Abortion or murder? Mom decides

pregnant%20question.bmpI'm glad for the decision, but this just goes to show what a mockery Roe v. Wade has made of U.S. murder law.

From Statesman.com, November 22:

The death of a fetus can be prosecuted as a murder, even if the fetus was too young to survive outside the womb, Texas' highest criminal court ruled Wednesday.

State laws declaring a fetus an individual - and therefore eligible for protection under statutes prohibiting murder - do not conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling that protects abortion rights, a unanimous Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled....

"The Supreme Court has emphasized that states may protect human life not only once the fetus has reached viability but 'from the outset of the pregnancy,'" the Texas court ruled in Lawrence v. State of Texas. "The Legislature is free to protect the lives of those whom it considers to be human beings."...

State laws protecting fetuses do not apply to abortions, the court acknowledged.

For more info on the specific case in question, read here.

It's ludicrous to say a scenario determines whether killing innocent "human life" is legal or illegal. It is ludicrous to say a mother subjectively decides whether or not her preborn baby is "human life" to begin with.

On the other hand, here is one more bit of evidence to stack against Roe when Roe's next day in court comes, one more court decision stating preborns are "human life," so their killers can be prosecuted.

Incidentally, both news accounts used incorrect terminology, "fetus," for the preborn baby in question. S/he was 4 to 6 weeks old, therefore an embryo (which they are to the age of 8 weeks).

So it's interesting that some legislators are trying to force us to fund killing human embryos while some are prosecuting the same as murder.

Can't find a pro-abort blog that touched this one, btw.

[HT: moderator Valerie]


Comments:

It makes perfect sense.
It's all about valuation.

If you shoot a deer out in the forest, you're providing for your family. If you shoot a deer at the petting zoo, you're a criminal. Same act, same result, different valuation.

Posted by: Laura at November 28, 2007 5:15 PM


Jill: all of the pro-choice blogs are too busy being perplexed that most of the Republicans are running as pro-lifers. Every moment is like a surprise for them!

Posted by: Nathan Will Sheets at November 28, 2007 5:24 PM


What's surprising about Republicans being pro-life? I's one of the planks in their platform. It's not exactly a "surprise" to anybody.

Posted by: Laura at November 28, 2007 5:35 PM


The confusion arises from the mistaken assumption that abortion rights require fetal inferiority.

Abortion rights reflect only body-ownership.

Fetal inferiority is not required.

Posted by: SoMG at November 28, 2007 5:36 PM


Again, why are men being charged with 2 counts of murder when they kill their pregnant wives and girlfriends? Would someone please explain?

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 6:00 PM


Two people are killed in the course of a crime - that makes the charges in Texas a "capital crime." (Not necessarily a death penalty case, however.)

We are changing minds and changing laws in hope of the "stack" against Roe v. Wade being so heavy that no one can claim that Texas law does not protect all human life from fertilization to natural death when and if the Supreme Court or Congress will allow us to. Texas has never revoked our laws against abortion.

In light of Roe and facing the opposition of the Texas Medical Association, we were forced to put the exceptions in the law.

Another reason for some exceptions some day (when roe is overturned) is the record we have with criminal charges against attempted suicide and against mothers who attempt abortions themselves or who abuse drugs while pregnant.

Posted by: Beverly Nuckols, MD at November 28, 2007 6:12 PM


Beverly, thank you!

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 6:28 PM


Thank you Jill & Beverly..Boy, this just goes to show you how absolutely absurd the pro-abort thinking is. They can't even get is straight! What makes me giggle, is that they are the one's that call us nuts!!! We all agree it's murder at any time. We are consistant in our beliefs!

Oh happy, happy day when Roe is overturned!!!
Thank you again, Texas!!!

Posted by: AB Laura at November 28, 2007 6:36 PM


My prediction: Hillary Clinton will sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law, and then Roe v. Wade will not matter.

Posted by: SoMG at November 28, 2007 6:54 PM


just a prediction/smog

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 6:55 PM


"smog", hee-hee!

Posted by: AB Laura at November 28, 2007 7:01 PM


It depends whether the Democrats get enough senators to overcome a filibuster. There will be some pro-choice Republicans who will join the Dems--Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Susan Collins if she's still around. You need a total of 60 votes to beat the filibuster.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 28, 2007 7:03 PM


Imagine not having to worry about abortion when confirming SCOTUS justices anymore!

Posted by: SoMG at November 28, 2007 7:07 PM


smog, no need to shout.

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 7:08 PM


Who's shouting? SCOTUS is an acronym.

Posted by: SoMG at November 28, 2007 7:09 PM


Oh sorry. I thought you were upset because I disagreed with your prediction about Hill-Billy.

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 7:11 PM


Oh, you disagree with my prediction? Who do you think is going to win the election? Or do you think FOCA will be stalled in congress? Or what?

Posted by: SoMG at November 28, 2007 7:13 PM


Nunyas.

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 7:16 PM


I really don't think Hillary has a shot though. That's my prediction.

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 7:17 PM


What does "Nunyas" mean?

Posted by: SoMG at November 28, 2007 7:28 PM


I believe it slang for "none of yours"...sort of like svenego...as in "I'm svenego to the store" or "You svenego to the movies?"...

Posted by: mk at November 28, 2007 7:33 PM


Right, MK. Sorry, I was just visiting Pandagon. SOMG, you and I seem to be getting along better these days. Are you ever gonna tell me anything about yourself?

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 7:35 PM


Are you a man or woman? Old or young? Maybe in the middle? Do you ever feel bad for anyone, or do you believe that you are a sociopath? Do you really despise pro lifers? Are you interested in converting?

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 7:38 PM


The above is for Somg. Also, do you enjoy pro life blogs, because I also see you on OP rescue a lot.

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 7:39 PM


*sound of crickets*

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 7:45 PM


I'm watching the GOP debate. Ron Paul just missed a chance to avoid looking nutty.

These guys all seem pretty lame so far.

The audience loves Ron Paul. They're booing as McCain disagrees with him about bringing the troops home.

"Read our lips: No new taxes!"

Romney looks like he's made of plastic.

China bashing.

Fred Thompson looks old and sick.

Posted by: SoMG at November 28, 2007 7:55 PM


Somg, you should try to get out more often. I like "Don't Answer The Phone" too, but you should find a social circle.

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 7:58 PM


Well gosh Heather, I'll just take those questions one at a time:

Are you a man or woman? --Yes.

Old or young? --Yes.

Do you ever feel bad for anyone--Sure, I feel bad for the women who die from illegal abortions in countries where abortion is prohibited or restricted.

Or do you believe that you are a sociopath? --That's what they said about Socrates.

Do you really despise pro lifers? --I think they're nutty.

Are you interested in converting? --Negative. I think the best thing about religion is the music and art it has inspired.

Posted by: SoMG at November 28, 2007 7:59 PM


BTW, that is one old movie. *clue one?

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 8:00 PM


Somg, thanks for the clarification. Don't you like pro choice sites? I was just visiting Pandagon, and there are several others just like you. Why do you prefer debate with nutty people?

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 8:04 PM


Really, do you know DON'T ANSWER THE PHONE? Nicholas Worth was one of my favorite character actors.

Posted by: SoMG at November 28, 2007 8:05 PM


Yes. I like horror movies.

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 8:06 PM


You have to love an actor who can say a line like "Shut up or I'll tear your tit off!" with a straight face.

Posted by: SoMG at November 28, 2007 8:08 PM


Somg, it is just a movie.

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 8:09 PM


BTW, that movie sells for $19.99.

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 8:20 PM


Other movies I like include: Dawn of the Dead (the original), Reanimator, Kind Hearts and Coronets, Black Sunday, Liquid Sky, Repo-Man, Network, The Court Jester, Jamaica Inn (the original with Charles Laughton).

I also like classical vocal music, especially Mozart and Wagner. My favorite singer is Josef Greindl.

I like The Avengers, Get Smart, and Friday the 13th, the Series.

Posted by: SoMG at November 28, 2007 8:21 PM


You know what's a really good movie? "Trainspotting". Ditto for "American History X".

"Monty Python and the Holy Grail" as well.

*geeks out*

Posted by: Rae at November 28, 2007 8:23 PM


Which one said "They're coming to get you Margaret?"

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 8:24 PM


hello Rae!

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 8:25 PM


I also like Friday the 13th.

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 8:27 PM


That was NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, the first in the trilogy.

Posted by: SoMG at November 28, 2007 8:28 PM


Now Romney's waffling on waterboarding.

Posted by: SoMG at November 28, 2007 8:29 PM


I just remembered. Thank you. See, the older the movie, the better.

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 8:29 PM


"Shaun of the Dead" is amazing...and it's fairly new.

Fritz, I better go get my pizza! I'm starved!

Posted by: Rae at November 28, 2007 8:33 PM


Eat Rae! Eat! Here's another creepy one...Motel Hello.

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 8:34 PM


- the o

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 8:39 PM


I always thought that Misery was really creepy.

Posted by: Erin at November 28, 2007 8:43 PM


Erin, Oh yes. I've seen that like 20 times. I love it!

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 8:44 PM


Oh yes, Motel Hell. Terrific movie.

Add Citizen Ruth to the list.

Posted by: SoMG at November 28, 2007 8:50 PM


Heather, which is your favorite episode of F13?

Posted by: SoMG at November 28, 2007 8:52 PM


The one with Amy Steele.

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 8:53 PM


You tell me which episode it is. Let's see how good you are.

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 8:54 PM


Well I own a copy of the entire show and I don't know which episode has Amy Steele.

Posted by: SoMG at November 28, 2007 8:57 PM


Part 2. How about the episode with Corey Feldman?

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 8:58 PM


Nope, Corey Feldman never appeared on F13.

Posted by: SoMG at November 28, 2007 8:59 PM


yes he did!

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 9:00 PM


However F13 has a great record of its extra actors going on to bigger and better things. David Proval, who played Richie Aprile on THE SOPRANOS, appeared on two episodes. Also Colm Feore, who was later in the CRONICLES OF RIDDICK.

Posted by: SoMG at November 28, 2007 9:01 PM


Somg, he was in part 4.

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 9:01 PM


Also James Kidnie, who had a non-speaking role in SEA OF LOVE.

Posted by: SoMG at November 28, 2007 9:03 PM


I see--you are talking about the movies. I was talking about the Canadian TV series called Friday the 13th, the Series.

Posted by: SoMG at November 28, 2007 9:11 PM


Chronicles of Riddick is my favorite movie ever. Which may make me a massive geek, but I don't care.

Posted by: Erin at November 28, 2007 9:12 PM


Oh, I see. I ran some names through my engine, and I see what you mean. Yes. I was talking about the movies.

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 9:13 PM


Starring Loise Robey, John D. LeMay, and Chris Wiggins, oh yes and Stephen Monarque.

Posted by: SoMG at November 28, 2007 9:15 PM


see. we're not all that much different.

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 9:18 PM


Somg, thanks for the chat. It was nice to see the other side of you. I won't expect too much, but it's a good start.

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 9:35 PM


Good night.

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 9:35 PM


Is there a credit/source on the photo accompanying this blog? Valerie, you're listed as moderator - can you list source, please?

Posted by: phylosopher at November 28, 2007 10:00 PM


What if she's on her way to the abortion clinic and you t-bone her car and kill the fetus? Does her intent to have the fetus slain by somebody else establish its non-personhood, or does the fact that she didn't choose at that moment to have that particular person slay her fetus in that particular way make it murder?

Posted by: Christina at November 29, 2007 4:40 AM


It's ludicrous to say a scenario determines whether killing innocent "human life" is legal or illegal. It is ludicrous to say a mother subjectively decides whether or not her preborn baby is "human life" to begin with.

There's nothing ludicrous about letting women decide what should happen to the contents of their own bodies.

On the other hand, here is one more bit of evidence to stack against Roe when Roe's next day in court comes, one more court decision stating preborns are "human life," so their killers can be prosecuted.

Nah, the court acknowledged that this law doesn't apply to abortion, so actually this is just one more little piece of case law reinforcing Roe v. Wade.

Posted by: tp at November 29, 2007 7:30 AM


tp, you don't get to decide if your unborn child is human or not.

Posted by: heather at November 29, 2007 8:02 AM


tp, TRUE responsibility for yourself should begin outside of the bedroom. You shouldn't have unprotected sex with someone who can't accept consequences. Don't allow a man to put his penis into your body if you don't want to become pregnant. Simple.

Posted by: heather at November 29, 2007 8:05 AM


tp, why was Scott Peterson charged with 2 counts of murder? Care to explain? Why?

Posted by: heather at November 29, 2007 8:06 AM


I gotta say something...it floors me that many of you get your morality from what the law says...

It's not murder cuz it's legal.

It's not a person cuz the law says so.

Don't any of you think for yourselves?

Look at this from my point of view.

Some of you say the unborn is not a human anymore than a toenail, since they both have DNA.
Some say it becomes human/a person after 12 weeks.
Some say it becomes human/a person at viability.
Some say it becomes human/a person at birth.
Some say it doesn't matter when it becomes a person, it hasn't got the right to live unwanted in a womb.
Some say a sperm is alive, and so is an egg, but it doesn't make them human beings.

We say, across the board, human life/personhood begins at fertilization.

Someone must be right. And someone must be wrong.
Because all of these positions contradict themselves. How do you reconcile the fact that none of you agree and are making decisions of life and death based on such diverse criteria.

I mean, your views change. The law changes. But the one thing that doesn't change, that remains constant through it all, is the unborn child.

Doesn't it make sense to base your views on the constant instead of the variables?

Posted by: mk at November 29, 2007 8:57 AM


And isn't the Truth, constant. It doesn't change.
So doesn't it make sense to track the Truth and come to the conclusion that in substance the fertilized egg is and always has been the same thing? Isn't it the fact that it is alive, the very thing that threatens you? If it was "dead" there would be not threat and no need to eliminate it?

I just think your logic is seriously faulty. Show me why I'm wrong.

Posted by: mk at November 29, 2007 9:00 AM


Christina, tp,
The Prenatal Protection Act does not reinforce R. v W. at all. The law specifically names an unborn child an 'individual' from fertilization. There's no question that the exceptions for the mother and doctors are necessary concessions under current SCOTUS rules.

In another place in the Texas Penal Code, an "individual" is named as a "person." We succeeded in naming the unborn child a person from fertilization. We even avoided the "conception" terminology.

Some of the Texas Medical Association doctors were fighting this tooth and nail. One called it the "Fetal rights bill" in public. Sometimes I think there are as many lawyers and lobbyists working for TMA as there are doctor members, and they opposed the Bill at every step. We have Representative Allen, the Speaker and the Lt. Governor to thank for it.

Posted by: Beverly Nuckols, MD at November 29, 2007 9:05 AM


Dr. Nuckols,

All Hail Texas!!!!!

I see that your field is bioethics. Welcome aboard! We sure could use you. Any ideas on the whole "it's not a human life" argument, from a medical/scientific point of view?

Posted by: mk at November 29, 2007 9:16 AM


It doesn't MATTER whether the fetus is a person. Even full personhood does not confer the right to occupy another person's body against her will, nor to subject her to labor and delivery.

Abortion rights require only maternal body-ownership, not fetal inferiority.

Posted by: SoMG at November 29, 2007 10:02 AM


2nd request: credit, citation or source for the photo accompanying this blog post. Black t-shirted figure with ? on presumably pregnant abdomen.

Since moderators have posted otherwise, presumably they have seen viewed first request.

Posted by: phylosopher at November 29, 2007 10:59 AM


Some don't understanding the concept of LIMITING EVIL. We acuse people of doing evil or supporting an existing evil when they do what little they can to sow good into a bad situation.

As it stood prior to the prenatal protection act, abortion was legal. There was also no penalty for a thug killing an unborn child against the mother's wishes. The law didn't acknowledge the loss of the child or the grief of the families.

Then, the law was passed. The number one cause of death for pregnant women is murder. We're hoping this will change since men can no longer kill unborn children and face only assault charges on the mother. We're hoping that the extra penalties on these thugs will keep them behind bars or render them otherwise unable to kill. We see this as justice for at least some murdered unborn children. Certainly, aborted children have no justice, but that's no reason to deny justice where we have the power to act. We're not dimissing the aborted babies, we're protecting who we can.

To say that this law reinforces abortion because it can not stop it is ridiculous. If we could stop all child murder, we would. But we can't. Roe says so. The law simply limits the evil of baby killing and imposes some decency in one situation. It's this logic that make some self-righteous people oppose incrimentalism. It's this failed logic that makes people abstain from voting when there are only two pro-abortion candidates.

Let's look at Rudy and Hillary: Both evil. My friend Dave refuses to vote because he falsely beleives he'd be casting a vote for evil. I told him that a vote for Hitlery (sorry, freudian slip?) guarentees pro-abort SCOTUS justices, it support socialized medicine and ensuing euthanasia as well as her darling "Freedom of Choice Act" which would guarentee the right to kill unborn babies even after Roe falls. A vote for Rudy, however, is a vote for someone that ideologically pro-abortion but not a rabid avenger for fetal dismemberment. He promises pro-life SCOTUS justices as well. So a vote for Rudy is a vote to LIMIT evil, the evil of Hillary. It's not a vote for abortion.

I explained it to Dave this way, "There are 10 children. Candidate A wants to kill all 10. Candidate B wants to kill only 5. There are no candidates that support saving all children and either A or B will be elected and kill at least some children. What do you do?"

Dave replied, "I don't vote."

I said, "So you're saying you'll let 10 kids be murdered instead of 5 because of principle? I bet you'd feel differently if you were one of the 10 children."

Do we really think pro-aborts are going to abstain from voting out of principle? We must vote for the lesser evil to LIMIT evil, or even more people die.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 29, 2007 11:07 AM


And again, the reason those sentences seem to contradict themselves is the insistence of anti-choicers on the conflation of two non-interchangeable concepts: human - a biological classification and personhood, a philosophical and legal term.

Though the two terms may coincide, they are not necessarily congruent. For example, a corporation is legally considered a person, thanks to the 14th Amendment, but few would attempt to make the argument that a corporation is human.

A brain dead person, a corpse, an amputated hand and umbilical cord blood cells are all human, but they are not persons.

Furthermore, full personhood rights are not accorded at all stages of life - many of the anti-choicers argued for this restriction of personhood rights in their recent advocacy of physical punishment for children. Hit another person, and it's a crime - hit a child and it is a parental right to be applauded.

Did you need assistance getting that 2x4 out of your eye, mk?

Posted by: phylosopher at November 29, 2007 11:26 AM


Phylosopher, we disagree on the abortion issue, but I will conclude that you made a very good point regarding the "spanking" post.

Posted by: Carrie at November 29, 2007 12:14 PM


ABC did a wonderful story last night on the news about a mom who had breast cancer and was pregnant.

Read about it here.

http://nicsurvivors.blogspot.com

Posted by: zeke13:19 at November 29, 2007 12:14 PM


If you vote for "the lesser of two evils" you are still voting for EVIL!

Don't vote for evil candidates, vote for good ones like ALAN KEYES!

HTTP://WWW.ALANKEYES.COM

Posted by: zeke13:19 at November 29, 2007 12:17 PM


re my 12:14 post, should read *concede*.

Posted by: Carrie at November 29, 2007 12:22 PM


What if she's on her way to the abortion clinic and you t-bone her car and kill the fetus? Does her intent to have the fetus slain by somebody else establish its non-personhood, or does the fact that she didn't choose at that moment to have that particular person slay her fetus in that particular way make it murder?

Posted by: Christina at November 29, 2007 4:40 AM
......................................................

What if she's driving to the hospital to deliver and runs into a power pull killing the fetus? Is it murder?

Posted by: Sally at November 29, 2007 1:17 PM


Dr. Nuckols,

All Hail Texas!!!!!

I see that your field is bioethics. Welcome aboard! We sure could use you. Any ideas on the whole "it's not a human life" argument, from a medical/scientific point of view?

Posted by: mk at November 29, 2007 9:16 AM
.........................................

Dr Nuckols is a family practioner with an apparent interest in supporting the PL postion.

Posted by: Sally at November 29, 2007 1:24 PM


If you vote for "the lesser of two evils" you are still voting for EVIL!

No, they're voting to LIMIT evil. Not voting allows evil to go unchecked.

Don't vote for evil candidates, vote for good ones like ALAN KEYES!

Alan Keyes won't be a choice. If he were, he'd get my vote and my money. I love Alan Keyes.


Posted by: Jacqueline at November 29, 2007 1:28 PM


A brain dead person, a corpse, an amputated hand and umbilical cord blood cells are all human, but they are not persons.

A brain dead person is not a person? But you just called them a person!

Regardless of your invented medical rationalizations, human beings at all stages of development from conception to elderly and all levels of ability from athlete to quadraplegic, from genius to brain-injured- all all people. Human beings are people. Period.

Redefining personhood is a hamhanded way to deny people rights and take their lives. Dred Scott, Jews, and now the unborn. Haven't you learned from history?

I think the poetic thing to happen to such people is to be stripped of their personhood:

Phylosopher, you are not a person. A human being, yes. But not a person.

It's ridiculous, yes, but you do it to her:

And then you tear her limb from limb.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 29, 2007 1:34 PM


The GOP position is officially anti abortion. That doesnt make them 'pro life'.

Posted by: TexasRed at November 29, 2007 1:41 PM


I thought it was 'They're coming to get you Barbara'? The original Night of the Living Dead was the only horror movie thats ever given me a nightmare.

Posted by: TexasRed at November 29, 2007 1:41 PM


tp, you don't get to decide if your unborn child is human or not.

Posted by: heather at November 29, 2007 8:02 AM
****************************************
Its genetically human. That's never been disputed. But the woman pregnant DOES get to decide if she continues her pregnancy or ends it.

Posted by: TexasRed at November 29, 2007 1:44 PM


And then you tear her limb from limb.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 29, 2007 1:34 PM
********************
Back to gibbering hysterical melodramatics -

Posted by: TexasRed at November 29, 2007 1:47 PM


nd then you tear her limb from limb.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 29, 2007 1:34 PM
......................................................

Do explain how a fetus survives birth when torn limb from limb.

Posted by: Sally at November 29, 2007 1:57 PM


Do explain how a fetus survives birth when torn limb from limb.

It doesn't. That's precisely to point. You tear her limb from limb to kill her.

Back to gibbering hysterical melodramatics

Wow! A 5-syllable word. Way to go!

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 29, 2007 2:10 PM


Back to gibbering hysterical melodramatics

Wow! A 5-syllable word. Way to go!

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 29, 2007 2:10 PM
****************************************
I notice you couldnt deal with the point made.

Posted by: TexasRed at November 29, 2007 2:57 PM


P,
And again, the reason those sentences seem to contradict themselves is the insistence of anti-choicers on the conflation of two non-interchangeable concepts: human - a biological classification and personhood, a philosophical and legal term.

We are not the ones that are confused on this issue. We don't even think it IS an issue. It is so self evident to us that the minute an egg is fertilized it should be given all the "Protection" not rights, but protection, that every other person has, that we are floored by the other sides view. We did not come up with the term personhood. Your side did. Your side created it to divert attention from the real issue. Just like they hijacked the word choice, life, fetus, and murder. So please don't blame us for this one.

And what 2X4 do I have in my eye?

Posted by: mk at November 29, 2007 5:16 PM


jacqueline

You're right. And my typo just shows that we can all slide into imprecise language when in a rush. Former person or human would be the correct terms. So I and the post stand corrected - a brain dead human is not a person.

As Hume pointed out, very often language can gloss the underlying reality. (In his case he was referring to the non-continuity of experience).

Anyone of us can be stripped of personhood should we no longer meet the criteria. Poetic, perhaps - but also just reality.

The agreed upon test (in most of the Western industrialized world) of personhood and its various degrees of rights, today seems to be brain function among others. Many of us will e.g. as we age and dementia (possibly) sets in, we may legally be confined and others will manage our affairs and make our legal and medical decisions.

If we become brain dead within a medical facility, it is quite likely that someone will acknowledge that we are human, but no longer persons, by removing life prolonging machines, or not performing heroic interventions (which would be required for non-brain dead humans, i.e. persons.)

The test of being human is genetic/DNA.

They are not the same.

Thanks for the photos. The 5 week gestation one clearly shows that there is no brain.

Posted by: phylosopher at November 29, 2007 5:28 PM


mk:

The 14th amendment, not pro-choicers, established the personhood language.

The 2x4 (otherwise known as the anti-choice plank)of contradictory statements:

Parental rights (to spank or not) are based on an assumption of privacy rights.

Abortion rights (to abort or not)are based on an assumption of privacy rights.

Posted by: phylosopher at November 29, 2007 5:38 PM


Carrie:

Yes, fortunately, not everyone on either side is a one note band.

That is the problem with much of the rhetoric on both sides; it discounts the nuanced argument and the real interconnectedness of much of our law and social fabric.

Posted by: phylosopher at November 29, 2007 5:42 PM


3rd request:
Anyone have a source or citation for the photograph yet?

Posted by: phylosopher at November 29, 2007 5:44 PM


Phylosopher, sorry for the delay. I got it off of google and just checked where google got it:

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/news/working_stiff/?p=93

Curious, why such a big deal to you?

Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 29, 2007 6:23 PM


P,

Let me get this straight...We think abortion is wrong because it takes the life of a child. Couldn't care less about privacy. That's your gig.
You guys only used the "privacy clause" to get abortion legalized. And this you claim is contradictory because some of us think it's okay to spank your child? This negates our credibility?

But your side can't even agree on when a child becomes a child? And the you can't agree on when killing said child is morally right?

You might have a case if we were the ones that thought the right to privacy meant that you could kill your children. But we don't. So WE are not the ones using the "right to privacy" to promote both behaviors. The fourteenth amendment affords us a right to privacy yes, but it was the pro choicers that perverted it to mean that you could kill your kids. Not us.

Posted by: mk at November 29, 2007 6:33 PM