New American Life League report: “The fatal formula”
American Life League periodically releases excellent video reports, and its latest is no exception. As ALL explains, “the fatal formula” is: dehumanizing persons + excuses = agenda.
Starting with a creepy cut from The Silence of the Lambs, ALL demonstrates how through history this fatal formula has been used for financial gain and power – up to and including today, as we see pro-aborts attempt to dehumanize preborn children any and every way…
Aug.25, 2010 2:32 pm |
Apologetics |
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.
WHAHAHAHA!!!! It’s just like FOX News… Follow the money back to Fox News lol
What a huge load of BS!
The problem with this assertion is that in the case of Nazi’s and Slave traders, they were trying to de-humanize people based on physical, tangible characteristics, such as race, color of skin, IQ, and social standing. This is bigotry and prejudge hate in its purest form.
Abortion does not discriminate one fetus against another. Doctors are not allowed to discriminate against any patient based on physical, tangible characteristics, Medication does not discriminate or hold prejudges. Abortion is a medical procedure that works the same way no matter what race, color, IQ or social standing the fetus in question happens to fall into. Abortions happen before most of those things are even determined for the said fetus.
It’s apples and oranges people… but go ahead and keep trying to connect the scattered nonsensical dots…
Thanks, Biggz, for the fantastic demonstration of the absence of logic and insanity present in the pro-abort mindset. Holy Cow! I couldn’t have done that better myself if I had spent weeks preparing.
“…They were trying to de-humanize people based on physical, tangible characteristics, such as race, color of skin, IQ, and social standing.”
Yes!!! The pro-aborts are taking liberties to kill people based solely on that fact that that are still in the wombs of their mothers. Now THAT is “bigotry and prejudge hate in its purest form.” After all, these people being murdered in the womb haven’t even had the opportunity to even make a mistake, much less commit any kind of crime.
“Abortion does not discriminate one fetus against another.”
I don’t see how this is relevant, unless of course you view fetuses as non-persons, which was the entire point of the ALL piece. Once again, thank you for the crystaline example of the pro-abort mindset.
“Abortion is a medical procedure that works the same way no matter what race, color, IQ or social standing the fetus in question happens to fall into.”
I guess what you’re saying here is that the genocide has a much broader spectrum than any other in history. I have to agree with you on that point.
“Abortions happen before most of those things are even determined for the said fetus.”
Before it’s observed, perhaps, but all those things are determined at conception. That’s a foolhardy mistake. You might want to be more vigilant about getting your facts straight if you want to be taken seriously.
@Biggz “Abortion does not discriminate one fetus against another. Doctors are not allowed to discriminate against any patient based on physical, tangible characteristics” You’re kidding right? A fetus with deformity or illness, or even one that appears might have a disability, is absolutely the target for discrimination among other “normal” or healthy babies, even when the child is wanted, and even when we have evidence that those tests aren’t always the most accurate. It is assumed that preborn child with a disability should be killed. Look at the numbers of Down’s abortions. I was offered all sorts of tests early in this pregnancy to determine whether disabilities existed in my child, so that I could “terminate the pregnancy” should one be found. (By the way, I refused those tests.) The medical opinion that a special needs child wasn’t worth as much as “regular” child was more than evident.
Littlez please take a course in Human Embryology. All DNA genetic characteristics of human beings are determined at conception including eye color, hair color, race, sex, facial characteristics and many others. You are indeed a sick person of the Margaret Sanger eugenic derangement mindset. I call it PADS, Pro-Abort Derangement Syndrome. You have posted so many fallacies and lies I wouldn’t know where to begin. It’s so sad. Thanks Terri K for your post.
Yep you caught me…. It is true; I don’t think a fetus is a person. Good job sniffing that one out. lol
I fully understand that DNA decides what characteristics a fetus has or will be born with… my point is that it doesn’t matter what any of those things are as far as an abortion is concerned. YOU are making the assumption that an embryo or fetus is a person with human rights not me. There is no prejudges or discrimination with an abortion. You guys make your judgments and rationalizations on a very large assumption, that fetuses have rights… They don’t, but a pregnant woman has does rights under the US constitution.
Nazi Genocide and Slave Trade are by definition Human Rights Violations. There is no Human Rights Violated by an abortion under the US constitution.
Like I said Apples and Oranges…
One more thing you guys can continue to call me Littlez if it makes you feel better about the lack of testicular fortitude in your shorts, or because you can’t argue with the points I have made, but I don’t believe I have made fun of or took shots at any of your names or personal information, just your views on abortion, politics, and religion…
While I don’t agree with Littlez’ assertions in the main, s/he is correct in saying that there’s some very sloppy dot-connecting going on in the early portion of the film. First we’re talking about Silence of the Lambs, then it’s slave apologism, then it’s eugenics in the early 1900s, which suddenly takes us–BANG!–into Nazism. While I don’t disagree that all these things are, in fact, connected, this video does not do a sufficient job of putting the links in the chain together.
The underlying argument, though, is one that I’ve observed and remarked on before on the Secular Pro-Life forum. Over and over and over you see these “Personhood Arguments” used to justify awful things, and ALL is quite right to say that any time anybody comes along with the line “These humans aren’t people!” they’re trying to use that as justification for doing something awful to them. And history does, in fact, bear that out. These arguments always do three things: divy up people and not-people, define “people” clearly enough to exclude the folks they want but vaguely enough not to offend anybody, and rationalize awful treatment of some group of human beings. In fact, I’d actually like to class the whole argument “X humans aren’t people” as a fallacious argument on logical/rhetorical grounds, but I haven’t ever really sat down to pick it apart enough so that I can pinpoint the spot where it goes wrong. Obviously, since the conclusion is wrong, it goes wrong somewhere and I keep coming back to the idea of really taking it to bits and specifying where, but have not yet gotten around to doing so. (If anyone reading this wants to do that/has already done that, let me know what you think, okay? Even if you just want to bounce ideas off of people, I’d love to hear it.)
So, yes, I agree with the second half of the video. These are good flags to look for when listening to people. I just wish they wouldn’t have set it up with so vaguely connected a chain of events.
Biggz
August 25th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Littlez’, honestly, do you not see the circular reasoning in your post? “The unborn do not have rights because they aren’t persons. They aren’t persons because they don’t have rights.” You have to ground something somewhere or else you haven’t made an argument at all. Just assertions. Put some legs on the assertions, and then maybe you’ll have said something interesting.
Kelli – My assertions are grounded. Let me lay them out for you and everyone else…
A fetus is not a person under US law and the by definition of the AMA.
Since they are not a person they are not a citizen under the US constitution.
Since they are not a citizen they have no rights under the US constitution.
A woman is a person under US law and by AMA definition.
A person, who is a citizen, has rights under the US constitution.
A right to Healthcare, Privacy, and to Choose when they feel is the best time to be pregnant for them and their families.
We fight to protect these constitutionally protected rights of all women weather they choose to exercise them or not. If you do not agree with abortion that’s fine, don’t have one, but you cannot dictate to other American citizens how and when to exercise the same rights and choices you just made for yourself. That’s called fascism.
That’s not grounded, you just restated your circle. You’re really no good at this at all, are you?
That is a clear cut case of who has rights and who doesn’t. How is that not grounded? How could I be any clearer on my position? There are no assumptions in my position just cold hard clinical facts. How can it be circular if I am making to clearly defined cases about human rights?
I would love to hear the Anti-Choice position stated clearly and without any assumptions or personal moral assertions. It is impossible, because your entire argument is based on those two lines of logic. You may not agree with my position but there is no part of it that is not factual and accepted by the American Medical Association. Funny thing I can’t find anything in any medical book about the existence of a human soul as well…..
A fetus is a baby = an assumption
A fetus is a person = an assumption
A fetus has no chance to make its own choice = an assumption
A fetus is one of gods creations = an assumption
A fetus has a soul = an assumption
All life is precious = an assumption
Abortion is murder = an assumption
Abortion is a choice between life and death = an assumption
The Bible is full of truth = an assumption
and on and on…..
All these assumptions are made without and medical facts or studies to back them up, and they are made without regard for anyone who might not agree with you. Yet your entire movement is based on them.
I can make your entire argument circular with a single phrase… “On what grounds?” do you make these assertions, with what facts?
A fetus is a baby = On what grounds?
A fetus is a person = On what grounds?
A fetus has no chance to make its own choice = On what grounds?
A fetus is one of gods creations = On what grounds?
A fetus has a soul = On what grounds?
All life is precious = On what grounds?
Abortion is murder = On what grounds?
Abortion is a choice between life and death = On what grounds?
The Bible is full of truth = On what grounds?
There are no grounds on which to make these types of assertions without making some huge assumptions or leaps of faith I think you guys call them…
You really aren’t good at this. Stop trying to play with logic until you understand it, because no, you can’t make anything circular with a single phrase. Apparently, you don’t even understand what a circular argument means. I wash my hands of you with the exception of one point.
It is wrong to kill an innocent human being. This is a moral and ethical fact.
An unborn child is a human being. This is a scientific and biological fact.
Therefore, it is wrong to kill innocent human beings, even when those human beings have not yet been born.
The unborn are alive, because they grow.
The unborn are human because they have human parents.
Living human beings deserve protection under the law.
Therefore, the unborn deserve protection under the law.
There, the pro-life position stated twice, as clear as you please. I’m under no illusions that this post will help you now, tonight. You’re clearly not in a place where, at this moment, you can even understand it. However, on the off chance that at some point, later on down the road, you finally “hear the click,” there you go. Maybe some day… *le sigh*
Biggz, I’d really like for you to cite for me the section of the constitution that guarantees a right to health care. Your assertion that the unborn have no rights is incorrect. Fetal homicide laws tell us otherwise. So do court decisions related to inheritance rights. And social security benefits, in which the court held that the dependency test is related to the needs of the unborn child at the time of the father’s demise.
I feel any pro-abort who is arrogant enough and has the nerve on a prolife blog to call themselves ”Biggz” is indeed a “legend in their own mind”. Note others here use initials, their names, reference their attachment to the prolife cause, etc. but keep the bragging in check. As difficult as it is I will try to refrain from calling you “Littlez” although it does seem to fit your posts. I think I could try refering to you as B—z.
I do love the line from Dr. Suess “A PERSON IS A PERSON NO MATTER HOW SMALL”. Since as even an embryo or a so-called “product of conception” I was, “endowed by my Creator with the inalienable right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit to happiness” which is totally denied if a mother pays an abortionist to dialate her cervix, mutilate and dismember her baby with a currette and then suction his/her body parts out with powerful vacuum. I am so happy I don’t belong to the “Dead Babies R Us” crew. Death what a sick “choice”, life what a beautiful choice.
Biggz, the problem with you and so many other people today is that they are tragically ignorant of history.
The thing is, it was once clearly recognized that an unborn child was a human person, one who actually had rights. For instance:
1959 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child
The United Nations has, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status . . . the child by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth. (Preamble)
The child . . . shall be entitled to grow and develop in health; to this end, special care and protection shall be provided both to him and to his mother, including adequate pre-natal and post-natal care. (Principle 4)
As Fed Up mentioned, that an unborn child is a person is still recognized legally in a number of ways. Just not when it comes to abortion.
The one who made the unwarranted “assumption” was Justice Harry Blackmum, author of the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. He said there wasn’t any way for the court to determine whether the fetus was a person — in spite of all the evidence to the contrary — and simply decided that for the purpose of abortion, an unborn child is not a person and has no rights. That didn’t really change anything in any other part of the law where an unborn child’s rights are recognized.
Justice Blackmun’s decision is even more surprising because in the years directly leading up to the decision, many U.S. States had either heavily restricting abortion or were on their way to doing so, because of the growing recognition of the humanity of the unborn child.
An unborn child became an “unperson” 1973 because it was convenient to declare it so. But that doesn’t make it so in reality. In 1857, the Supreme court declared (the Dred Scott decision) that black slaves were chattel, property of their masters and could never be citizens, that they were a race of inferior beings. Did that make it so in reality?
In short, the rights of the unborn were once recognized, and they will be again.
The video mistakingly says that that when the US Constitution counted slaves as 3/5 of a person it was an attempt to dehumanize them. That’s not right at all.
Pro-choice states wanted slaves counted as full persons so they could get more representatives in the US House. Those apposed to slavery didn’t want them counted at all, not to dehumanize them, but to reduce the influence of those approving slavery.
Bigz/Littlez said: if it makes you feel better about the lack of testicular fortitude in your shorts,
Thanks, Bigz(Littlez). I do feel quite fine about the “lack of testicular fortitude in [my] shorts’ because quite frankly, I am a WOMAN. Women generally don’t have testicles. And I’ll add that I don’t care that I don’t have them in the first place. I LIKE being a woman.
As to your other assertions, you’re very good at the verbal gymnastics, but then again most pro-aborts are. It’s amazing the lengths you folks have to go to to deny the basic facts.
Yes, the pre-born being IS in fact, a human BABY…a PERSON.
When our forefathers were putting together the USA, one of the rights they said was: “…the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” They didn’t define whether or not the person in question had to be out of the womb or in the womb, they just said that every person had those “inalienable” rights. Things given to us by God (or if you want to leave out religion–nature itself).
Just because the pre-born child isn’t out of the womb doesn’t make it any less worthy of that basic right…the right to life.
Use whatever verbal gymastics you want. You can’t change that fact that the pre-born human being IS a human being aka A PERSON.
Hi Biggz.
So it seems to me that you are saying that one should hold to coherentism rather than foundationalsim when discussing epistemic justification? Do I have that correct?
I mean, if you are trying to say that at some point everything we believe can be traced back to some axioms that we hold to be self-evident or what are called primary basic beliefs, then yes, this is not a ground-breaking insight. Anyone can go ahead and deny anything. That isn’t terribly impressive.
I also realize, Biggz, that your point will probably be that we have different “axioms” that we are coming to the table with so that we form different conclusions and so who is to say what the correct position is etc. But I would be very happy to compare those primary basic beliefs which we both hold and discuss them, seeing which ones are more justified.
Or Biggz, your argument is that no matter what we say, you will answer with “why? why? why? why?” This is a form of iterative skepticism which is simply a word game. To continue to ask why why why without any kind of reflection or serious thought to the person’s position is to cease doing serious philosophical inquiry and engage in playful semantics. So the argument that you can respond to anything we say with “on what grounds” is simply not a good one. In fact, everything you mentioned is built up through much more discussion and argumentation. Nothing you have said I would take as an axiom; no, they would all be argued for and derived from first principles. So in that sense, you have failed to characterize any sort of coherent, well-reflected pro-life position.
Biggzot,
The law doesn’t determine personhood. Being a person determines personhood. People are the descendants of other people. It’s not rocket science.
The convenient thing about being a pro-abort is that getting to decide that weaker people can die if it is pleasing. That’s no different than slavery or the Nazi genocide. Legality is an ambiguous standard.
Biggz, let’s get to the heart of the matter. Please explain why a human fetus is supposedly NOT a human being.
[comment deleted by author]
Terri K already addressed this cogently, but… Biggz wrote, in reply to Keli Hu:
A fetus is not a person under US law and the by definition of the AMA.
Now, think for a moment. Take a measured span of time, and think about your starting assumption: “Human rights are granted by human governmental and advisory bodies, such as the U.S. Government and the AMA.” Surely, after a moment of quiet thought about that, you can see how absurd it is? Did it never occur to you to question HOW the U.S. Gov’t and the AMA (or the U.N., or whomever) came to their conclusion, whether they always believed it or not (as Lori pointed out earlier), and whether they’re RIGHT?
Unless you believe that the U.S. Government and the AMA can change reality at will (e.g. by changing their minds about the personhood of an unborn child, they literally changed the physical and ontological nature of that child into a “non-person thing”, whereas he/she was a person an instant before the decision was made–wow, what power!), you’re spouting sheer nonsense, here.
Since they are not a person they are not a citizen under the US constitution. Since they are not a citizen they have no rights under the US constitution.
Ah. So, according to you, I can take a machine-gun and massacre every foreign exchange student in the United States who isn’t a U.S. citizen? Have some sense!
A woman is a person under US law and by AMA definition.
Not if she’s named “Terri Schiavo”, she isn’t. But I digress…
A person, who is a citizen, has rights under the US constitution. A right to Healthcare, Privacy, and to Choose when they feel is the best time to be pregnant for them and their families.
(*sigh*) You do know the different between “health care” and “health insurance”, right? There’s no constitutional right to the latter… and it’s questionable whether there’s even a constitutional “right” to the former. (Ask a lawyer about that; I’ve no clear idea on that specific point.) And the so-called “right to privacy”–that ineffable “emanation of a penumbra of the constitution [etc.]”–was contrived in the latter part of the 20th century. But you seem to think that morality and human rights are completely determined by what’s legal in any given country at any specific moment. I see.
We fight to protect these constitutionally protected rights of all women weather
That’s “whether”. (And I’ll thank you to leave me out of your “we”.)
So… if pro-lifers managed to get a personhood amendment passed, you’d suddenly defend it (and the unborn children which it would protect) with the same vigour and verve with which you’re now defending Roe. v. Wade, since it would then be constitutional law (i.e. your mental “gold standard” for creating human rights)? Interesting…
they choose to exercise them or not. If you do not agree with abortion that’s fine, don’t have one,
…and if you don’t agree with rape, that’s fine: don’t commit one. (Good grief…!)
but you cannot dictate to other American citizens how and when to exercise the same rights and choices you just made for yourself. That’s called fascism.
I’m afraid your ignorance of civics is as deep as your ignorance of biology, logic and philosophy. The Nazi party of Germany was duly elected by the people of Germany, and when it “morphed” into a dictatorship–well–that was legal, too, since the rightfully-elected governmental body *said* it was legal. Right? After that, the Nazi party formally denied personhood to Jews, gypsies, blacks, the mentally handicapped, and all others whom they deemed “non-person undesirables”. At that point, you (Biggz)–unless you think American law is the only law which is “privileged” enough to grant personhood to anyone on earth (good heavens, how imperialistic!)–would be required to nod your approval at the slaughter of the Jews, since they were not recognized as “persons” under the law of the land.
Or, if you prefer (though you should know all this: didn’t you even watch the video of this thread?), we can stay with America: you’d be forced to nod your approval to the torture and execution of the black slaves of the pre-13th-amendment U.S.A., since they were not recognized as “persons” under the law. If we could transfer you to mere moments before the 13th amendment was signed, you would (according to what you wrote, here) nod in approval at the death-by-torture of a black slave (since “it” wasn’t recognized as a person under the U.S. Constitution), but you’d scream in indignation at the same slave-owner who tried to torture and kill the same black man (or woman, or child) even thirty seconds later–an instant after the 13th Amendment was signed… since the slave (the “thing”, in pro-death-speak) in question was just (magically?) “transformed” into a “person” by the stroke of a quill pen on the parchment of the U.S. Constitution.
Seriously: have you thought this through at ALL, or are you just going by whatever knee-jerk reactions your feelings happen to evoke?
Whoops! Sorry about the duplicate post…! I obliterated it, as best I could!
Aw, come on guys, can’t we take the higher ground & cut out the belittling name calling? We can make just as strong argument without it.
Now, think for a moment. Take a measured span of time, and think about your starting assumption: “Human rights are granted by human governmental and advisory bodies, such as the U.S. Government and the AMA.” Surely, after a moment of quiet thought about that, you can see how absurd it is? Did it never occur to you to question HOW the U.S. Gov’t and the AMA (or the U.N., or whomever) came to their conclusion, whether they always believed it or not (as Lori pointed out earlier), and whether they’re RIGHT?
This brings to mind the phrase “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” NOT by their government. By their Creator. There’s a reason it was written that way. ;)
Paladin 2010/08/26 at 9:46 am
Brilliant post. Thank you for that.
What Biggz needs is a class on math and/or logic. Biggz, what you should do is seek out a calculus class taught by a professor who can use concepts in place of numbers. It’s helped me in life, I can assure you! For example, have you ever heard of the word problem that starts, “You arrive on an island of liars and truthtellers…”? This is an example of a calculus style math problem that doesn’t use figures such as 1, 2, 3. You may also look into what a “Truth Table” is. For example: all beer is carbonated. All soda pop is carbonated. Therefore, all beer must be soda. Not! All beer and all soda pop are carbonated, but soda is not beer and beer is not soda. This kind of training will help you to argue with logic. Trust me, it will help you.
:) Coming from you, Kel, that’s one whopper of a compliment! Thanks!
Um, there are actually a lot of really good reasons not to legally recognize a blastocyst/embryo/fetus as a person.
First, if they’re legally people, should we start issuing social security numbers to blastocysts? If so, when? As soon as the woman realizes she’s pregnant? And how do you go about naming the blastocyst when assigning social security numbers, since you don’t know the sex?
Is a woman a child abuser if she drinks or smokes before she knows she’s pregnant? That’s child abuse by neglect. (“I didn’t know my kid got into my drug stash” isn’t a legal defense for neglectful mothers of born children.) Do miscarried embryos get death certificates, and how do you submit any vital statistics to the state, such as sex? If you think you might have had a “chemical pregnancy” (very early miscarriage, characterized by a positive test but a normal period) and don’t report it, is that failure to report a death? Does an embryo need a passport to get out of the country? If so, how do you verify the identity and check the photo ID of the “legal person”?
And if a Mexican woman in the country illegally gets knocked up, is she allowed to start collecting welfare benefits for the American citizen in her womb instead of being deported?
It’s laughable, not to mention a legal mess. Now, it’s possible to say you legally can’t kill them. Animal abuse and killing is against the law, but we don’t give them the same legal rights as people.
Ashley,
I understand what you’re getting at here. It would be next to impossible to keep track of 1st Trimester miscarriages, especially the most early miscarriages which occur before a missed period. But something to consider: How is it logical, rational or scientific to say that a baby born prematurely at 25 weeks is a person but a 25 week unborn baby is *not* a person? They are both the exact same age and stage of development. Taking that one step further: one baby is born at 35 weeks and is legally a person, but another baby, still in the womb at 41 weeks, is not yet legally a person. The latter is older and more developed than the former.
Why not continue to reserve citizenship for registration of birth while acknowledging that a human being should be legally a person simply because they are a human being. In that way, an embryo and a fetus can be recognized as a person but a specific Country’s citizenship will still be arranged for at the time of birth registration.
The right to life should be intrinsic to every single human being, including the embryo, regardless of what that child’s citizenship will one day be.
Can anyone tell me when we become persons under the current law? Is it the cutting of the umbilical cord? It can’t be viability since many viable babies are aborted. It can’t be removal from the mother’s womb since we have had partial birth abortions. What makes us persons?
While it’s one thing to hold a personal belief that a person is a person from the moment of conception, as a legal issue, it’s incredibly complicated. Yes, right now a baby born at 35 weeks is assigned a social security number and a birth certificate, but a 40-week in the womb isn’t. Being in the womb does make a difference, and it should.
The earlier the pregnancy is, the more legal mess it creates to try to legally define the embryo as a person with completely separate identity and rights. Like I said, if we’re going to abide by that definition, we’re legally obligated to start cutting welfare checks to embryos. Right now we legally recognize a person at birth; pro-lifers want them recognized at conception. So why can’t an illegal start collecting welfare for the American citizen in her womb? As a legally recognized citizen, they’re entitled to that. You could win that case in court.
And what about identical twins? The embryo splits very early in pregnancy, but it begins as one blastocyst (or as pro-lifers want it, one legally recognized person.) Do we recognize one legal person with a separate identity (social security number, etc) at conception, or two? And how are you even supposed to know that it will eventually become two people? And if you decide to recognize a second person after the embryo splits, which twin is the original–the one who got assigned the SS number–and who’s the brand-new person?
If you argue that people shouldn’t be legally recognized (SS numbers, birth certificate with a name, etc) until birth, you’re undermining the “personhood” philosophy, which is that gestational age and being in the womb should make no difference whatsoever. But we all know that it does, and should. Killing it is one thing; trying to give it full legal standing is insanity.
This country has never believed personhood begins at conception, either. Not recognizing fetuses as separate, legally recognized people certainly didn’t begin with abortion rights. The 14th amendment grants citizenship to people BORN on American soil, not conceived.
I don’t know why this is a problem, either. You can ban abortion whether or not the fetus has full rights. Just because a dog doesn’t have the same rights as his human owner, doesn’t mean the owner can kill it. That’s why these “personhood amendments” are completely ludicrous and completely unworkable, and the reasons I listed above are only a few of the reasons why.
Ashley, please explain why a human fetus is not a person.
Women were once non-persons by law, too, but the law was wrong.
There was a time in history where there was no such thing as social security or welfare, but people were still people.
Ashley, you are wrong about history and the personhood of unborn children. That’s a shame, but I’m old enough to know better. A woman used to be called “with child” or “in a family way” or “expecting.” Pregnancy used to be a cause for joy. Now post abortive women are so traumatized, they are often unable to share their sister’s joy in giving birth. Post abortive syndrome is literally poisoning our culture.
Just because these ethical questions are challenging to answer, is no excuse to legally kill human offspring. This is how human beings begin! We do not hatch from eggs, or grow on trees. We start out very small, and we grow bigger and stronger over time. It is not a religious thing, but you want to believe it is. What if all pro-lifers were atheists? Would you stop calling names and come over to ‘our’ side? No, you wouldn’t, because it isn’t about conflicting beliefs. It is life and death for human beings. It is good to know that life begins at conception. It is not religion, it is biological fact. We need to wrestle with ethics in a humane way, not by throwing up our hands and killing children because their mothers are having a personal, temporary crisis.
Ashley
August 27th, 2010 at 11:20 am
“I don’t know why this is a problem, either. You can ban abortion whether or not the fetus has full rights. Just because a dog doesn’t have the same rights as his human owner, doesn’t mean the owner can kill it.”
Actually, a home owner *can* kill his dog. It’s called euthanasia.
Also, comparing a fetus to a dog is dehumanizing. We don’t begin as one species and then magically become another at birth. We begin as human beings and remain human beings through the entire cycle of life. That is why is a fetus is a person – because a fetus is a human being. It has nothing to do with citizenship.
Ashley, please explain why a human fetus is not a person.
Well, I can explain why it shouldn’t be legally treated as one, but I already did that.
Is a zygote that will eventually split into identical twins one person or two, and how do you know which ones will split? How do you address that, legally, if our laws recognize a “person” from the moment of conception?
You said yourself it’s ludicrous to give social security numbers, American citizenship, welfare benefits, and birth certificates at conception, or death certificates for every miscarriage (which seems physically impossible). Everything about it is legally unworkable. Uh, how do you fill out a birth certificate and assign a sex to the blastocyst? It’s impossible to know the sex. And maybe it’s petty, but I guess we’ll have to shift to gender-neutral baby names, since we’ll be filling out birth certificates and assigning SS numbers for legally recognized “people” whose sex is undetermined.
You can easily say a fetus has a basic right to life, but other rights aren’t afforded until birth. If you disagree, you just contradicted your own statements about who should count as a “citizen.”
Biggz: “YOU are making the assumption that an embryo or fetus is a person with human rights not me.”
We operate from the scientific truth that human embryos and fetuses are human beings. Laws should be made from scientific truths, not the other way around.
You appear to be making your argument from the grounds of what is currently law. Does this mean that if a “Human Life Amendment” were added to the U.S. Constitution, you would then acknowledge that fetuses are persons — because the LAW would then categorize them as such?
( — though I do agree with you that we should call you what you wish to be called. No one should be belittling another’s screen name and/or “private areas.” Really, now.)
Ashley: “Uh, how do you fill out a birth certificate and assign a sex to the blastocyst?”
You can’t, because he or she has not yet been born. You can’t complete a driver’s license for the blastocyst, either.
Of course, neither a birth certificate NOR a driver’s license are requisites for status as a human being. People have been around long before we began issuing birth certificates; it didn’t invalidate their personhood…
..And I guess it wouldn’t be a “birth certificate,” but a “conception certificate.” The whole point of birth certificates and SS numbers is that the baby becomes officially recognized by the government as a separate person. But “personhood” philosophy says that should occur at conception, and it’s wrong for blastocysts to have lower legal standing than babies. So you think we should issue “conception certificates” or “personhood certificates”? If not, why? And please address the identical twin issue–whether they’re legally one person at conception or two, and how you’re supposed to know.
Remember I’m talking about legal status as a person, not moral status.
That’s the wrong interpretation of the three-fifths compromise in the Constitution. Counting slaves as three-fifths as opposed to a whole, limited the representation of pro-slavery states; representation is based on population. Anti-slavery advocates only wanted freed slaves to count as part of the population and thus limit the influence of the pro-slave states. The two slides compromised on three-fifths. This is always misinterpreted. Regardless, Amen for the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery!
Ashley
August 27th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Is a zygote that will eventually split into identical twins one person or two, and how do you know which ones will split? How do you address that, legally, if our laws recognize a “person” from the moment of conception?
Why would we need to address that? There is only an extremely brief window before a zygote becomes two twin fetuses. Consider: In the days prior to sonogram technology, we generally had to wait until late in pregnancy before knowing if there was more than one baby inside; and in terms of gender, no one knew their baby’s gender until birth. We simply shouldn’t be using technology to determine whether or not a fetus is a person.
For example, consider viability. It’s based on technology, not biology. In an advanced country, a preemie is viable much earlier than in a primitive society, even though both preemies are the same gestation. Viability changes along with technology and is therefore, arbitrary. Perhaps the day will come when an embryo can grow into a full-term infant within an artificial womb – in which case, an embryo will be viable. This is not possible today, but as medical technology continues to progress, this may one day be possible. So, if the embryo can be viable some day in the future due to technology (and therefore, a “person”), how can we say the embryo is not a person today, with our current technology? Personhood should not be based on technology, but on biology. And biology tells us that a new and genetically distinct human being comes into existence at conception.
You can go on and on about the legal difficulties surrounding citizenship, social security, welfare, etc., but it still doesn’t address whether or not an embryo or a fetus is a human person. Just because technology doesn’t yet enable us to determine whether or not an embryo is a male or a female or twins or triplets, doesn’t mean that the embryo is not a human being – it simply means that we don’t have the technology.
We must keep technology separate in our minds from biology. We must also remember that the law changes and evolves century after century, for the better or the for the worse – but our identity as human beings is biological, and that’s something that doesn’t change with popular opinion. It just is what it is.
Ashley wrote:
Um, there are actually a lot of really good reasons not to legally recognize a blastocyst/embryo/fetus as a person.
“Having a legal pretext for denying guilt about an abortion” seems to be one of the most popular… though I’d suggest that it isn’t a “good” reason at all.
First, if they’re legally people, should we start issuing social security numbers to blastocysts?
No… nor should we issue them a birth certificate, a driver’s license, a marriage license, or a graduate school diploma. All of those are “artificial constructs” of the state, and nothing in the natural moral law (i.e. the code of ethics written on every human heart–which makes us inclined to disapprove of burning kittens alive, dismembering live puppies, slashing up toddlers with a razor, etc.) requires them. You certainly don’t think that the granting of a SSN gives the right to life, do you? If not, when whyever would any SSN difficulties bear into the matter at all? If a child is detectable (or at least reasonably suspected), then his/her life should be protected, and that’s that.
Is a woman a child abuser if she drinks or smokes before she knows she’s pregnant?
Let’s take this apart:
Is she an “abuser” in the sense that she has caused harm to a living person? Yes (in your example).
Is she an “abuser” in the sense of intentionally causing such harm? No, according to your example.
Is she an “abuser by reckless neglect” (for which she should be punished under the law)? Maybe, and maybe not; it would depend completely on what was going on in her head. You didn’t mention whether this hypothetical woman had any direct evidence of pregnancy, or not. I suppose someone could make a case for prosecuting her, even if she knew only that she’d had sex during the fertile part of her cycle; but I leave that to others to tease out.
Do miscarried embryos get death certificates,
You’re presenting this as a “difficulty” which is so insurmountable that the murder of all identifiable children up to 9-months gestation should be allowed by law, because of it? Why on earth would you consider this a problem? If a child dies before being detectable, only God (and those in Heaven) will know; just so, with a homeless man who drowns in the sea and whose body is never discovered. (Should we deny the right to life to all adults, on the off chance that a certain percentage of adults will never be issued a death certificate?) I don’t think so.
and how do you submit any vital statistics to the state, such as sex?
I’m afraid, just like Inigo Montoya, “they’ll just have to wait.”
Identification of sex is not a precondition for the right to life (or do you think that hermaphrodites, androgynous people, and/or so-called “transgender/searching/confused” people have no right to life?).
If you think you might have had a “chemical pregnancy” (very early miscarriage, characterized by a positive test but a normal period) and don’t report it, is that failure to report a death?
You do realize the difference between “reality” and “the United States Government’s ability to recognize and catalogue the data about reality”, right? But you don’t seriously find this to be severe enough of a reason to deny the right to life to children who still LIVE in the womb, do you?
Does an embryo need a passport to get out of the country? If so, how do you verify the identity and check the photo ID of the “legal person”?
Now, you’re just getting silly. Not even you can think that these would lead to the conclusion, “therefore, we can kill any known living child, so long as the child hasn’t been born yet”!
And if a Mexican woman in the country illegally gets knocked up, is she allowed to start collecting welfare benefits for the American citizen in her womb instead of being deported?
Ask the US government. But again: a lack of welfare benefits, unemployment benefits, tax rebates, etc., has no bearing on the fact that we can’t simply rip an unborn child into pieces.
It’s laughable, not to mention a legal mess.
The legal mess (which you haven’t even shown clearly) has no bearing on the idea that the murder of unborn children (and any other human person) should be prohibited. You could list a hundred other issues (e.g. national citizenship of someone conceived in space, gender of someone born without sex organs, ID cards for Siamese twins joined inseparably at the brain, etc.), and that fact remains, staring squarely in your face.
Now, it’s possible to say you legally can’t kill them. Animal abuse and killing is against the law, but we don’t give them the same legal rights as people.
Slow down. We don’t give them ALL the same legal rights as ADULTS. You might as well say that, since children of 7 can’t legally drive, it shows that they don’t have full human rights proper to all humans (and perhaps they can be killed, or “harvested” for “vital medical research”).
The legal mess (which you haven’t even shown clearly) has no bearing on the idea that the murder of unborn children (and any other human person) should be prohibited.
Thanks for not reading the text of 90% of my comments, you stupid arrogant turd. I said as much several times.
On the citizenship issue, Ashley, you have a point. An unborn person can’t do anything to anyone no matter how hard they try (presuming they even had the context to think of trying to try). That being the case, it is impossible for an unborn child to be responsible to a government or to even start learning what it means to be a citizen of anything.
But regardless of all of that, citizenship is different from personhood. If I, an American, killed a Chinese citizen while we were both in Russia, it would still be murder. The fact that neither of us were Russian citizens would not undo the Chinese person’s right to live or my error at killing them. Russia, China, the US, or any other government in the world is not where a person’s personhood comes from. People are people simply by virtue of being human, and that being the case, everyone, born and unborn, dual citizenship or no citizenship, ought to be treated with dignity and respect. Like not being killed because they are unwanted. Citizenship only tells you which government you’re meant to complain to when your rights are violated. It doesn’t give you those rights to begin with.
Bekah – You keep asking the same stupid question as if it should justify your argument. So I will answer it for you so pay attention…
A human fetus is no more a baby than a canine fetus is a puppy.
A human fetus is not a person, it is a fetus inside of a person.
Oh and BTW the name Biggz comes from the Star Wars films. Luke Skywalkers best friend from back home… but by all means enjoy your perceived insights to my huge ego lol
In that case, your name is spelled wrong. I would still say that Biggs Darklighter is a horribly, horribly inaccurate moniker. Perhaps you’d prefer Wedge?
Ashley wrote, in reply to mt post:
[Paladin]
The legal mess (which you haven’t even shown clearly) has no bearing on the idea that the murder of unborn children (and any other human person) should be prohibited.
[Ashley]
Thanks for not reading the text of 90% of my comments, you stupid arrogant turd. I said as much several times.
Resorting to insult, eh? That doesn’t say much for your case (or your self-control)…
But think, for a moment: your main point was to “give good reasons why blastocysts should not be treated as persons under the law”. You then go on to cite several “difficulties” which have no bearing at all on your point–i.e. even if every last one of them were granted, none of them would give even the slightest support for an argument for denying personhood to an unborn child in the blastocyst stage of life (any more than denying an illegal immigrant a SSN denies them personhood under the law). You then spit some angry insults at me when I point that fact out to you.
You once said that you were a “columnist, and you debate”. May I suggest that “debate” requires sound reasoning, rather than strings of non-sequiturs, emphatic repetition of your raw opinion, and snarling insults?
Ashley: “So you think we should issue ‘conception certificates’ or ‘personhood certificates’?
I don’t think it’s a matter of “should;” I just think it would be difficult to pull off. But even if we don’t always know of the existence of a tiny embryo, it doesn’t mean (s)he isn’t in existence or already a human being. Ever see the film NELL? What if a person lives her whole life in the woods, born to a man and woman who also live there, miles away from “civilization”? She’d never have any sort of certificate or assigned number from the government to “prove” she exists, but wouldn’t need one for that…
Biggz: “A human fetus is no more a baby than a canine fetus is a puppy.”
True; the human fetus is a human being JUST AS a canine fetus is a dog.
Neither one “magically” turns into a human being or dog at birth.
Great Information, thanks for your fine Post. I will subscribe to your feed for updates. Also check this learning information: The Best Way To Learn Spanish