« Abortion & Moral Personhood | Main | An Antigravity Helicopter? »

Friday, August 24, 2012

Comments

larry kurtz

Many states grant parental rights to rapists that father. This story appeared in the Missoulian:

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_32dc38f4-ee01-11e1-892e-001a4bcf887a.html

Had a pregnancy resulted from the event the 14-year old doesn't legally possess the right to make any decisions about the outcome at all.

Jon S

Of course, Ken, the point is moot since the Suprme Court has essentially incorporated the Democrat's view into its jurisprudence. What the typical citizen fails to understand is that in essence the Court has said you can get an abortion for any reason at any point in the pregnancy and there is nothing the people can do about that. The federal ban on partial birth abortion is the first time the Court actually allowed something that looks like an actual proscription on abortion rather than simply regulating the circumstances under which the abortion takes place.

Donald Pay

You guys are hopelessly twisted. I assume all you Republicans rear daughters. You probably know you have very little control over your daughter after she becomes an adult. She is going to make her own decisions on all sorts of matters. If you don't trust your own ability to rear a daughter with the ability and moral sense to make her own decisions on these issues, you must be very bad fathers.

If you can't control your own daughter, why do you think you should be able to control anyone else's daughter?

Ken Blanchard

Jon: I agree.

Donald Pay

Jon and Ken.

You guys obviously haven't read Roe v. Wade, and don't know what it says. You are making it up, or cribbing your answer from a bad source. It would be nice if you knew a bit about the subject, because your obvious lack of a factual basis for your position blows all your credibility on the matter.

Also, Republican President Nixon said (on tape) that "sometimes abortion is necessary." Since he was President at the time of the Roe decision, it appears that the Court agreed with the Republican President.

Ken Blanchard

Donald: I have indeed read Roe and the long train of cases that followed it. Unless you have some particular point to contest, I have to conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Donald Pay

You indicated agreement with this statement from Jon: "...in essence the Court has said you can get an abortion for any reason at any point in the pregnancy and there is nothing the people can do about that."

Show me anywhere in Roe, where the Court said a woman can get an abortion FOR ANY REASON AT ANY POINT IN THE PREGNANCY." In fact, the Court decided completely differently in Roe. Either you don't know what Roe says, or you were very hasty and incomplete in agreeing with Jon's statement of an opinion not based on fact.

Bill Fleming

An anti-abortion argument and a pro-life argument are in my mind two different arguments. That could explain the paradox you are encountering, KB. Demanding "personhood" from a singlecell — regardless of how "human" that cell is—is a reductio ad absurdum fallacy not unlike those of Zeno and Parmenedes.

To demonstrate, one has only to imagine the consequences of what society would be like should such an insane law be passed. Imagine that the death of every fertilized egg cell was, as a matter of law, the death of a person. Absurd.

Ken Blanchard

Bill: You started out as a single cell. If that cell had perished, I would not enjoy your lively posts. Calling that cell a person involves no legal problems that I can see. If you had some in mind, you might have mentioned them.

I admit a reasonable person might draw a distinction between that single cell and a three month old baby. Okay, so what about a fully developed human being days away from natural birth? Under the Roe regime, of which Donald is blissfully ignorant, that person has no legal status or protection whatsoever. I am not sure what Zeno would make of that, but if that person is not a moral person then the latter distinction is merely arbitrary and we might as well deny it to Yankee fans.

Ken Blanchard

Donald: Okay. For what "reasons" can a women be denied an abortion in the United States? I say none. Feel free to contradict with evidence. Roe allows the states leeway to regulate abortion only for the sake of the health of the mother. That precludes any consideration of her motives for the abortion. Subsequent decisions confirmed this. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Bill Fleming

KB, thanks. I enjoy being here and I presume you do as well. It's appropriate for us to be grateful to — and for — one another. But in the spirit of Zeno (and Stephen Hawking) we are here in this universe because only a universe such as this one would have us. Do you suppose we should pass a constitutional amendment that requires the cosmos to stay this way? ;^)

Bill Fleming

I hesitate to give you examples KB because It would be better if they were your insignts and not mine. And thank you for your concession that a fertilized ovum is dictinct in nature from a newborn, and for that matter a fetus in the last trimester.

Here is a little starter kit to jog your imagination.

For starters, something approaching 70% of all eggs that are fertilized fail to implant and are lost in the natural cycle. If you have a law that considers those non-starters "people" with equal human rights, isn't that a problem for us, both lecally and ethically?

Next, the most common forms of contraception work in a similar way that nature does, conditioning the uterus in such a way as to prevent implantation. Does the use of such technology under a "personhood" amendment become manslaughter?

And finally, what about the new invitro and cloning technologies where inplantation is optional? Should such techniques be banned outright? Under a legal construct where fertilized eggs are "people" don't such scientific techniques become immoral by legal definition?

And as technology advances and every living cell becomes a potential fully realized human being, do you suppose we should have funeral services for every lost living cell? Assign them all social security numbers? The mind boggles. :^)

Donald Pay

You lost, KB. You admittedly can't cite any part of Roe, or any other subsequent decision for your extreme/false position. You have made it up.

Ken Blanchard

Bill: all of the problems you come up with are present at every moment in the pregnancy and at every moment afterward. Lots of people die for all sorts of reasons. When do we pull the plug? Some ethical problems present themselves only late in life of a person; others present only early in the history of a life.

Recognizing the moral personhood of all human beings involves difficulties, just as recognizing the moral personhood of any human beings does. I think that all human beings are created equal. You disagree. That would be the bottom line.

Bill Fleming

No, KB, not at all. We disagree on when they are "created." Is your novel done before you finish writing it? Is your home livable once you have finished the blueprint?

If you are willing to grant personhood and legal equality to every living human cell, fine. Just say so. My position is that would be an extremist, irrational view, legally speaking.

But of course, you are welcome to it.

Daniel

RE: posornhoed laws A posornhoed amendment could not block stem cell research or treatments. Personhood amendments and legislation clearly state that every human being is a person, which only makes it illegal to kill human beings. Therefore, the only stem cell research affected by a posornhoed amendment would be embryonic stem cell research, which has largely proven to be unsuccessful.Actually, yes it could block it, as you could easily construe the law to mean that embryonic cells were used without the informed consent of their donor. And not only would this law make it illegal to kill a fertilized egg (at any stage), you could construe any treatment of that egg as abuse or torture, and persecute mothers for their own poor health, lack of healthcare, diet, or lifestyle of which you do not approve, because each of these would then be defined as the person's environment.Isn't the primary reason embryonic stem cell research has been unsuccessful is because of inhibited funding from zealots like you?This is only a step away from a previous .

The comments to this entry are closed.