Jivin J’s Life Links 3-28-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- The 2nd page of the New York Times obit for former VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro notes how her position on abortion affected her stops on the campaign trail:The abortion issue, magnified because she was Roman Catholic and a woman, plagued her campaign. Though she opposed the procedure personally, she said, others had the right to choose for themselves. Abortion opponents hounded her at almost every stop with an intensity seldom experienced by male politicians.
It also shows her “personally opposed” position was a bunch of hooey on pg 3:
Ms. Ferraro was a co-sponsor of the Economic Equity Act, which was intended to accomplish many of the aims of the never-ratified Equal Rights Amendment. She also supported federal financing for abortions.
- New Jersey Right to Life’s YouTube page has a video of U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg saying that pro-lifers “don’t deserve the freedom in the Constitution, but we’ll give them to them anyway.”He also said that pro-lifers “don’t want other people to have their own opinions.”
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnRwUVwxhJU[/youtube]
- In Louisville, 21-year-old Ruben Anthony has been charged with fetal homicide after he allegedly kicked his pregnant girlfriend in the stomach, causing the death of her child:
Police say it all started when he got angry with her because she would not, “watch TV or use her phone.” At this point, he allegedly became violent, striking her in the mouth with his fist and causing swelling and a minor cut. Police say that’s when he kicked her in the stomach.
- A bomb scare took place outside an Austin Planned Parenthood clinic. The scare closed the shopping center and northbound lanes of a road. Someone saw a backpack and thought it was out of place:The bomb squad was called out. Two and-a-half hours later, the all clear came and the backpack was found to be just that – a backpack.
Police say they found a hair brush and ear buds inside the backpack.
- The Pasadena Star-News covered a pro-life march around the Rose Bowl:
Thousands of abortion opponents walked 2.5 miles around the Rose Bowl Sunday after an opening prayer by Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez.
People from all over Southern California came together for Walk4Life, organized by LIFEsocal, a nonprofit created by students and parents from Pasadena high schools, and the Right to Life League of Southern California.
- The Prague Daily Monitor covered a pro-life march in Prague:About a thousand people marched through Prague centre to protest against abortions, some carrying white wooden crosses, others photos of newborn babies, pictures of saints or banners saying “Gynaecologists, Don’t Be Contract Killers” and “Tolerance From Conception” Saturday.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
That comment of Lautenberg’s has infuriated me all weekend, because it flies in the face of literally everything the United States was created to protect. That’s why the Declaration uses terms like “self-evident” and “inalienable.” The Constitution does not exist to give us the right to free speech or assembly, but to protect us from having them taken away, by people who think like him.
And he’s in a national office and doesn’t understand this! Argh!
Pretty dumb comment by lautenberg. He doesn’t deserve to be in public office!
Please, all New Jerseyans (is that what you are, New Jerseyans)? please write your senator and respectfully tell him why his statements were so ill-advised.
“He also said that pro-lifers “don’t want other people to have their own opinions.””
We believe that people should not hold that it is morally permissible to kill other people. Sometimes I’m still shocked at teh great lengths certain pro-choicers will go to avoid in any way shape or form interacting with the claim pro-lifers make, which is that abortion is the unjust taking of a life of an innocent human being. Suppose I inform you that I am opposed to domestic violence. Does it really address anything to claim that I don’t want anyone else to have an opinion when it comes to domestic violence? What does that even have to do with anything? Perhaps he had a certain context to that quote, but I see this too often- a complete blow-off of the pro-life claim by something like “don’t force your beliefs on me” or some other expression that clearly shows a lack of any kind of real consideration to the pro-life claim.
Although I do not live in New Joisey I emailed him.
Contact info
Senator Lautenberg at (202) 224-3224 or http://lautenberg.senate.gov/contact/routing.cfm
Bobby, I think that’s what they call “ad hominem,” or some other logical fallicy
It’s probably closest to a red herring, NAR. It’s an argument that directs away from the actual argument, like a fish can throw a dog off the scent.
Oh, well thanks. I had never heard of that one. You learn something new every day. :)
Or in my case, you forget something new every day :)
Lautenberg’s comment is absolutely infuriating. This is why I’ve been slowly turning from the liberal mentality to conservative; they call conservatives “fascist” and then they say b.s. like this. Also, Planned Parenthood and all pro-aborts don’t want us meddling with their “lives” and “bodies”….but they want to take our money? Nope. If you want to have sex, fine, go ahead. I’m not paying for your birth control. I pay for my own. If you want to abort your baby, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ASK ME TO PAY FOR IT.
We believe that people should not hold that it is morally permissible to kill other people. Sometimes I’m still shocked at the great lengths certain pro-choicers will go to avoid in any way shape or form interacting with the claim pro-lifers make, which is that abortion is the unjust taking of a life of an innocent human being.
Bobby, as one of the Supreme Court justices involved with the Roe decision said, (paraphrasing) “if the personhood of the unborn is ever established, that would really change things.”
I have no problem with you claiming that abortion is unjust (nor in interacting with your arguments), but personhood is a different thing from the biological existence of a living human organism. Granted, you did say “certain pro-choicers,” but the premise here is not that pro-choicers want to kill people, it’s that full personhood and rights aren’t attributed to the unborn, and that is what pro-lifers want to be different. You want the status we give to the born to be likewise deemed for the unborn.
Doug, why shouldn’t they be considered “persons”? It seems pro-aborts are arbitrarily taking away the rights from the unborn, not pro-lifers GIVING rights to someone who doesn’t have them. Logic and science tell us that the unborn babies are, in fact, HUMAN BEINGS, and therefore have the right to NOT BE KILLED. Pro-abort arguments use functionalism (it doesn’t FUNCTION like a “born” human), moral relativism (it’s only a “baby” when the mother says so), and a myriad other lies and obfuscations to justify the killing of these little human beings.
You say “Personhood is a different thing from the biological existence of a living human organism.” No it’s not. You either ARE a person, or you AREN’T. You don’t magically BECOME a person. First, we thought one “became” a person when the umbilical cord was cut (“Scissors makes you a person! TA DA!”), then it was viability, which is becoming earlier and earlier and earlier. We should realize that our little babies are PERSONS, from the beginning, until death. If they are not persons, then what are they, and what criteria do pro-aborts demand as proof that the unborn babies ARE persons? All the proof points towards the unborn babies’ personhood, and not vice versa.
It was not convenient for me to admit that the unborn are persons. I am not trying to “control women’s bodies.” But I believe in accountability, responsibility, and most of all, LIFE. We do not have the right to kill anyone; and we do not have the right to strip away inherent rights from those we should be protecting.
Been over this before, Doug. Rights are not ATTRIBUTED, neither do WE give them, nor DEEM them. Not a new idea by any stretch:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.—-Declaration of Independence
Before you state that Jefferson was only referring to the King of Britain, as you have in the past, please re-read and note words like “whenever” “any” and “foundation on such principles”.
Some other helpful definitions:
self-evident: Obvious to anyone who will be honest with him or herself
endowed: Given as a gift, an inheritance
Creator: not you, Doug, not seven judges in black robes, not even a majority vote of the populace
Life: what an abortion violently takes from the preborn without due process
destructive of these ends: taking away Life, Liberty or the pursuit of Happiness without due process
one more hint: Safety and Happiness does not mean not getting an infection while you attempt to deprive your progeny of Life, nor keeping your figure/finishing college/any other light and transient reason 96% of women abort their children.
Keep hiding behind the semantic engineering of trying to define “personhood”, but if you or anyone are pro-choice-to-end-the-life-of-an-unborn-child, you support, or at the very least, tolerate killing people.
How very big of Lautenberg! There is an old saying that goes something like: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Doug, according to the UN’s declaration of human rights,
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. (my emphasis)
So since human rights apply to all humans, it is a rights violation even to deny personhood to the unborn, let alone kill them.
That aside, if you’re going to make the “person” argument, then the important question is why are the unborn not persons? In order for the unborn not to be persons, the definition of personhood has to exclude certain groups. But according to the dictionary, person is defined as:
a human being
human, individual
a human being, whether man, woman, or child
A living human
If the normal dictionary definitions don’t cut it, Webster’s legal dictionary also defines a person as a human being.
An entity, such as an individual, or, under law, an incorporated group with certain legal rights and responsibilities; a human being; the live body of a human being
And the medical defenition:
3. The living body of a human
Doug,
I agree that personhood is teh issue. Absolutely. But see, YOU know that and are willing to interact and discuss that premise. When I say “the unborn is a person because of X Y and Z” you respond by saying “No, X is no good because blah blah blah. As far as Y goes blah blah ” etc. You don’t respond by saying something completely off topic and having nothing whatsoever to do with my claim, which is exactly what whats-his-face that I quoted has done. So when I say “certain” pro-choicers, I do really mean to exclude ones who try and discuss the actual issue, like you and Enigma.
“So since human rights apply to all humans, it is a rights violation even to deny personhood to the unborn, let alone kill them.”
Say, what other “rights” are the “unborn” being unfairly denied? Shouldn’t citizenship be determined by where someone was conceived and not where they were born? What if someone was conceived by non-American citizens on American soil, then born in another country? What if they were conceived on foreign soil, but then born in the United States? The legal framework for determining citizenship rights is primarily based on place of birth, but if a person is a “person” before they’re even born, then that is necessarily disenfranchising the “unborn” as well. In fact, the entire concept of a “birth certificate” is really meaningless if you believe that human rights begin at conception, isn’t it? Shouldn’t we be handing out “conception certificates” instead?
From Article 1 NAR – “All human beings are born”
I’m not at all infuriated by Lousenberg’s comments. I expect Libs to say such things, because that’s the way these imperious monsters think. They are not liberal, but fascist. They don’t accept the U.S. Constitution as a legal contract to be accepted at face-value, which is why they invented this absurdity of a “living breathing document.”
Are the fixed rate mortgages on their homes living, breathing documents subject to change at the whim of the bank?
We can’t reason with such dictators. We can only vote them out, or surrender all to the state.
@ Reality. Wow. Are you intentionally deceptive? That phrase is NOT a definition of human being. Finish the sentence!
The first sentence of Article 1 says:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Yeah, that’s just about the same as what you typed. /sarc
FWIW, I wouldn’t care how the U.N. defines human being even if you had its definition. We only need look at the UNFPA to know the U.N. <3 ‘s abortion.
What Sen. Lautenberg said is only outrageous if you’re a partisan hack looking for something to get offended by. Whether someone “deserves” something or not has little bearing on what their rights actually are. I read enough political blogs (and more specifically, the user comments posted to such blogs) to know that it is a regularly-expressed sentiment on both sides of the ideological divide that some people “don’t deserve to vote” based on their perceived ignorance or stupidity. I would hope that those making these comments wouldn’t actually disenfrachise their fellow voters if given such an opportunity, but rather are just venting their frustrations.
Incidentally, Sen. Lautenberg is expressing much more respect for the constitutional rights of anti-abortion advocates than those same advocates themselves, who want to take what is currently a constitutionally guaranteed right and destroy it for ideological reasons. Who is the “fascist” again?
OK Klynn73, have it your way. The full Article says “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
so, ‘born free and equal in dignity and rights’, not ‘conceived free and equal in dignity and rights’.
‘endowed with reason and conscience’ – what, a fetus?
‘act towards one another’ – can a fetus do this?
My comments were in response to NAR‘s citing of the UN’s declaration.
I could be really snarky with that conscience bit, Reality, when it comes to people who think it’s hunky-dory to dismember vulnerable human beings (yes, even fetal human beings, gasp!), but I won’t.
And your comments were half of a phrase that insinuated the article said human beings are defined as being born. Nice back-pedaling, though.
Reason and conscience do not a human being make.
Joan,
Still with the Constitutional rights thing? Tell me, was owning a slave morally okay in the first 84 years of the nation because it was Constitutionally protected, or just poor aesthetics?
who want to take what is currently a constitutionally guaranteed right and destroy it for ideological reasons
Joan,
Waiting for you to cite where in the US Constitution it states that all women have the right to abortion. In the meantime, let’s just re-hash the glaring irony of your claim that the anti-abortion community wishes to strip people of a constitutional right.
Klynn quotes, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
MaryLee points out, “Logic and science tell us that the unborn babies are, in fact, HUMAN BEINGS, and therefore have the right to NOT BE KILLED. Pro-abort arguments use functionalism (it doesn’t FUNCTION like a “born” human), moral relativism (it’s only a “baby” when the mother says so), and a myriad other lies and obfuscations to justify the killing of these little human beings. […] You either ARE a person, or you AREN’T. You don’t magically BECOME a person.”
NAR quotes the UN Declaration of Rights,
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. (my emphasis)”
But Joan is far more concerned about citizenship complications. You’re right, Joan, it’s just so much easier to kill babies. And as we know, the easier path is by definition the better one, right?/sarcasm
Be snarky if you wish, still doesn’t give a fetus a ‘conscience’, or ‘reason’.
Where’s the back-pedaling Klyn73? It clearly talks about born people, not fetuses. It doesn’t give fetuses equality or rights either.
Tell me Gerard, was barring women from voting and politics morally okay for all the years before we moved forward “because it was Constitutionally protected, or just poor aesthetics?” You know, like when we moved forward by giving women control of their own fertility.
Of course what Senator Lousenberg said was ignorant and despicable beyond belief. But he represents New Jersey, so it’s appropriate.
“What Sen. Lautenberg said is only outrageous if you’re a partisan hack looking for something to get offended by.”
You have got to be freaking kidding me. A US Senator says that millions of his fellow countrymen DO NOT DESERVE LIBERTY, and then he doubles down on the hate and stupidity by having the gall to claim that he’ll “give” us liberty anyway? Wow, so is Lousenberg God? Because liberty comes from God, not from some old idiot who represents the dirtiest state in the Union.
“Be snarky if you wish, still doesn’t give a fetus a ‘conscience’, or ‘reason’.”
Careful, based on the quality of your posts someone could easily use the same argument against you. Why is it that fascists always want to deny the humanity of this or that group of people? Whether it’s black skinned people, Jews, or unborn children, the fascists always come up with a group of people to scapegoat.
“Still with the Constitutional rights thing? Tell me, was owning a slave morally okay in the first 84 years of the nation because it was Constitutionally protected, or just poor aesthetics?”
Who is arguing morality here?
“Waiting for you to cite where in the US Constitution it states that all women have the right to abortion. In the meantime, let’s just re-hash the glaring irony of your claim that the anti-abortion community wishes to strip people of a constitutional right.
Klynn quotes, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.””
There’s no irony there. If abortion is a constitutional right, and you want to make it so that this isn’t so, then you want to take away a constitutional right.
BTW, you realize that Klynn was quoting the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution, right?
“But Joan is far more concerned about citizenship complications. You’re right, Joan, it’s just so much easier to kill babies. And as we know, the easier path is by definition the better one, right?/sarcasm”
Citizenship complications is merely one example of why deeming fetuses and embyros to be legal persons is simply insane, if not functionally impossible. Not to mention totally unprecedented, unless you can point me in the direction of some government, past or present, that explicitly defines “the unborn” as persons with legal rights. Banning abortion is one thing–stating that legal personhood begins at conception is something totally different.
If Klynn73 wants to cite these things it might be a case of ‘careful what you wish for’.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” hm, now that’s interesting.
They might try to use that as an argument John but it wouldn’t achieve anything.
“Why is it that fascists always want to deny the humanity of this or that group of people?” – yeah, like women with unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. Or homophobes who resist gay equality and marriage.
So, what the pro-aborts are saying is they don’t WANT the unborn persons to be viewed as persons, because then kjilling them would be wrong. There is no logic beyond that, and even that is hardly logic at all. Whether or not you FEEL the unborn are persons or don’t BELIEVE they are persons does not matter……You cannot prove they are NOT persons. Science and logic says that they are. I am a woman. I do not want to take away my own rights. I am not particularly religious, and find abortion to be a disgrace…..it is nothing but the killing of innocent persons.
While I was pregnant, I began to see…..what I believed was a “choice” was really a lie. I had a violent and visceral reaction at the thought of something I believed once to be a simple medical procedure. My daughter was my daughter from the moment I saw her little heart beating, flickering like a light on the ultrasound at only 8 weeks. I knew I was a mother, and she was not my property…..she was my child, and I loved her.
Why pro-aborts hate unborn babies is beyond me. That is where we all come from, and all of us had the right to be born, and we WERE born. Nobody, not even mothers, have the right to kill the unborn. It is a thought that is so egregious and so horrible that I cannot understand why, especially now, with everything we know, I cannot understand how anyone in their right mind would not only support such a thing, but actively fight for it.
By the by, “Reality,” I’m just one of those pro-lifers who doesn’t believe in the death penalty and fights for gay rights, does not attend church regularly…. But it’s funny to see you generalize, because you guys have it WRONG WRONG WRONG all the way through.
“Science and logic says that they are” – well actually no.
Okay, this is only from Wikipedia but it does represent a summation of various sources of definition and context –
“…an entity that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood, for example, in a particular moral or legal context. Such capacities or attributes can include agency, self-awareness, a notion of the past and future, and the possession of rights and duties, among others. However, the concept of a person is difficult to define in a way that is universally accepted, due to its historical and cultural variability and the controversies surrounding its use in some contexts.
…may exclude some human entities in prenatal development or those with extreme mental impairments or injuries”
So the jury’s still out and may well permanently be.
“you guys have it WRONG WRONG WRONG all the way through.” – not generalizing then?
Why do you go to church ‘sometimes’?
“Why is it that fascists always want to deny the humanity of this or that group of people?” – yeah, like women with unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. Or homophobes who resist gay equality and marriage.
Wow, who knew that humanity was synonymous with the “right” to kill another human being or with marriage.
joan, you still haven’t shown how abortion is a constitutional right. If you actually read the constitution, its not in there. In fact, the constitution states that the right to life liberty and property cannot be denied without due process of law. So if abortion is ever added as a constitutional right, they’ll have to ammend it to take out that nasty life part.
I am a New Jerseyan (yes, that’s what we are), and I emailed Lautenberg. It won’t do any good. I’m sure I’ll get a form reply.
Joan, you don’t think it’s outrageous for a public servant to feel that a portion citizens he was elected to represent don’t deserve constitutional protections b/c they hold opinions that differ from his? You don’t think that’s a little inconsistent for someone who has taken an oath to uphold the US constitution? You don’t think it’s incredibly arrogant for him to say we get our rights b/c he’ll “give em to [us] anyway”? Forget that it’s not true. That’s the point. An elected public official sworn to uphold the constitution shouldn’t spout off at the mouth in ways that suggest he has no understanding of or respect for said document
John Boehner said in a statement today, “People claim it’s about reproductive rights, but they lie, they lie! It’s about killing unborn children and tearing them limb from limb in the womb. Pro-aborts don’t deserve any protection under our constitution, but we’ll let em keep their rights anyway.” I’m sure you’d have no problem with that….since you’re not a partisan hack.
P.S – no one in NJ says “Joisey.” We always laugh about that.
Joan,
Nice try. Yes, I know that Klynn was quoting the Declaration of Independence, which doesn’t actually claim to give us the right to life anyway. Note that I never said otherwise.
Still waiting for you to prove or even indicate where the Constitution does protect abortion. Can’t say I remember reading that in any of my US Gov’t classes.
Not to mention totally unprecedented, unless you can point me in the direction of some government, past or present, that explicitly defines “the unborn” as persons with legal rights.
We’re getting there, no worries. It had not until recently been necessary to define babies as people, nor had there been the scientific advancements which allow us to define the unborn as persons. But I digress: the complications and precedences of an action do not make it right or wrong. They make it easy or difficult. Talk all you want about the complications of personhood laws, but we cannot deny personhood to a group of living humans based solely on the fact that it will be difficult and will complicate our laws. Honestly, that argument is very reminiscent of arguments in favor of slavery during the Civil War era. Is that really the group of people with whom you wish to align yourself?
Reality……WIKIPEDIA?! Seriously?
Your argument–again–is functionalist and relativist. If one FUNCTIONS within a certain set of criteria, THEN you bestow upon them the “personhood” they have achieved. WRONG AGAIN. It is not WHAT WE DO that makes us people, it is what we are. The unborn ARE persons and function exactly as persons in that stage of life. They do not magically become persons. We cannot decide that one must function or look a certain way to be considered a “person.” THAT is fascist. We are either persons from the get-go, or none of is a person at all. Science and logic DO tell us that. Your solipsism is showing.
Oh, and “Reality”……”You guys” = you and Joan. Also, who cares if or when I go to church? Sometimes I go at Christmas. Who cares? I only mentioned it because you have generalized that all pro-lifers are homophobic Bible thumpers. Give me a break. If I went to church regularly and also believed in killing babies, you would have no problem with me. I am a secular pro-lifer, it is not a religious issue for me at all.
CT,
My friends from Jersey say Joisey. Maybe they are just teasing me?
I meant no disrespect. :)
Doug, why shouldn’t they be considered “persons”? It seems pro-aborts are arbitrarily taking away the rights from the unborn, not pro-lifers GIVING rights to someone who doesn’t have them. Logic and science tell us that the unborn babies are, in fact, HUMAN BEINGS, and therefore have the right to NOT BE KILLED. Pro-abort arguments use functionalism (it doesn’t FUNCTION like a “born” human), moral relativism (it’s only a “baby” when the mother says so), and a myriad other lies and obfuscations to justify the killing of these little human beings.
Hi MaryLee. There is no necessary “should” or “should not” as far as personhood. It’s an attributed status and what you want is for society to deem it present for the unborn. I don’t think any society, anywhere, at any time, has treated the unborn as it did the born, i.e. the Birth Standard for rights and personhood is exceedingly prevalent. No argument that the unborn are human beings, but it’s not the biological reality that is being debated; rather, it’s how do we treat them.
As to it being a “baby or not, it’s a subjective thing. Personally, I have no problem with saying “unborn baby,” but is the zygote really a baby? Is the blastocyst? At some point, it starts looking quite baby-like, sure, and I have no doubt that more people think “baby” late in gestation versus before various points. There’s no lying here, no obfuscation. The lie, if any, is that your opinion somehow applies on a blanket basis, whether or not another given person shares it.
I’m also not saying that personhood cannot be attributed to the unborn. The restrictions we have, now, on late-term abortions constitute a limited form of it, IMO.
klynn73: Been over this before, Doug. Rights are not ATTRIBUTED, neither do WE give them, nor DEEM them. Not a new idea by any stretch:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.—-Declaration of Independence
Before you state that Jefferson was only referring to the King of Britain, as you have in the past, please re-read and note words like “whenever” “any” and “foundation on such principles”.
Ahoy klynn. Good memory you have there. : )
On King George, this was basically the “Founding Fathers” telling him to screw off. Yes, many of them had certain beliefs that is reflected in the Declaration of Independence. In practice, it really was only applied to white, male landowners at that time. It took a changing of the laws, and the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, for women to get the right to vote, for example.
A “Creator” cannot be proven to be anything more than a mental construct, and such matters of belief are not the basis of law in the US, in general, per the principle of it being good to keep some separation between church and state.
Bottom line: we really do attribute rights, and what you want is for us to do it on an increased basis for the unborn. Abortion, to a point in gestation, was legal before, during and after the writing of the Declaration, as well as the Constitution. Not saying that personhood can’t be accorded to the unborn, but for now the question remains whether we do it or not, and to what degree.
From Ta Nehisi Coates article, “The Unbearable Whiteness of Pro-lifers and Pundits.”
“…Nor were slaves, as a class, denied “the right to exist,” a notion that sounds cute and pleasing when deployed as a pundit’s thought experiment, but is revealed to be foolish under the harsh light of actual history. Whereas abortion is necessarily premised on ending the existence of a fetus, slave-holding was directly premised on the continued existence of slaves. The lynching of slaves was virtually unheard of in the Old South, not because slave-masters were beneficent, but because they had enormous sums of money invested in them.
In other words, slaves did not simply have “the right to exist”; it was essential to the society that they exist. In this sense, abortion and American chattel slavery could not be more opposite…”
Slaves were “post born humans” who were the property of others who owned them. A fetus is “owned” by she who carries it – as is every other organ in her body.
Regarding the “right” to an abortion:
The Court in Roe chose, however, to base its decision on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the so-called “right of privacy” protected in earlier decisions such as Griswold v Connecticut (striking down a ban on the use, sale, and distribution of contraceptives).
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/abortion.htm
While abortion is not cited in the Constitution, the SCOTUS decision was based, as are all SCOTUS decisions, on the Constitution. “Separation of Powers” isn’t in the Constitution but it is part of our system. “Eminent Domain” is also not in the Constitution but as a result of court decisions, it is a government right.
Doug, according to the UN’s declaration of human rights,
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
So since human rights apply to all humans, it is a rights violation even to deny personhood to the unborn, let alone kill them.
That aside, if you’re going to make the “person” argument, then the important question is why are the unborn not persons?
NAR, the unborn are not deemed as persons under the law, that’s what makes the difference. Now of course, some states do have laws giving some such status to the unborn, at least in some situations, but overall it’s society saying one way or the other.
One big thing that sets the unborn apart are that they are inside the body of a person. If nothing else, there is the liberty of the pregnant woman to consider.
If Joe Blow is walking down the street, then I’m for leaving him be, I’m pretty good with the way US law is. But if old Joe were inside my body, then it’s like, “Hey Joe, we’re gonna have to have a talk about this…..”
Maybe things will be resolved to your satisfaction, or at least more towards it, versus the way it is now. Yet in any case, it’s not just the question of the unborns’ status, since there is the pregnant woman.
klynn73: Reason and conscience do not a human being make.
Indeed. Heck, remove somebody’s brain, but keep the body alive by pumping enough blood through it with oxygen and a few other things, and there’s still a living human being there.
In my opinion, though, the person is long gone. There’s no reason, no conscience, no mental awareness, no personality. Without personality and without a mind, can there really be a “person”?
NAR: Joan, you still haven’t shown how abortion is a constitutional right.
The Constitution is not about enumerating every right. It’s about keeping control of government so it does not infringe too much on the rights we think people should have, and that’s how it operated in the Roe decision – there was not a good enough reason seen for the state governments to infringe on the liberty of pregnant women.
Abortion was generally illegal in the US for a time, but it did not become so on Constitutional grounds, rather, it was due to other causes – one big one being that doctors felt that midwives were encroaching on what was the docs’ rightful territory.
The writers of the Constitution, and of the Declaration of Independence, knew that abortion was legal to a point in gestation (pretty much the same as we have it now). This came from English common law, which we’d had in the Colonies, and which stretches back in time for hundreds of years. It remained legal for decades after the Constitution took effect, as well.
Um, so Doug, you continue to place conditions on something that is not your right to bestow or take away. Personhood is inherent. You cannot PROVE the unborn are not persons, you can only prove you don’t WANT them to be persons. They are not “potential” persons, they are persons with potential. Like Reality, your arguments are relativistic and solipsistic. They are not scientific, they have no logic, and are completely conditional. Either the unborn are persons or they are not. All facts point to them being persons. To dispute this is to lack scientific integrity, indeed to blatantaly scoff and arbitrarily DENY science and logic for a destructive end. It does not make my life easier to admit the unborn are persons; but to pretend they are not persons (without even offering proof) is intellectual bankruptcy.
Carla,
No offense taken :-) It’s just always been a joke amongst my friends. Now…New Yorkers who live here say something that’s sounds AWFULLY close to “Joisy” – but native New Jerseyans…never! lol.
Ha.
I am from the Midwest. I have been told I have an accent but beg to differ. YaSureYouBetcha.
CT: no one in NJ says “Joisey.” We always laugh about that.
What if they grew up in Brooklyn? ; P
MaryLee: Um, so Doug, you continue to place conditions on something that is not your right to bestow or take away. Personhood is inherent. You cannot PROVE the unborn are not persons, you can only prove you don’t WANT them to be persons. They are not “potential” persons, they are persons with potential. Like Reality, your arguments are relativistic and solipsistic. They are not scientific, they have no logic, and are completely conditional. Either the unborn are persons or they are not. All facts point to them being persons.
Well, I’m not saying it’s my call, MaryLee, but it is society’s call. No, personhood is not inherent, and it’s not a matter of science or biology. We have the Birth Standard for rights and personhood just as every society, everywhere, has had, as far as I know. Doesn’t have to be that way, but it is that way, and this is what you want to be changed.
I have been told I have an accent but beg to differ.
Carla, do you say “Wis-can-son,” sort of?
Oh yes. I say it juuuuuuuuuuuust like that!!! lol
Well then you got the accent. : D
Yes Mary Lee, Wikipedia, because as I said “Okay, this is only from Wikipedia but it does represent a summation of various sources of definition and context”.
Two points:
1. it was not a definition, it reflected what you can find on a huge array of sites if you seek a definition.
2. it showed that the definition is under continuous debate. Therefore, as I said “So the jury’s still out and may well permanently be.”
“Your argument–again–is functionalist and relativist” – as is yours, that’s the point.
“It is not WHAT WE DO that makes us people, it is what we are.” – that’s not what majority opinion says.
“The unborn ARE persons and function exactly as persons in that stage of life.” – that simply is not true, try applying some of that logic and science you talk about.
“We are either persons from the get-go” – not according to most definitions.
Science and logic DO tell us that. Your subversion is showing.
“It is not WHAT WE DO that makes us people, it is what we are.” – that’s not what majority opinion says.
So… when science doesn’t suit you, you fall back on “majority opinion?” Really.
I’d like to see the survey that points to this fact, of which I was unaware.
And P.S. – if the majority doesn’t believe human DNA makes us human, then that is scary as he**. Guess those biology classes just aren’t stickin’, huh?
Hi Kellady, why are you not sticking to the point? I never mentioned DNA or biology, or even ‘human’. Why do you constantly feel the need to deform and manipulate the topic?
The point you are pretending to comment on is what defines a person. That’s what I was addressing in response to Mary Lee‘s claim that science and logic says a fetus is a person. It is not a question of pure science and/or logic. Which is what I said. The definition is under debate, as I said.
Go do a search on ‘person’ and see what you find. The majority of results agree on a fetus not being a person.
I gotta admit, it, Reality. I didn’t read through all the crap. I just read MaryLee’s comment and your response. I thought of how often society seeks to define us by what they deem our usefulness is to society, and about how even many born individuals are treated as if they are another class altogether – subhuman, if you will.
So, if the majority begin to agree that newborns are not “persons” (which some, like Peter Singer, already believe) or that the disabled/differently-abled are not “persons,” then what are we to do? What arbitrary factors are we to use to determine who’s a person and who isn’t? Shall we go with the Australian ethicist’s claims about IQ? Shall we go with Peter Singer’s 18 month – 2 year mark? Shall we go with the view that if one is sentient, conscious, breathing without aid, “fully developed” (which could, of course, exclude even some born individuals) and so on ad nauseum, that THIS is what makes one a “person?”
It’s highly possible that society will begin to lean (and already is leaning) in this direction. Birth does not, even now, guarantee one’s rights as “persons” under the law.
But I’m guessing the only thing that really matters to you is that fetuses are never considered “persons.” That way, you’ll preserve your sacred right to an abortion.
Why is it, Reality, that you disregard ultrasound technology, biology, and science which has clearly demonstrated that fetuses are human and feel the need to lean on the obscurity of “personhood” for your position?
I have a sneaking suspicion that even if fetuses are one day ruled to be persons (oh, thank you, almighty government, giver of all wisdom! /snark), you would still demand the right to kill them at will.
“I thought of how often society seeks to define us by what they deem our usefulness is to society” – like it or not I think this will continue for a few millenia yet.
You keep trying to claim that science and logic prove that abortion is wrong. That’s like trying to claim that science and logic prove ‘faith’ is right.
Some of the science you claim for your case may be true but abortion is a choice made on everything but ‘science’.
Some of the science you claim for your case is either not science at all or is not correct or has been proven wrong.
Logic isn’t as clear cut as you would like it to be when it underpins your case, I think it is when it underpins my case – so there you go!
The science and logic do not clearly demonstrate that being a ‘human’ means being a ‘person’. One is a scientific premise, the other isn’t.
“I thought of how often society seeks to define us by what they deem our usefulness is to society” – like it or not I think this will continue for a few millenia yet.
Well, since man is evil, you could be correct.
You keep trying to claim that science and logic prove that abortion is wrong. That’s like trying to claim that science and logic prove ‘faith’ is right.
First off, I never said anything about logic, but maybe someone else did, and I missed it. And I never said anything about science “proving abortion is wrong.” That is a moral judgment. But science does, indeed, show us the humanity of the unborn human fetus/embryo. (And since science proves the human fetus is human, then what do we do with the fact that we are indeed putting almost 4,000 humans to death every day in this country? i’ll tell you what we do with it – we seek to deny it, justify it, whatever we can. Just as we’ve done with human injustice through the ages. Might makes right, and all that….) What I’m trying to say is that you have chosen to believe that, despite scientific evidence, killing “some” humans is ok as long as we don’t call them “persons.” You have made a moral judgment based on falsehood.
Some of the science you claim for your case may be true but abortion is a choice made on everything but ‘science’.
Some of it may be true? You mean like the fact that the fetus is human? And btw, thank you for pointing this out. Abortion is a choice made despite the scientific evidence proving the human fetus is indeed alive and human, because our government decided to make a wholly unscientific judgment in Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton. And many women who have abortions are denied that scientific evidence on fetal development before they choose abortion. At the very least, these women and their children deserve to know the scientific evidence of the humanity of their children – not “clump of non-sentient cells” propaganda.
Some of the science you claim for your case is either not science at all or is not correct or has been proven wrong.
Are you saying that ultrasound, biology, and DNA lie? Are you saying that the fetus is NOT human? That the offspring of two humans has been proven to be… something else? You can dance around it all you want, but the facts on the humanity of the fetus are just that. Facts. Any of the surrounding issues are insignificant in comparison to that.
Logic isn’t as clear cut as you would like it to be when it underpins your case, I think it is when it underpins my case – so there you go!
What?
The science and logic do not clearly demonstrate that being a ‘human’ means being a ‘person’. One is a scientific premise, the other isn’t.
Yeah. That’s what I said. And I also said, who’s to determine what a “person” is? What are the arbitrary things that make a human a “person?” Do you see how ridiculous that is (and sinister, and fraught with a whole lot of really unpleasant slippery slopes)? Are you denying that the science of humanity applies to the human fetus?
Thank you Kel! Good job high five
LOL ….WIKIPEDIA! That bastion of irrefutable facts! LOL. Give me a break would you please.
It takes more energy and delusion to justify the killing of these babies than it does to recognize their humanity, their dignity, and to love them….and their mothers. If I must err, I would rather err on the side of life.
“What I’m trying to say is that you have chosen to believe that, despite scientific evidence, killing “some” humans is ok as long as we don’t call them “persons.”
Kel – EXACTLY
Doug – I’ll cop to wadder (water) and arange (orange), but Joisy is all NY :-)
“Well, since man is evil” – what an amazing leap of logic!
“I never said anything about science “proving abortion is wrong.” That is a moral judgment” – well finally. You may just be starting to get it.
“You have made a moral judgment based on falsehood.” – that is not the case. I am amused by the way that you play emotional hopscotch in your transition from the scientific fact that a fetus has human DNA – yes, it is scientifically a ‘human being’ – to it being a ‘person’ with the same feelings, senses, abilities and mental capacity as the average adult. You’re not a doctor while you’re studying medicine, you’re a doctor once you’ve completed your studies and been accredited and registered.
“Are you saying that ultrasound, biology, and DNA lie?” – no but the various claims about the likelihood and severity of links between abortion and negative events do.
“but the facts on the humanity of the fetus are just that. Facts. Any of the surrounding issues are insignificant in comparison to that.” – but they’re not insignificant to the people making the choice, that’s what you need to recognize. Gees, and I though you were starting to get it earlier.
“What?” – just saying that ‘logic’ isn’t always linear, repeatable or agreed.
“Yeah. That’s what I said. And I also said, who’s to determine what a “person” is” – yeah, me too, so did Wikipedia actually.
“Are you denying that the science of humanity applies to the human fetus?” – what’s that got to do with ‘person’?
I see you have taken lessons from Kellady’s school of ‘ignore the point and add another leg to the topic’ Mary Lee. Let’s see if explaining it to you for a third time can get through.
The Wikipedia quote did not provide a definition of ‘person’. It did not claim ‘facts’. It stated that there was contention as shown by the number of viewpoints which can be found. It gave a couple of examples of this. My point was not to define ‘person’ but to state that it may never be resolved. Do you get it this time?
“Well, since man is evil” – what an amazing leap of logic!
Oh, yes, be sure to pounce on THAT, since you really can’t seem to address the issues here.
“I never said anything about science “proving abortion is wrong.” That is a moral judgment” – well finally. You may just be starting to get it.
Okay, so you say I said something, then I say I didn’t say it, then you say that was the point all along? I’m starting to feel like you are talking in circles here.
“You have made a moral judgment based on falsehood.” – that is not the case. I am amused by the way that you play emotional hopscotch in your transition from the scientific fact that a fetus has human DNA – yes, it is scientifically a ‘human being’ – to it being a ‘person’ with the same feelings, senses, abilities and mental capacity as the average adult. You’re not a doctor while you’re studying medicine, you’re a doctor once you’ve completed your studies and been accredited and registered.
Tell me, Reality, is a woman more pregnant at 9 months than at 3 weeks? What’s “emotional” about the scientific fact of the humanity of the fetus? You are the one who is making the leaps of faith here, depending on arbitrary markers of “personhood” in the hopes that it will make the killing of human “nonpersons” (lol!) perfectly acceptable.
“Are you saying that ultrasound, biology, and DNA lie?” – no but the various claims about the likelihood and severity of links between abortion and negative events do.
Did I ever address any of those things? Pulling an ol’ switcheroo, are we? I don’t care if abortion is one day deemed to be the healthiest thing a woman could ever possibly do in her lifetime. That does not and will never change the fact that abortion deliberately kills a human being.
“but the facts on the humanity of the fetus are just that. Facts. Any of the surrounding issues are insignificant in comparison to that.” – but they’re not insignificant to the people making the choice, that’s what you need to recognize. Gees, and I though you were starting to get it earlier.
Are we talking about the general public, women making the abortion decision, or you personally here? You’re leaping from one thing to another, and I can’t keep track of your train of thought.
“Yeah. That’s what I said. And I also said, who’s to determine what a “person” is” – yeah, me too, so did Wikipedia actually.
Then I guess the difference between you and Wiki is that Wiki is undecided. You’ve already made up your mind about who is a human “nonperson.”
“Are you denying that the science of humanity applies to the human fetus?” – what’s that got to do with ‘person’?
Shall I repeat the question?
My point was not to define ‘person’ but to state that it may never be resolved. Do you get it this time?
So, you’ve not “defined” it, but you’ve chosen to exclude some humans from “personhood” on the basis of arbitrary factors, determined by… well, whatever you want to choose, I guess.
“Oh, yes, be sure to pounce on THAT, since you really can’t seem to address the issues here” – now now, be honest. You raised it and I did address the issues.
“Okay, so you say I said something, then I say I didn’t say it, then you say that was the point all along? I’m starting to feel like you are talking in circles here.” – that’d be your game plan. I’m the one who keeps saying people don’t make a choice about abortion based on science.
“What’s “emotional” about the scientific fact of the humanity of the fetus?” – there you go again, ducking and dodging! I said the emotional hopscotch was your little journey from ‘human’ to ‘person’.
“depending on arbitrary markers of “personhood” -that is exactly NOT what I have been saying. How many times have I said it is an ongoing argument. That it is not scientifically specific. Sheesh, I wish you’d read the words that are written not what you wish was written.
“Did I ever address any of those things? Pulling an ol’ switcheroo, are we?” – not at all, that’s your speciality. I said “Some of the science you claim for your case is either not science at all or is not correct or has been proven wrong.’ in relation to such matters as the claimed increase in breast cancer attributed to abortion.
“Are we talking about the general public, women making the abortion decision, or you personally here?” at least some of the general public, many women making a choice and me.
“You’re leaping from one thing to another” – no that’s just your detemination to ignore what I actually write and try to twist it into something else.
“I can’t keep track of your train of thought.” – yeah, I noticed that. Try itemizing the factual points rather than trying to warp things into something you think you can tackle.
“Then I guess the difference between you and Wiki is that Wiki is undecided. You’ve already made up your mind about who is a human “nonperson.” – yes, and so has every woman who suddenly goes uh oh and looks around for her best outcome.
“Are you denying that the science of humanity applies to the human fetus?” – did you not read my “the scientific fact that a fetus has human DNA – yes, it is scientifically a ‘human being’ or did you choose to ignore it?
what’s that got to do with ‘person’? – shall I repeat the question?
“on the basis of arbitrary factors, determined by… well, whatever you want to choose, I guess.” – yep, just like you do. That’s the point.
The only reason the definition of a person is under debate is because morals have been under debate. You “pro-choicers” are always screaming about science, not feelings. So the one argument that holds your argument together is a debate against science? That doesn’t even make any sense!
The word person does mean human being. It’s from the French for human being, persone, from the Latin persona, also meaning human being. If person doesn’t mean human being, it doesn’t mean anything. The fact that the law can define a company as a person, but refuses that definition to an actual person, tells you just how screwed up the law is!
Companies don’t have sentience, either! Unlike the unborn, they don’t live: they don’t breathe, respond to stimuli, or have a metabolism. They do grow and reproduce, but they don’t meet any of the other scientific requirements of having life. How can they meet the legal definition of a person, when they are not even human, and not even living? Non-human animals: Again, not sentient, but also considered persons under the law! How is it that a beast meets the legal definition of a person, but an actual human being doesn’t?
Medical Dictionary
person per·son (pűr’s?n) n.
1. A living human.
2. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
3. The living body of a human.
4. Physique and general appearance.
hu·man definition
Pronunciation: /?hy{uuml}-m?n, ?y{uuml}-/
Function: adj
1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of humans <human body>< human biochemistry>
b : primarily or usually harbored by, affecting, or attacking humans < human diseases>< human parasites>
2 : being or consisting of humans human race>
3 : consisting of members of the family Hominidae : HOMINID
life (l?f)
n. pl. lives (l?vz)
1. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
2. The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.
3. Living organisms considered as a group.
4. A living being, especially a person.
Note that it says that a life is a living being, and means any living being, but used especially to define a person.
Yes, science does have something to say on the topic of what constitutes a person. Religions have an opinion on the topic. The law has their opinion as well. However, an opinion does not qualify as fact. Science is fact. Law is opinion. Note that the decisions of any court case, including Roe v. Wade, are always defined as opinions . No court decision is ever said to be fact. It is always an opinion. Opinions change over time. Laws change over time.
If you’re arguing about privacy, well then consider the fact that the government steps on our right to privacy all the time.
– If you’re the family member of someone in the government, the government has all sorts of information on you that you thought was private, including your full medical background.
– If you have a psychological disorder, certain prescriptions are required to be reported to the government, such as if you take Adderall or Ritalin.
– Bush passed the Patriot Act after 9/11 in order to protect our country, but that act also gives the government the right to tap your phone, bug your house, put a keystroke logger on your computer, and arrest you all without a warrant or probable cause.
– You aren’t allowed to enroll in or step onto the grounds of any school without getting vaccinated. I should know, I was refused admission to university without getting my government mandated MMR update – I looked it up, found that it was law.
– The government actually has records on who has gotten their vaccines and who hasn’t.
– While there is a federal protection of the privacy of medical records in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the government has “closed” more than 73 percent of the cases of reported violations of HIPPA – more than 14,000 – either ruling that there was no violation, or allowing health plans, hospitals, doctors’ offices or other entities simply to promise to fix whatever they had done wrong, escaping any penalty.
– The US Department of Health & Human Services, and the FDA were quoted last year saying, “There is No Right to Consume or Feed Children Any Particular Food; There is No Generalized Right to Bodily and Physical Health; There is No Fundamental Right to Freedom of Contract.”
– In the event of an epidemic, those countries involved in the World Health Organization (WHO), are subject to their regulation. They can take over our country, invade our homes and businesses, and force vaccination, treatment, and quarantine on us. They can require pharmacies to report the number of prescriptions they fill, and doctors to report their diagnoses, so that WHO knows if there is an epidemic. They are also given the right to track and share anyone’s personal health information, including genetic information. Those who do not comply are labeled criminals, and, under WHO’s guidelines, that allows them to use deadly force.
We really have no expectation of privacy. We can scream about it all we want, but the government invades privacy, including medical privacy, all the time. Where there are laws preventing them from invading privacy, they find loopholes or create new laws, claiming they are to protect the lives of others. The government regulates our lives, and, as such, has a right to regulate abortion. In order to protect the lives of others, they can and do invade privacy, and it happens all the time.
Joisy is all NY
CT, indeed. Many southern New Yorkers sometimes gaze up from their everyday lives, wondering what lies to the west, over the Hudson River, beyond their view, looking askew, sometimes giving a shudder or two.
Amy R: The only reason the definition of a person is under debate is because morals have been under debate. You “pro-choicers” are always screaming about science, not feelings. So the one argument that holds your argument together is a debate against science? That doesn’t even make any sense!
The word person does mean human being. It’s from the French for human being, persone, from the Latin persona, also meaning human being. If person doesn’t mean human being, it doesn’t mean anything. The fact that the law can define a company as a person, but refuses that definition to an actual person, tells you just how screwed up the law is!
Hi Amy. Not too much screaming here, and science is not the debate, while feelings are. That companies, cities, counties, etc., can be considered as legal “persons” really doesn’t mean much to the abortion argument, and while “person” here does mean human being, that it is not to say that all human beings will necessarily be persons, just as while “admiral” means a naval officer, it’s not to say that all naval officers are admirals.
____
Note that the decisions of any court case, including Roe v. Wade, are always defined as opinions . No court decision is ever said to be fact. It is always an opinion. Opinions change over time. Laws change over time.
Yeah, and in the Roe decision, it was noted that if personhood is ever established for the unborn, then it will be a different deal.
Doug,
I was not screaming, I was exclaiming. If I were screaming I WOULD BE TYPING LIKE THIS! Continuous caps-lock is screaming, exclaiming is showing emphasis, speaking intensely and with emotion.
How can a human not be a person? This is the same exact argument that goes back to slavery or any genocidal thought. All humans are persons. An admiral is not just a naval officer, but is the highest ranking naval officer. All top-ranking naval officers are admirals. All living human beings are persons. Person is a synonym of human being, and human being is a synonym for person. They mean the same thing, but are different words, just like depressed and melancholy, happy and glad, civilized and humane, etc.
Your comments come across as a semi-hysterical parade of self-annointed half-truths and self-appointed attribution of meanings Amy R.
Why the sudden outburst about privacy? You sound like a good ol’ conspiracy theorist.
“You aren’t allowed to enroll in or step onto the grounds of any school without getting vaccinated.” – good, I wouldn’t want myself or my children being infected by others.
“There is No Right to Consume or Feed Children Any Particular Food; There is No Generalized Right to Bodily and Physical Health; There is No Fundamental Right to Freedom of Contract.” – sounds like a general outline of republican policy.
A medical student isn’t a doctor. They are becoming a doctor, they are learning to be a doctor. Just before completion of the courses they probably know as much if not more than some doctors. But they’re not a doctor.
I was not screaming, I was exclaiming. If I were screaming I WOULD BE TYPING LIKE THIS! Continuous caps-lock is screaming, exclaiming is showing emphasis, speaking intensely and with emotion.
Amy, I was referring to what you had posted – “You “pro-choicers” are always screaming about science, not feelings.”
____
How can a human not be a person? This is the same exact argument that goes back to slavery or any genocidal thought. All humans are persons. An admiral is not just a naval officer, but is the highest ranking naval officer. All top-ranking naval officers are admirals. All living human beings are persons. Person is a synonym of human being, and human being is a synonym for person. They mean the same thing, but are different words, just like depressed and melancholy, happy and glad, civilized and humane, etc.
Personhood is an attributed status. You are right that the slaves in the US were not considered to have full personhood, in fact, oddly, they were counted as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of the census. If it was really a matter of “different words” with “human being” and “person” then the abortion debate, if it existed at all, would be much different, and you’d be satisfied, I think. This is of course not the case, though – it’s the fact that we attribute full personhood and rights at birth, and not before, that has you dissatisfied.
Doug,
It was a violation of human rights to deny personhood to African Americans. It was a violation of human rights to deny personhood to Jews. It is a violation of human rights to deny personhood to the unborn.
Just because it’s the ‘status quo’ doesn’t make it right.