the human fetus from time of conception, but also clearly exclude anything we would NOT consider human life (e.g., a finger, a cadaver, fossilized bones, an amputated leg, etc.).