Created equal

There has been a movement afoot several years to define personhood.

But it hasn't driven by pro-lifers.

While our side has been arguing whether or not now is the time to nail this point down legally, the other side has been plodding full steam ahead to fill the void with their own definition of personhood. And it isn't pretty. Read all about the Personhood Theory on Wikipedia.

"Secular scholars" have been arguing with greater and greater success that personhood is defined by consciousness and self-awareness. This definition excludes a lot of people, like newborns, vegetative children and adults, and dementiaed elderly.

So it's time for ney sayers within the pro-life movement to just knock off complaints about various statewide attempts to define personhood as beginning at fertilization or risk the other side filling the gap.

Grand place to start: Colorado.

I couldn't be prouder of young Kristi Burton (below, left), who launched a ballot initiative in the Centennial State last year when only 19 years old to define personhood.

kristi 2.jpgkristi 1.jpg

Yesterday Kristi and crew submitted 131,245 signatures (above, right) - 55,000 over the requirement - of CO voters wanting an amendment attached to the CO Constitution with these simple but brilliant 14 words:

The term person or persons shall include any human from the time of fertilization.

Now CO voters will decide in November whether they want to protect not just preborns but themselves. How foolish if they don't....

CO is known as a purple state. It went for President Bush in 2000 and 2004. That said, the Democrat National Convention will be held in Denver in August, which will give their side a boost. And liberals will pour millions into defeating this amendment. MSM will help for free.

Colorado for Equal Rights needs donations now, $100,000 to be exact, in the early weeks of its campaign. Every donation will help. Early money is more important than late money, enabling the group to set up a structure and teams to get the education campaign rolling. Please donate generously here.

The CO personhood initiative will force the other side to address the question they thus far have avoided: Exactly what are the unborn?

[Photos courtesy of Leslie Hanks]


Comments:

I'm glad they're on this... we need to start focusing more on that question, what is a definitive universal time to declare personhood?

but we also need some good answers against this whole sentient argument that advocates like Peter Singer at Princeton put out.

another discussion that will have to be brought up though with regards to this is whether or not the unborn child ought to be considered an American citizen or not. Right now they are not.

Posted by: StudentFL at May 14, 2008 2:08 PM


Question: Would an amendment like that be considered unconstitutional?

Posted by: carder at May 14, 2008 2:09 PM


That would likely be something the US Supreme Court would have to decide.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at May 14, 2008 2:14 PM


Kristi was chosen to be the "face" of the amendment because, at 20 and having never even left home to go to school, she lacks the criminal and mental health record, as well as the history of embarrassing public spectacles which dog many of the real sponsors.

On that note, does anyone have a link to a picture of Keith Mason, one of the real sponsors, in the cockroach costume he wore to political rallies in Kansas?

The real sponsors, of course, include Jo and Ken Scott, Bob Enyart and his errand boy Will Duffy, who specialize in terrorizing and harassing innocent homeowners and children in residential neighborhoods.

Kristi bats her eyes and says the amendment is "not about abortion" and "not about birth control" and "not about in vitro fertilization", though of course the intent is to ban them all.

Kristi claims to have no idea what the amendment is about, and says "I don't think anyone can predict what the courts are going to do."

Kristi, the honeymoon and the puff piece interviews are over. You and your puppetmasters are going to have to answer the hard questions.

The "Colorado Confidential" website has a series of articles about the "fertilized egg" amendment.

Posted by: Bystander at May 14, 2008 2:52 PM


Ah, the conspiracy theory begins for a bystander.

Posted by: yllas at May 14, 2008 3:49 PM


As much as I hate to follow the psychotic ramblings of a proabort fanatic, I would like to comment on the historic implications of the word "person".

Throughout most of the history of the English language, "person" and "human being" were defined identically, and often in by using the other word AS the definition.

Not until the question of the slave came up did this even become a question, when it was decided that no slave was a "full person". I think they settled on "2/3rds" of a person in Dred Scott.

Since then, the only "challenge" to the "person status" of all human beings has come from the abortion industry. Only those who support the systematic slaughter of unborn children have any motive to try to redefine such an old established term as "person". And their chance came when our Supreme Court twisted the word to have a new meaning with regard to the constitution.

Now these pathetic linguistic revisionists are constantly harping about how they want to impose their "new meaning" (for the word person) on the rest of us. I, for one, find them disgusting.

Posted by: Doyle at May 14, 2008 3:54 PM


I strongly suggest that Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen in their book Embryo:A Defense of Human Lifemake an excellent case that human beings are full persons from the moment of conception on. I highly recommend that if you support the pro-life position that you study this book.

Bystander - speaking of fertilized eggs - Chapter 2 of Embryo reveals that factual embryo science shows there is no such thing as a "fertilized egg". It is a zygote - a single cell completely integrated generative human being when fertilization has been completed and the two sets of chromosomes have intermingled.

And Bystander - given these recent debates the incoherency of morally dualistic positions is easily seen.

So you're right - people do need to answer hard questions - but those who argue from morally relative positions need to adhere to what they hold up as reason and truth and respect must be there for each other as persons.

That first step is intellectual honesty and an agreement on the underlying and fairly undeniable embryo science facts.

If we can't treat each other as human persons face to face, there is little point in going forward with a discussion about what "personhood". Words simply wouldn't matter.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 14, 2008 4:12 PM


So....I wonder if under this amendment, if I send my menstrual blood out for testing every month, and it turns out that I expelled a zygote or blastocyst, can I then attach the test results to my tax forms and claim a child tax credit?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 14, 2008 4:15 PM


Huh, that was me as "anon" above. New computer.

Posted by: Hieronymous at May 14, 2008 4:15 PM


Chris,
Have you read the Wikipedia entry?
Maybe you should consider contributing? Looks like they need some help.

Posted by: Patricia at May 14, 2008 4:17 PM


Or hey, I wonder if someone could go to an IVF clinic, freeze a bunch of their embryos, and then leave their estates to the frozen embryos in their wills.

Posted by: Hieronymous at May 14, 2008 4:24 PM


Also Chris and Bobby (if you are lurking ;-D)
Have either of you read Philosophy 101 by Socrates: An introduction to philosophy via Plato's Apology? It's by Peter Kreeft. Is it readable for an intelligent 18 year old with an interest in philosophy?
If not, any suggestions?
I see Kreeft has a number of these books.

Posted by: Patricia at May 14, 2008 4:26 PM


The challenge of those who are trying to stop the murder of "things" and make them "persons".
Take a simple test based on the child game of Person,Place, or Thing. This game is played to sharpen the mind of a child and learn the definition of the word noun.
Also, this game is known as 20 questions, where a person thinks of a person,place or thing, and the other person(s) has 20 questions to guess what it is.
Take the word fetus. Person or thing?
Take the word baby. Person or thing?

Take the word slave? Person or thing?
For those who owned slaves they were a thing, and not a person. Doyle is correct in his summation of who has a interest in making people into things. Just as slaves were nothing more then things to be used and discarded like a junkyard car, so the thing in the womb may be discarded like a slave was.
It is up to the pro lifers to change the definition and thinking of people who make growing human beings, known as a fetus, into persons and not a "thing", as the death salesman have always done.
But, ask a young child to play the game, and pick the word fetus, what would you answer to the child's question, Is it a Thing? Is it a Person?

Posted by: yllas at May 14, 2008 4:28 PM


Heiro 4:15 and 4:24

My concern is that if you expel a zygote, you may be charged with criminally negligent homicide or even manslaughter (particularly if you had a drink in the last month), and freezing an embryo must become some kind of crime.

Like Kristi said: "who can predict what the courts are going to do?"

Take a look at some of the comments to the Colorado Confidential articles. The mind boggles!

Posted by: Bystander at May 14, 2008 4:34 PM


What is this? Does bystander work and post for this Colorado Confidential? Gee, get another source and realize that if it is on the net, it ain't really confidential, or as the definiton goes; entrusted with private information.
Psst, want to know some private information Bystander? Anyone can post to a site and even play they are the opposing side making goofy post to discredit their opposition.

Posted by: yllas at May 14, 2008 4:45 PM



Or hey, I wonder if someone could go to an IVF clinic, freeze a bunch of their embryos, and then leave their estates to the frozen embryos in their wills.


Posted by: Hieronymous at May 14, 2008 4:24 PM

Why not?
People leave their estates to their pets all the time!

Posted by: Sandy at May 14, 2008 5:29 PM


yllas,

Crawl back under your rock.

Your bizarre rants add nothing to this, or any other discussion of issues.

Posted by: Bystander at May 14, 2008 5:35 PM


Patricia @ 4:26 PM

I don't have that one - although Kreeft is pretty accessible and quite sound in his philosophy. My philosophy experiences started with the Irving Copi textbook - "Introduction to Logic" which is still a pretty basic college introductory material, but it doesn't provide the various philosophical world-views, merely the syllogistic underpinnings. Of course nothing beats the Word of God! :-)

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 14, 2008 5:51 PM


yllas,
I just have to say your "rants" do add have value. I chuckle everytime I read them!

Posted by: Sandy at May 14, 2008 6:05 PM


Yay for arbitrary personhood arguments!

Here's mine:

If you cannot explain and understand how to perform a targeted gene deletion in bacteria- you are not a person and therefore have no rights. HA!

Posted by: Rae at May 14, 2008 6:28 PM


yllas,

Let me add my vote of confidence in your "rants", to that cast by Sandy. Please, pay no attention to the mental midgets attempting to make humor at your expense, and elevate themselves by putting you down.

Rant on! :-D

Posted by: Doyle at May 14, 2008 6:39 PM


"Have either of you read Philosophy 101 by Socrates: An introduction to philosophy via Plato's Apology?"

Patricia, yes I have read it. It's quite good, and very accessible. An 18 year old will have no problem with it. That's actually the book that turned me on to Socrates. Brilliant.

I don't think that's a good personhood theory, Rae. To me, a person is someone who can explain the cohmological shifting of torsion phenomena. Ha!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 14, 2008 6:51 PM


Hi Hiero. That's a fair question, but it ultimately has no bearing on whether or not the unborn is a person. There is probably very good reason to say that you can't tax write-off a child unless it is born. We also don't celebrate the day we were conceived; we celebrate the day we were born. But that's just a cultural tradition. It doesn't affect the scientific and philosophical question of whether or not the unborn is a person. The fact that the government won't give one money for a deceased zygote shouldn't lead us to believe that the unborn isn't a person.

In fact, suppose we lived in a society where there was no concept of tax write-offs. Then none of us would be persons. Think about a time when there was no organized government, when man was fairly primitive. If the unborn were persons then, then they are persons now. The answer to the question of the humanity of the unborn is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It should not be based on cultural practices and customs. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 14, 2008 7:17 PM


Oh, also Patricia and Chris, Peter Kreeft is going to be speaking at my school this Sunday! How cool is that? I can't wait to hear him speak.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 14, 2008 7:28 PM


Dang, Rae...I am definitely not a person then!

P.S. Talked to the parents and the aquarium is a GO on saturday!! woo hoo! I'll pay for some gas for the ride there and back of course!

Posted by: Elizabeth at May 14, 2008 7:37 PM


Here is a link to an article written last week by Christian Brugger, PhD, of the Culture of Life Foundation, arguing for the personhood of the human embryo:

http://www.culture-of-life.org/content/view/456/1/

Posted by: Scott Johnston at May 14, 2008 7:38 PM


@yllas,

you may have hit upon a basic problem here: when assessing the value of another, the 'problem' is not only in the being under assessment ... ie. fetus/zygote/senior/etc but the difficulty is mostly in the assessor and his/her own perspective/experience. IE. very few children will even contemplate suicide or abortion. Then why do post-pubic humans think it is their 'right' to assess/judge the value of others or of themselves?

Posted by: John McDonell at May 14, 2008 7:44 PM


@Bobby: I put out my personhood theory FIRST, therefore, I'm superior anyway.

I wish we celebrated our conception day instead of our "birth" day- I'd be 21 already if we did it that way. :-p

@Elizabeth: Scooooooooooooore!

Facebook me your address so I can mapquest it from MK's house. :D

Posted by: Rae at May 14, 2008 7:48 PM


"@Bobby: I put out my personhood theory FIRST, therefore, I'm superior anyway."

I concede... well, I'd better go study gene deletion...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 14, 2008 7:52 PM


Thanks Bobby. From the reviews I've read it seemed very good but you never know! I got a Chapters gift card from my children this Mother's Day (what a surprise seeing that I'm a librarian!!) and I was thinking of getting my son Kreeft's book.
You are very lucky to be able to hear Peter speak.

Posted by: Patricia at May 14, 2008 8:39 PM


Scott:
Thanks for the awesome website link. I'll add this to my favourites, of which I have many!

Posted by: Patricia at May 14, 2008 8:50 PM


Hey Bobby! Well, the thing is, when you're arguing about a legal definition of personhood, which is what the constitutional amendments are all about, it really does have a bearing.

I was (in my own facetious kinda way) just pointing out that pushing for legal personhood for blastocysts has myriad legal effects that I don't think the pro-life community has adequately considered.

Posted by: Hieronymous at May 14, 2008 9:22 PM


God defines personhood, not pro-aborts, not pro-lifers for we are all fearfully and wonderfully made. Heiro and Bystander, yours insult to God by trivialing human beings calling them zygotes and blastocysts are especially distressing.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_e4zgJXPpI4

Collossians 1:
15 Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.
He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,
16 for through him God created everything
in the heavenly realms and on earth.
He made the things we can see
and the things we canít seeó
such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world.
Everything was created through him and for him.
17 He existed before anything else,
and he holds all creation together.
18 Christ is also the head of the church,
which is his body.
He is the beginning,
supreme over all who rise from the dead.[f]
So he is first in everything.
19 For God in all his fullness
was pleased to live in Christ,
20 and through him God reconciled
everything to himself.
He made peace with everything in heaven and on earth by means of Christís blood on the cross.

Posted by: HisMan at May 14, 2008 10:17 PM


I was (in my own facetious kinda way) just pointing out that pushing for legal personhood for blastocysts has myriad legal effects that I don't think the pro-life community has adequately considered.
Posted by: Hieronymous at May 14, 2008 9:22 PM

I for one am very thankful that a fetus is considered a person on my medical insurance.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 14, 2008 11:44 PM


Thanks for the scripture post HisMan :)

Posted by: truthseeker at May 14, 2008 11:46 PM


I was (in my own facetious kinda way) just pointing out that pushing for legal personhood for blastocysts has myriad legal effects that I don't think the pro-life community has adequately considered.
Posted by: Hieronymous at May 14, 2008 9:22 PM

I for one am very thankful that a fetus is considered a person on my medical insurance.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 14, 2008 11:44 PM
......................................

Is it now? What fetus care does it cover? Open heart surgery? Will they still cover it if it is born with a birth defect or is that a pre-existing condition? Does your life insurance company consider your fetus a person as well? If it doesn't survive birth can you collect money to cover the burial? How about your dental insurance? It's never too early for good dental care!
Times sure have changed! I remember when pregnancy was a 'preventable' condition and not covered by most insurance companies.

Posted by: Sally at May 15, 2008 1:37 AM


But what about the Catholics Sad Eyed Sally? Just how are the Catholics involved in insurance and denying you some health care for some "it" that you know? You know you can do it bigot, connect the dots for us and show how Catholics are the devil in health care.

"Will they still cover IT if IT is born with a birth defect....". Words of the three generation anti-Catholic bigot named Sad Eyed Sally.
Really you anti- Catholic bigots have made everything you know into a IT.

Posted by: yllas at May 15, 2008 5:09 AM


Well thank you Sandy.
Just think of me as the anti-Sally, and know that everything that Sad Eyed Sally writes,I write the opposite.
Or you can think of me as a wrasler, who is battling the Sad Eyed Sally. She wears skin tight red leotards that are emblazoned with words such as "Know Nothings are Somebody". And "KKK All The Way", and of course "Your all a bunch of ITS".
Of course Sad Eyed Sally wears a phantom of the opera mask which hides half her face which is permanently frozen in a anti-Catholic sneer, and is as big and wide as the Joker's is.
But, it is those tears on her face and mask that are there to illicit sympathy for this anti-Catholic devil. A tear glowing a hideous black,(how the devil black glows increases her evilness) on the white side of her phantom mask, and on her the exposed part of her face is a tear
that actually spews some sort of vile smelling substance. When Sad Eyed Sally gets a head o' anti-Catholic steam a goin, she sprays the fans with those vile smelling "tears".
Now, you can imagine what the fans think of that "move", and while she is spewing that vile tear upon the fans she is belching from the pit of her stomach, " That's what I think of your Lady of Guadalupe". Luckily, Sad Eyed Sally always performs before a pack of Texasrednecks who dispise all thing Catholic. Of course, once in a while a fan gets upset with Sad Eyed Sally not being able to pin down Yllas, and throws a beer bottle at her. Boink, right in the noggin, and Sally hits the canvas like a june bug hitting a windshield on a Texasredneck, leather ladened Sporster. All Texasrednecks must have a windshield on their scooters now from eating too many june bugs.
Rumor has it that Yllas supplies the beer to the matches and makes sure all the beer consumed is made by Catholic trappist, which of course is Chimay. You know those pretentious abortionist always must have the most expensive of everything in life to justify their dark anti Catholic mind, devoted to death.
P.s. Another rumor has it that the "vile smelling tears" of Sad Eyed Sally is supplied by Texasredneck, who drinks a few Chimay's and is always seen in a back road of the Texas Hill Country vomiting it all up. And it may be a fact, since Texasredneck is Sad Eyed Sally's road manager.

Posted by: yllas at May 15, 2008 6:14 AM


Hello John,
I agree that very few children think about suicide and abortion. And its is because they are innocent of such thoughts. For everyone of us, someone put a thought into our head at sometime and someplace. Few people think of anything original and are taught what to think. And in most cases, even if a person thinks they think of something original, it is not, at least in the world of morals or right and wrong.
As to the question why do humans judge the value or worth of others and themselves, well people find life is their own, since God never appears to them in any form. IE. God created you and owns your creation. Add to that a failure of some prayer(a asking for) or unanswered question about their life by God, and you get a typical agnostic, atheist, or that old God hater which is common today. Once a person thinks they created themselves , they worship themselves to death.
Since they created their being, they can uncreate their being too. And why not, from early childhood forward all that is shown is the physical fact of a baby coming forth from a human being. No one says, as Kahlil Gibran wrote, "children come through you but are not from you". You come from some evolution of matter, which really doesn't matter to matter.
For all the death dealers that post here at a pro life site John, they want and will decide when and where your going to die simply because they think they are deciding their life this minute.
And why? Because they think your a "thing" John, from childhood to today. Just as a fetus is a thing, or in the less precise words of that anti-Catholic bigot named Sally, your a IT.
It is their love of Creation and not the Creator which makes them love death to increase their love of their life. Abortion and "mercy murder" being two forms of such a basic love, built on death.

Posted by: yllas at May 15, 2008 7:38 AM


Bobby Bambino @ 7:28 PM

That's cool - what's the topic? (Peter covers quite a few)

I would have loved to have been at that symposium at Princeton titledďIs It Wrong to End Early Human Life?.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 15, 2008 7:49 AM


HisMan @ 10:17 PM said Heiro and Bystander, yours insult to God by trivialing human beings calling them zygotes and blastocysts are especially distressing.

Actually those are common scientific definitions of human beings at a particular stage HisMan. That's no more offensive to God than calling someone a toddler, a juvenile, an adolescent or an adult.

If anything, everyone needs more information about these stages of our lives, because at one time, everyone was a zygote.

And I believe the term for our development is miraculous.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 15, 2008 7:53 AM


Heiro @ 9:22 PM said : I was (in my own facetious kinda way) just pointing out that pushing for legal personhood for blastocysts has myriad legal effects that I don't think the pro-life community has adequately considered.

Can you name one? To be honest I haven't considered it exhaustively and would like to know if you have some clear and valid observations.

BTW - Please don't confuse state identification issues with what we are. Passports etc do not have to be issued to the unborn - absurd suggestions on your part, when you are claiming the idea of personhood is absurd simply reduces the whole discussion to non-sense. I can provide valid reasoning for the personhood of the unborn, and right now do not believe that such declarations have negative unintended legal side-effects (other than to stop the wanton destruction of the unborn).

Don't beg the question.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 15, 2008 8:00 AM


John McDonell @ 7:44 PM

Relativism at it's core - excellent post, John.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 15, 2008 8:04 AM


Chris, I think I already pointed out some of the potential legal effects. Tax laws, inheritance, etc. Maybe we're talking past each other. I think you're referring to some philosophical ideal of personhood. I'm talking about legal personhood, as in, when the state chooses to recognize you as a person.

Posted by: Hieronymous at May 15, 2008 8:20 AM


OK Hiero. What I would propose then is that only certain laws should apply to born persons. We see many examples of laws (when I say laws, I also have in mind tax write-offs and other legal like things) that only apply to persons starting at certain points in their life, like ages 18 or 21. So it would have be made clear that the baby must be born in order for a tax write-off or the like. Now this may involve a lot of work and rewriting of laws, but if the unborn really are people, then that must be done. The law exists for people. People do not exist for the law, and hence there may have to be a major change in our legal framework.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 15, 2008 8:37 AM


"God defines personhood, not pro-aborts, not pro-lifers for we are all fearfully and wonderfully made. Heiro and Bystander, yours insult to God by trivialing human beings calling them zygotes and blastocysts are especially distressing."


How is that different from calling you a man?

Posted by: Amanda at May 15, 2008 8:47 AM


Let me see if I got this straight.

The same people who support this bill and demand that the Constitution recognize the humanity of the unborn child are the same people who insist that we cannot vote for John McCain, the only Presidential candidate who has promised to appoint judicial conservatives that would seemingly uphold this law at the federal level.

Do I have that right?

Posted by: Andrew at May 15, 2008 9:03 AM


Hieronymous @ 8:20 AM

I did say BTW - Please don't confuse state identification issues with what we are. Passports do not have to be issued to the unborn...

Bobby actually clarified our semantic differences with his remarks @ 8:37 AM.

I don't think reworking such laws would be anymore absurd than the odd judicial findings such as having an unborn child die two weeks from birth at the hands of a criminal, yet that not be treated as a homicide or manslaughter - such as Lileigh.

Technically - since a doctor is already a state licensed official who is the only one who can legally declare a pregnancy - in effect he's saying that unborn person exists, the state is already identifying the unborn, but is not recognizing them as fully human. In this regard this is much more like a civil rights issue.

Also, I believe the terms as far as taxes are in place - born into your household etc. and the year born. It may not be as confusing or as large an undertaking as you might think. But again, the major impact would be how we treated the unborn.

Good focus on the topic though.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 15, 2008 9:49 AM


I would only really quibble about one point Chris...I don't think that the state says anything about the unborn being not fully human, I think that the state just doesn't recognize them as legal persons who have accrued the rights granted to persons by the law, constitution, etc.

I think we should remember to separate the terms "human", meaning belonging to the species, and "person", meaning having accrued rights granted to persons.

Posted by: Hieronymous at May 15, 2008 10:02 AM


Chris, Heiro, and Bobby,

Since you are thinkers, you are struggling with the practical consequences of purporting to grant all legal rights to a zygote at the time of fertilization.

A few obvious examples: Under the clear intent of the amendment, all in vitro fertilization, and (at least) all forms of contraception that might interfere with the implantation of a zygote, and all forms of abortion become a violation of a person's rights. Any woman having a miscarriage must undergo an investigation for murder. Did she drink coffee or alcohol? Did she know she was pregnant at the time?

Since under the amendment, all fertilized human eggs have all rights of a "person", if there are "extra" fertilized eggs from the in vitro process, and if the parents have money, I want to be appointed the zygote's guardian ad litem, and will insist on support and inheritance rights, as well as demand implantation, so my client can be born.

You and I could give dozens of other examples of the strange potential legal consequences of this amendment, but the point is, there is no way to predict the consequences, and to somehow hope that common sense will prevail, and the amendment will not be enforced as written, as Bobby and Chris suggest, is wishful thinking.

This is why Kristi, at her press conference claimed she didn't know what the intent or practical consequences of the amendment would be or what the legislature or courts would do.

If that is the "$100,000 educational campaign" of the Personhood advocates, and if they continue to refuse to respond to questions about the intent or legal and practical effects of the amendment, I don't think the other side will have to work very hard to defeat it.

Posted by: Bystander at May 15, 2008 10:55 AM


Hieronymous @ 10:02 AM said I think we should remember to separate the terms "human", meaning belonging to the species, and "person", meaning having accrued rights granted to persons.

Hmmm - no. That's precisely the point of the amendment which is to cut off that notion which is dualism.

We simply wouldn't be having this discussion if it were true that you could have a human being who isn't a "person". (Thus dualistic or separation of the body from the "self" or "person") Such a notion is a fallacious arrogation of nature.

Can you rationally separate your body from your "person"? If so, could your "person" literally exist in LA while your body was in say Chicago? No - they are intrinsic - inseparable. If you say you can, then why should you reject religious arguments regarding the eternal soul? There would be no rationale.

In fact - you make my point earlier about civil rights - because Dred Scott wasn't considered a "person" deserving of those rights, yet no one would deny that he was a human - albeit with immutable characteristics that others used to deny him rights. Similar logic is applied to the unborn using characteristics of size, location, environment and degree of dependency to deny them their right to life.

I did say earlier not to "beg the question" on this issue - which is to sneak in the dualistic assumption regarding non-person human beings. You're assuming what you are trying to prove.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 15, 2008 11:04 AM


Bystander - such scenarios are already happening: you just simply restated our case. (We're the de facto guardian ad-litems).

Your arguments are soundly refuted in the book Embryo: A Defense of Human Life. I suggest you read it.

In the meantime, to refute you immediately: simply because the law is unknown is no reason for undertaking correction of a serious civil and moral wrong. (Just think someday slaves might demand voting privileges!)

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 15, 2008 11:23 AM


HisMan @ 10:17 PM

I decided to check out your link -

Amazing HisMan - Absolutely Amazing!!!!

Awesome. True Awe.

A must see!!!!

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 15, 2008 11:54 AM


Chris, I am sorry but your post at 11;23 makes no sense to me. Usually you write with clarity.

Are you saying the examples of legal consequences I give are valid or invalid?

Are you saying these examples are already established law in other states?

Are you saying that the courts and the legislature will adopt the book "Embryo" as the guideline for legal interpretation of the amendment?

Are you saying to pass the amendment and let the courts sort it out, over then next ten years with tens of millions of dollars of the taxpayer's money, and hope for the best?

I make no "argument" other than to outline some of the possible legal consequences and the fact that the proponents of the amendment refuse to acknowledge or respond to those issues, so I don't know what "argument" you think you are "refuting".

Please clarify.

Posted by: Bystander at May 15, 2008 12:01 PM


Bystander - it appears you're being courteous and respectful, and yet yllas seems to have triggered something given your reply at 5:35 PM.

Now why would that be? Your reply indicates a history and knowledge of yllas.

In the Sendler thread, phylosopher said:

Amanda, Erin, Doug, Heiro, Hal, the dearly departed TR, SoMG, Enigma, Bystander, Elizabeth, Sally, Jess and Carder, Rae, there's a beautiful world out there, let's go enjoy it.

Looks a lot like a who's who of abortion-choice visitors to Jill's site. Oh - your handle is in there too! You make no argument? Really...

I'm not obligated to educate you.

You're showing me my time is best spent with those who have enough courage and conviction not to hide behind pseudonyms.

G'day.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 15, 2008 12:48 PM


Chris,

I'm pro-life. Duh..do you even read the comments?

Posted by: Elizabeth at May 15, 2008 1:00 PM


Hi Bystander.

"Under the clear intent of the amendment, all in vitro fertilization, and (at least) all forms of contraception that might interfere with the implantation of a zygote, and all forms of abortion become a violation of a person's rights. Any woman having a miscarriage must undergo an investigation for murder. Did she drink coffee or alcohol? Did she know she was pregnant at the time?"

OK. First of all, there must be reason to believe that there was an abortion/murder. A priori, any miscarriage is simply a miscarriage unless there is a reason to believe it has been self induced. People die all the time and unless there is a reason to believe someone killed them, we don't investigate it. Sure, we may be interested in the cause of death of a born person, but especially in the case of a [what looks like] miscarriage, we should not suspect abortion unless there is reason to believe. Does this mean some people may possible get away with early self induced abortions? Yes, but people get away with a lot of stuff that isn't legal.

Your questions about coffee and alcohol have a similar answer in the sense that we can't police everything that people do. There are all sorts of examples of things that are not illegal but that aren't necessarily good for people. Obviously there is a line between a glass of wine and a whole bottle of wine. If there is reason to believe that a woman purposefully something else along those lines to induce an abortion, then that would have to be held on a case by case basis.

The bottom line is that if the unborn really are human persons, then they need to be protected regardless of the difficulties and technicalities of legalism. Surely if you grant me that premise, Bystander, you would agree, ehh? I can't imagine that if anyone truly believed that a certain being was a person but thought that the legal consequences of that were too complicated, then they would say that it is OK to kill them. I haven't seen too many of your posts Bystander, but my guess is that you don't believe the unborn is a person. Fair enough. But if you grant us that premise for the sake of argument, none of these arguments about the legal ramifications should make any difference.

I hope that makes some sense. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 15, 2008 1:06 PM


Elizabeth,

"I'm pro-life. Duh..do you even read the comments?"

So is Rae. Chris was quoting something that Phylo had written a few days ago. I think Phylo was a little confused about how is PC and PL, not Chris. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 15, 2008 1:11 PM


Hmm, oh well...i dunno what phylo meant really..she would have to clarify.

Posted by: Elizabeth at May 15, 2008 1:18 PM


I think Phylo was trying to tell all the PCers not to hang out on this board anymore, though I could be wrong.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 15, 2008 1:21 PM


Bobby,

Actually we investigate most deaths to find out what the cause of death was and if it could have been intentional or not.

For example, we would investigate a death by car crash, but probably have a shorter investigation because cause would be apparent. Coroners would do an autopsy to see the exact cause, such as whether he died from punctured lungs or what...

If someone dies in the hospital, that death is investigated to see there was no malpractice involved.

If a child dies in the night, that's investigated to see if there was foul play.

If a person commits suicide, that's investigated to make sure it really WAS suicide and not homicide.

And so on. Why shouldn't we suspect a miscarriage?

Posted by: Edyt at May 15, 2008 1:22 PM


Carder's PL too...

Posted by: Rae at May 15, 2008 1:26 PM


@Bobby: Whenever anybody says "Phylo" instead of "phylosopher" I always think of phyllo dough...hahahahahaha.

:)

Posted by: Rae at May 15, 2008 1:28 PM


Bobby, I think Phylosopher was just telling everyone to take a break from the Internet and enjoy the lovely day outside. It wasn't directed toward PLers or PCers.

Posted by: Edyt at May 15, 2008 1:29 PM


Edyt,

"And so on. Why shouldn't we suspect a miscarriage?"

I think because it is such a natural occurrence. Now that's not to say that we should hold to the naturalistic fallacy which says that because it happens so often in nature, then it should be permissible.

It would also be too impractical. In fact, like I attempted to allude to above, many women have miscarriages and never need to tell anyone. Many of them happen without people knowing because we don't have any records of the embryo's existence. That's fine. That's the way we do things. It works better for legal purposes to not "keep track of people" until they are born. But that doesn't imply that then the unborn should not be protected. Also, like I said above, could then some women get away with an early self-induced abortion? Well, I'm sure there are examples of people who have gotten away with breaking any law you can think of. But that is no reason to therefore say that the law in question should not exist.

And BTW, this is just the way I see it working if the unborn are legally declared persons. There may be a much better solution to the questions that you and Bystander are proposing. I keep wanting, though, to go back to that last paragraph I wrote in my previous post to Bystander. IF the unborn are persons, should all these legal questions really keep us from declaring that they are persons? I'm sure people much smarted than I could come up with workable solutions. These should not be reasons in and of themselves to take away the personhood of the unborn.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 15, 2008 1:37 PM


"Bobby, I think Phylosopher was just telling everyone to take a break from the Internet and enjoy the lovely day outside. It wasn't directed toward PLers or PCers."

Ah, fair enough. Tone is always difficult to detect for me over the internet :)

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 15, 2008 1:39 PM


I really need to get some work done, so I won't be replying for a while. If there is anything else from Edyt or Bystander, I'll try and get to it tonight. Take care.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 15, 2008 1:40 PM


Is it now? What fetus care does it cover? Open heart surgery? Will they still cover it if it is born with a birth defect or is that a pre-existing condition? Does your life insurance company consider your fetus a person as well? If it doesn't survive birth can you collect money to cover the burial? How about your dental insurance? It's never too early for good dental care!
Times sure have changed! I remember when pregnancy was a 'preventable' condition and not covered by most insurance companies.
Posted by: Sally at May 15, 2008 1:37 AM

It's called pre-natal care Sally. The baby is covered for prescriptions too. :) You make my point exactly. A birth defect would NOT be considered a pre-existing condition because the baby's coverage stats at conception.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 15, 2008 1:51 PM


Chris 12:48

If all of you "Personhood advocates" respond to valid questions as to the intent and effect of the proposed amendment with your smug and condescending statement that:

"I am not obligated to educate you." and that "you are a waste of time"

That will REALLY impress the voters, and the media. Keep up the arrogance and condescention. It will get the amendment defeated by a record margin.


Posted by: Bystander at May 15, 2008 2:09 PM


The prize goes to Edyt, who I unfortunately missed in my list. It was a beautiful day!

Posted by: phylosopher at May 15, 2008 2:30 PM


@Chris

I visited your site briefly, and though I saw that philosphy and theology are your interests, I didn't see a degree - are you self-taught? (Not a diss if you are - many folks have read themselves into an education.)

Posted by: phylosopher at May 15, 2008 2:34 PM


Hooray! What did I win!?

Posted by: Edyt at May 15, 2008 2:41 PM


Elizabeth @ 1:00 PM

I'm sorry - that wasn't fair to you, Carder or Rae - I should have qualified what I meant a little more. The original post that phylosopher put up was a direct attack against Jill and her writing ability on the Sendler post - in the second day of the thread, and I did see it as encouraging primarily pro-choice folks to leave.

It was unfair to generalize as I did. I'm sorry.


Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 15, 2008 4:07 PM


My apology extends to Rae and Carder as well :-)

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 15, 2008 4:08 PM


Bystander @ 2:09 PM

Just for clarification and for the edification of others:

When I said "I'm not obligated to educate you" that was specifically addressed to you, not the Colorado voter population in general, in response to what I perceived to be your condescending set of questions at 12:01 PM.

I have provided a substantial amount of time, and a clear argument for the personhood of the unborn, specifically in response to your prompts. I have no obligation to be exhaustive in my replies to you.

This is your argument:

You and I could give dozens of other examples of the strange potential legal consequences of this amendment, but the point is, there is no way to predict the consequences, and to somehow hope that common sense will prevail, and the amendment will not be enforced as written, as Bobby and Chris suggest, is wishful thinking.

That looks like a truth claim to me, which I refuted directly at 11:23 AM. So it's simply disingenuous to feign offense:

Keep up the arrogance and condescention.

If you were sincere, then again - go read the book Embryo, then come back and we'll discuss, otherwise it appears you're simply insincere and manipulative.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 15, 2008 4:40 PM


You're doing good, Chris, ya doing good.

Carry on.

Posted by: carder at May 15, 2008 4:46 PM


Edyt:

Lifetime appreciation for logical argument in the face of blather!

Posted by: phylosopher at May 15, 2008 5:04 PM


Hieronymous @ 10:02 AM said I think we should remember to separate the terms "human", meaning belonging to the species, and "person", meaning having accrued rights granted to persons.

Hmmm - no. That's precisely the point of the amendment which is to cut off that notion which is dualism.

But here's the thing Chris...as it currently stands, having the quality of being human, and having legal personhood are two separate things.

We simply wouldn't be having this discussion if it were true that you could have a human being who isn't a "person". (Thus dualistic or separation of the body from the "self" or "person") Such a notion is a fallacious arrogation of nature.

No, it's a legal standard.

Can you rationally separate your body from your "person"? If so, could your "person" literally exist in LA while your body was in say Chicago? No - they are intrinsic - inseparable. If you say you can, then why should you reject religious arguments regarding the eternal soul? There would be no rationale.

Yes, you can separate them. When I die, my body will still be human, but will no longer be considered a legal person.

In fact - you make my point earlier about civil rights - because Dred Scott wasn't considered a "person" deserving of those rights, yet no one would deny that he was a human - albeit with immutable characteristics that others used to deny him rights. Similar logic is applied to the unborn using characteristics of size, location, environment and degree of dependency to deny them their right to life.

Honestly, I'm not really sure what your point is here.

I did say earlier not to "beg the question" on this issue - which is to sneak in the dualistic assumption regarding non-person human beings. You're assuming what you are trying to prove.

It's not begging the question to point out that as things currently stand, legally, a zygote or blastocyst is human, but not a legal person. That's just true.


Posted by: Hieronymous at May 15, 2008 5:28 PM


Bobby:
No confusion here about PC and PL. The names were listed as intended with the exception of neglecting to add Edyt.

Posted by: phylosopher at May 15, 2008 5:29 PM


phylosopher, I see you are still posting. Is that because you couldn't get anybody else to leave with you?

Posted by: truthseeker at May 15, 2008 6:02 PM


Hieronymous: Yes, you can separate them. When I die, my body will still be human, but will no longer be considered a legal person.

Exactly. There is the physical reality of an existing thing, and then there is the attributed status, if any. The abortion debate is over attributed status or the lack of it.

Posted by: Doug at May 15, 2008 6:21 PM


Personhood failed in Georgia and Oregon and will fail in Montana and Colorado in no small part due to the proponents refusal to respond to simple and straightforward questions about the legal consequences of the proposed amendments.

Chris, your angry and arrogant refusal to respond to simple questions with straight answers proved my point perfectly. Thank you.

Posted by: Bystander at May 15, 2008 6:30 PM


"Bobby:
No confusion here about PC and PL. The names were listed as intended with the exception of neglecting to add Edyt."

Yup. My bad, phylo.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 15, 2008 6:44 PM


Not bad, Bobby.

Cybercommunication completely lacks nuance. And emoticons are so fifth grade - like dotting "i's" with hearts.

Posted by: phylosopher at May 15, 2008 6:52 PM


Indeed, Bystander.

Looks like Chris has two questions in cue. I'll repost just in case he missed it.

I visited your site briefly, and though I saw that philosphy and theology are your interests, I didn't see a degree - are you self-taught? (Not a diss if you are - many folks have read themselves into an education.)

And from a previous thread - what is your definition of dualism? Or what definition are you referencing?

(about better organization for the site, we are in agreement, Chris. Those that allow the embedded threads to comments lend themsleves to a better chance of staying on topic and certainly facilitate reading.)

Posted by: phylosopher at May 15, 2008 7:03 PM


phylosopher, I see you are still posting. Is that because you couldn't get anybody else to leave with you?
Posted by: truthseeker at May 15, 2008 6:02 PM

Or maybe you are here because of Jill's skills as a journalist and interesting topics to post?

Posted by: truthseeker at May 15, 2008 7:13 PM


Yes, you can separate them. When I die, my body will still be human, but will no longer be considered a legal person.

It also won't be living and breathing. Now to rephrase the question, could you Can you rationally separate your living, breathing body from your "person"?

Posted by: mk at May 15, 2008 7:20 PM


phylosopher, I see you are still posting. Is that because you couldn't get anybody else to leave with you?
Posted by: truthseeker at May 15, 2008 6:02 PM

Or maybe you are here because of Jill's skills as a journalist and interesting topics to post?
Posted by: truthseeker at May 15, 2008 7:13 PM

Or maybe you need to come here cause you find Jill's article's well written?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 15, 2008 7:20 PM


@ truthseeker...as mistaken as your moniker is misleading, but for the benfit of others:

Chris' confusion

Posted by: phylosopher at May 15, 2008 7:22 PM


Really, all you people who come here to bash Jill should do us all a favor and enjoy a lot more days outside.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 15, 2008 7:23 PM


something for a phylosopher to ponder, w/o your laptop. :))

Posted by: truthseeker at May 15, 2008 7:26 PM


Until the last line, there was hope that Jill had finally developed some ethics.
Posted by: phylosopher at May 13, 2008 8:53 AM

Posted by: truthseeker at May 15, 2008 7:34 PM


Granted, some bloggers are a bit more artistic, careful and conscientious than others. Having read a broad selection of the blogs out there, (part of my job) Jill ranks in the bottom 10% or so, as far as writing and creative talent go.
Posted by: phylosopher at May 14, 2008 8:32 AM

Posted by: truthseeker at May 15, 2008 7:38 PM


phylosopher @ 2:34 PM I'm self-taught, but have an extensive background in logic, education and programming.

Write upwards of a half a million lines of code that must execute bug-free in assembler, C, C++ and a smattering of other languages and you tend to get really concise, methodical and accurate in order to be efficient.

Dream in boolean logic, think in natural language parsing to arrive at logical syllogisms and then add to that multiple studies of various philosophical worldviews and then copious study of God's Word.

Mix in some artistic visuals and an interest in pedagogical perfection.

Hook me up to the internet - voila! (Now where did I put that dash of humility? ;-)

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 15, 2008 7:49 PM


Go read the book Bystander - it looks more sincere.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 15, 2008 8:03 PM


Chris, I came to the same deduction with nothing but the Holy Spirit as a guide. Amazing!

Posted by: truthseeker at May 15, 2008 8:11 PM


With a touch of logic of course.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 15, 2008 8:35 PM


Hieronymous @ 5:28 PM It's not begging the question to point out that as things currently stand, legally, a zygote or blastocyst is human, but not a legal person. That's just true.

Here's the argument.

1. All humans are worthy of being recognized and legally protected under the law.
2. All zygotes are human.
3. Therefore: All zygotes are worthy of being legally recognized and protected under the law.

You can only attack premise 1 or premise 2.

Premise 2 is embryo science, so refutations there must show that zygotes are not human. (Refutations of this tend to the absurd.)

If you attack premise 1, then you're in Pete Singer's camp of moral dualism - play semantic games and detach "person" from the human being. In essence your body and your "self" become two separate entities. This becomes very problematic. It leads to questions such as how and when did "self" come to be? How can you claim your birth, with this unknown awareness?

Now notice something very important - if you beg the question, assuming what you are trying to prove - that there are non-person humans you end up changing premise 1 to this:

1. Some humans are worthy of being recognized and legally protected under the law.

Notice the dual nature of the premise here - not the universal (uni or single nature). Restated one way: NOT All humans are worthy of being recognized and legally protected under the law.

Put another way: NOT All humans are created equal. (hence Some)

Now that doesn't sound constitutional does it?

Now the only valid conclusion is this:

3. therefore: Some zygotes are worthy of being legally recognized and protected under the law.

That's exactly what we have today - only those who make it through to birth are recognized and protected under the law. So you're assuming what you are trying to prove.

The problem is this position tends toward the cruel subjectivity of "might makes right". Remember I said state identification earlier? That's in premise 1. The state doesn't grant the right to life - it merely recognizes it.

If that recognition doesn't mean universally protection for ALL humans, you end up with nasty crimes against humanity. Read your history. It's true.

Such arguments support slavery, genocide and other crimes against humanity.

Is that really what you are supporting?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 15, 2008 8:59 PM


truthseeker said Chris, I came to the same deduction with nothing but the Holy Spirit as a guide. Amazing!

Which deduction?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 15, 2008 9:01 PM


Save the attack - I noticed that my premises and conclusion in the argument above are transposed in the terms. For all sticklers it should read:

1. All humans are worthy of being recognized and legally protected under the law.
2. All zygotes are human.
3. Therefore: All zygotes are worthy of being recognized and legally protected under the law.


Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 15, 2008 9:05 PM


Thanks for some interesting posts Chris.

Posted by: Patricia at May 15, 2008 9:39 PM


Chris,
The one phylosopher was referring to:
@ truthseeker...as mistaken as your moniker is misleading, but for the benfit of others:

Chris' confusion
Posted by: phylosopher at May 15, 2008 7:22 PM

Maybe you weren't following. Let me know if you need more detail.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 15, 2008 9:40 PM


Chris,
You should wander over to the Obama post. There's a boatload of illogic going on there!

Posted by: Patricia at May 15, 2008 9:44 PM


yllas,

Crawl back under your rock.

Your bizarre rants add nothing to this, or any other discussion of issues.

Posted by: Bystander at May 14, 2008 5:35 PM

****

yllis plays the mooncalf.

Posted by: Guy at May 15, 2008 9:52 PM


1. All humans are worthy of being recognized and legally protected under the law.
2. All zygotes are human.
3. Therefore: All zygotes are worthy of being recognized and legally protected under the law.


Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 15, 2008 9:05 PM
****

The law allows the pregnant woman to make the determination, as it should.

Posted by: Guy at May 15, 2008 9:57 PM


But what about the Catholics Sad Eyed Sally? Just how are the Catholics involved in insurance and denying you some health care for some "it" that you know? You know you can do it bigot, connect the dots for us and show how Catholics are the devil in health care.

Posted by: yllas at May 15, 2008 5:09 AM
****

yllis, you are an embarrasment to Catholics everywhere.

Posted by: Guy at May 15, 2008 10:00 PM


Guy,
Anything to say besides insults? You sound a lttle like Red reincarnated but subdued.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 15, 2008 10:15 PM


Terry G. said it best, I think:


"From what I've seen on this website, yllas is just an idiot, even if a bit of a savant with obsessions."

Posted by: Terry G at April 30, 2008 9:40 PM

Posted by: Olaf at May 15, 2008 10:17 PM


yllas is the anti-Sally...

Posted by: truthseeker at May 15, 2008 11:07 PM


Now, Now,
Dogma Doug is renting out his I.P. address again to Olaff and some Guy again. Shame on you Doug. To bad FF or Laura is channeing through your I.P. address. BTW, Dogma Doug, how's those vile friends, whose id you protected doing? Still being unrepentant?

Posted by: yllas at May 16, 2008 5:54 AM


I use the written words of Sally when describing your beloved Sad Eyed Sally senior Guy, and she defined herself as a three generation anti-Catholic from having deathsex enter her klan family.
Sad Eyed Sally is a person who enjoys being a bigot and finds meaning in hating Catholics. It began with her grandmother having some sex that ended in death. Ask her Senior Rojo, whoops I mean Senior Guy. From her family, she was suckled on the teat of hate and bigotry of Catholics and continues the tradition of bigotry to this moment. But, you know that, huh Guy, and just like Dogma Doug, you'll defend and offer apologetics for anti-Catholics, from being a sympathizer for anti-Catholics everywhere.

Posted by: yllas at May 16, 2008 6:05 AM


That's exactly what we have today - only those who make it through to birth are recognized and protected under the law. So you're assuming what you are trying to prove.

Hi Chris. I actually wasn't trying to prove anything. For purposes of discussion, I was trying to clarify terms, and as I have pointed out, AS THINGS STAND, there are legally recognized persons, which category does not include zygotes, blastocysts, embryos or fetuses, which are nevertheless human.

Again, I was not trying to prove their personhood or lack thereof. I was just pointing out that for purposes of discussion, legal personhood is NOT the same thing as humanity under the law. IT IS A FACT.

Posted by: Hieronymous at May 16, 2008 6:42 AM


Hieronymous @ 6:42 AM legal personhood is NOT the same thing as humanity under the law. IT IS A FACT.

Are you not claiming this point as being true by calling it a FACT?

How then can you say you're not trying to prove something, when your statements reveal that effort?

So your truth claim, as above, makes the law unchangeable?

I'm not denying that currently the unborn remain unrecognized as full moral agents under the law. Yet, simply asserting something as FACT doesn't provide reasoning why it should be so. You're talking positive law which is constructed by the state, and seem to be implying that such law cannot be changed. Do you understand what political liberalism is? You're trying to practice it.

The terms and argument isn't complex.

I've provided a reasonable, rational and valid argument as to why the law is logically invalid. In other words it doesn't have solid grounding. It's morally relative, but such law is at odds with the very principles we (and you) say you uphold. We don't want morally relative laws, any more than we want sociopaths ruling society - right?

You're agreeing that premise 2 is true - zygotes are humans.
Given that, you must be trying to refute premise 1 - you are simply detaching "personhood" from human beings, rendering some humans below, or outside of the protection of the law.

Is this not exactly what you are claiming?

I claim, and can back up with historical evidence, that any state which invalidly "grounds" it's laws on this premise:

Some humans are worthy of being recognized and legally protected under the law.

is open to atrocities and crimes against humanity. I believe Bobby pointed out, the law is to serve us (make our treatment equal) based on our humanity. It cannot be used to effect unequal treatment - correct?

So yes, I'm calling the current law wrong, as well as your claim that the current law should stand without opposition.

Do I think you're ill-intended? No. I believe you are well-intentioned, but have not considered the full scope of the issue, beyond the mere recognition of what constitutes humanity.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 16, 2008 7:36 AM


Patricia @ 9:39 PM

You're welcome!

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 16, 2008 7:44 AM


I really want the broken preview capability fixed.

Edit above: The terms and argument aren't complex.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 16, 2008 7:44 AM


Chris. Oy. I wasn't arguing either way. I just wanted to clarify terms.

Posted by: Hieronymous at May 16, 2008 8:20 AM


Oh - okay - sorry. You're simply stating that is the current state of affairs re: the unborn not being recognized. I acknowledge that is indeed what's happening.

Given your prior standing on the rights of the unborn, I thought you were making that point as an assertion. (and misread the caps as an assertion) Yet, when I finished my post at 7:36 it did occur to me that perhaps, you were just simply clarifying the premise.

I've got work to do. Cheers.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 16, 2008 9:05 AM


Whew! Thanks Chris :-) Cheers to you too.

Posted by: Hieronymous at May 16, 2008 9:47 AM


The Republican platform's right-to-life plank says: "....we endorse legislation that the 14th Amendmentís protections apply to unborn children. "

Only two problems with this: First of all legislation cannot "make clear" the meaning of the 14th Amendment because it is a constitutional provision, whose official meaning is up to the Supreme Court, not Congress.

Also, the 14th Amendment begins, "All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States Ö," so if anything is "clear" it is that the 14th Amendment's protections do NOT apply to the unborn.

Also, the wording of the plank, plus the Equal Protection Clause, together logically imply that women who have abortions should be executed for murder.

For more, read

http://www.slate.com/id/83960/

Posted by: SoMG at May 17, 2008 4:59 PM


Chris A, Hier is correct; in law "legal personhood" is NOT the same as humanity or personhood.

For instance, corporations are legal persons but they are not persons.

Posted by: SoMG at May 17, 2008 5:38 PM


Chris A, Hier is correct; in law "legal personhood" is NOT the same as humanity or personhood.

For instance, corporations are legal persons but they are not persons.
Posted by: SoMG at May 17, 2008 5:38 PM

SOMG, corporations are not legal persons, they are legal entities.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 17, 2008 8:16 PM


yllas: Dogma Doug is renting out his I.P. address again to Olaff and some Guy again.

Uh, no. You are again worshipping at the shrine of Saint Kellogg, that's all.
......

Shame on you Doug. To bad FF or Laura is channeing through your I.P. address. BTW, Dogma Doug, how's those vile friends, whose id you protected doing? Still being unrepentant?

Heh - any number of people, pro-lifers (like those who call you "nutbar" and "nutjob" etc.) as well as pro-choicers, see that you are not always sane. You're lucky the moderators haven't banned you, as silly and puerile as you are. Be thankful for that, and for that fact that real people will respond to you, once in a while.

Posted by: Doug at May 17, 2008 9:02 PM


Posted by: Bystander at May 14, 2008 4:34 PM "My concern is that if you expel a zygote..."

Ahhh, zygote, egg, fetus, potential, this stage, that stage, chromosomes, cells. In context, just name calling of living pre-born human beings in the womb in an attempt to disguise their truthful existence, as the law will soon see them, persons.

So, Mr. brilliant bystander, please enlighten us all at how many of the aforementioned labels have ever been born anything but a human being.

If you could ever pull your head out perhaps the smell would lessen enough to give your senses a chance to experience a taste of reality. Or, do you also advance the agenda of we're all really not here?

Posted by: theonlything2fear at May 17, 2008 11:47 PM


Posted by: Guy at May 15, 2008 9:57 PM "The law allows the pregnant woman to make the determination, as it should."

What law? Man's laws can be summed up this way. For every action their is an equally irrational and negative reaction. Nine men sat on the Roe court, yet I'm told by pro-baby killers all the time that men have no say on this issue because men don't have wombs. Hmmmm

The living human baby in the womb was only possible with 50% from the father and 50% from the mother, leading to a clear and rational misunderstanding of guy's point that only the pregnant woman should determine the fate of the baby, WHOSE BODY and DNA are UNIQUELY ITS OWN.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 18, 2008 12:02 AM


Old Dogma Doug,
protecting and defending those that deface images posted on the net. Why don't you tell the post board here what and who defaced Bethany's images Doug? By law you would have been in some trouble through the act of ommision Dogma Doug.
You should be a man once in your life Dogma Doug and admit your protection and defending of pro murdering oldhippies who deface images using your ip adresss to post here.
And your here by the good graces of the moderators who have more mercy for a thug protecter such as you Dogma Doug.
Renting out a ip address is just a conveninet term, but maybe you can tell the board how let some oldhippie thugs use your ip address to perform acts of vandalism Dogma Doug?.

Posted by: yllas at May 19, 2008 2:10 AM


Old Dogma Doug,
protecting and defending those that deface images posted on the net. Why don't you tell the post board here what and who defaced Bethany's images Doug? By law you would have been in some trouble through the act of ommision Dogma Doug.
You should be a man once in your life Dogma Doug and admit your protection and defending of pro murdering oldhippies who deface images using your ip adresss to post here.%0

Posted by: yllas at May 19, 2008 2:12 AM


Old Dogma Doug,
protecting and defending those that deface images posted on the net. Why don't you tell the post board here what and who defaced Bethany's images Doug? By law you would have been in some trouble through the act of ommision Dogma Doug.
You should be a man once in your life Dogma Doug and admit your protection and defending of pro murdering oldhippies who deface images using your ip adresss to post here.
And your here by the good graces of the moderators who have more mercy for a thug protecter such as you Dogma Doug.
Renting out a ip address is just a conveninet term, but maybe you can tell the board how you let some oldhippie thugs use your ip address to perform acts of vandalism Dogma Doug?.

Posted by: yllas at May 19, 2008 2:12 AM


BTW Dogma Doug,
It is really quite simple when one goes to the root of the argument of abortion. Your for a killing a human being and I am for that human being living.
Your a simple minded Malthusian pessimist who enjoys the decision of death unto others. But, what makes you that special clean conscience pro murderer, is that dogmatic mind that "knows no one has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do".
Why are you here Dogma Doug? No one matters in matters of dogmatic minds such as yours Doug.

Posted by: yllas at May 19, 2008 2:35 AM


yllas, beyond your fruity fantasies there is little in what you say.

There is indeed "simple mindedness" here, and it is on your part. It is not only a question of life or death, it is also the matter of the pregnant woman. If there were not unwanted pregnancies, then pro-choicers wouldn't be "for killing," since it's dependent on the pregnant woman.

No, you certainly don't have a good argument against abortion. Heck, pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike realize that your sanity is at best questionable. Why should someone like you count when we are talking about taking away the freedom of women, here?

There are any number of nuts on the internet, and you are nothing new. Your seventh-grade "arguing" style (heh - if it can even be called that)is itself a logical fallacy.

Posted by: Doug at May 19, 2008 7:20 AM


Now Now Dogma Doug,
My quote of your words, "no one here at this post board has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do", sealed the fact that your mind is closed and dogmatic for death of human beings. My quote of your words was your answer to a question asked by me if ANYONE here or ANYWHERE has a good argument against abortion. That was your reply Dogma Doug.
So what are you doing here since no one matters in matters of abortion, in your dogmatic mind Doug?
But your fruity mind makes such simple minded statements as," It's not only a question of life and death". Your really losing it Dogma Doug. Deep in your dogmatic mind you ONLY make the death of human beings a appeal of pessimistic values(remember appealing to emotions is not logic dogma dougly) that you encourage through making murder a life affirming decision. Is not abortion a life affirming decision Dogma Doug? To which Doug suddenly denies the word affirm in a fit of dogmatic logic fever.
And your myth spreading of abortion history is a fantastic story that you promote to minds that have not thought beyond the propaganda of a Amanda Marcotte and her band of white elitist feminist racist. "Abortion has always been around before written history" is such a fallacy in logic that even you must realize your mind has been propagandized to never think outside the myths you were told over and over till they rang true to your weak mind Dogma Doug.
You cannot prove your myth simply from there being no written history to confirm your myth making of abortion myths(facts for a dogmatic mind) you repeat over and over at this board.
But, your a real winner Dogma Doug, hiding and defending the posters who vandalize and degrade women at this site.
Your such a desperate preacher of murdering human beings that you post while on some cruise to another nation. Think about it champ! What are you really telling this board Dogma Doug? You are a pro abortion addict of proportions rarely met outside of a nuthouse where everyone who passes must here you preach for death and then deny that death has occured by your preaching for death. It is a trait of a dogmatic mind that writes that abortion is "not only a question of life and death".
You really think you win a argument by making a statement that denies anothers argument with those famous words of Doug that always begin with a Not or Nope, or It's Not. Then you write a maybe or might be agnostic statement, to some other point you have decided to pontificate upon, which always moves the argument away from your dogmatic NO statement or Nope statement thus proving in your mind your the champeen of logic.
Really Dogma Doug, it is exactly why your a closed minded dogmatist of unusual proportions who defends anti Catholics and hides the idenities of vandals.

Posted by: yllas at May 19, 2008 8:31 AM


yllas, it was an honest answer to a question, a thing which you are almost entirely unable to do.

No, in my opinion nobody has a good enough argument against abortion, to the point that we would take away the legal freedom that women now have. (Especially not you.)

It's ludicrous for you to mention "desperation." I'm fine and I have a great time on Jill's blog.

You're the one with all the absurd fantasies, in lieu of anything meaningful to say.

As far as religion, it's not a big deal to me. I do agree with the Catholics that say you are an embarrasment, and with the people who say you are an anti-Protestant Nazi. Your behavior has shown that, many times.

You haven't even gotten to the abortion argument yet.

Posted by: Doug at May 19, 2008 7:51 PM


"I use the written words of Sally when describing your beloved Sad Eyed Sally senior Guy, and she defined herself as a three generation anti-Catholic from having deathsex enter her klan family."

Posted by: yllas at May 16, 2008 6:05 AM

This is my first day reading this blog. I've gone through the newer subjects, 14 or 15 of them, and there's good dialogue for the most part.

And then there is you, and yes, "psychotic ramblings" and "bizarre rants" certainly fits. What is wrong with your mind?

Do you pretend to be Catholic? Your behavior here shows you to be decidedly un-Christian.

Can you possibly think that your behavior is somehow "helpful" to the pro-life position?

Posted by: Jenna at May 20, 2008 2:56 PM


The Yllas has the crazy voices in the head.

Posted by: Chang at May 20, 2008 3:49 PM


Jenna: Can you possibly think that your behavior is somehow "helpful" to the pro-life position?

If everybody who claimed to be "pro-life" was like yllas, then women would not have to worry about the issue, and pro-choicers would be pretty much uncontested in argument.

Not a bad thing, eh? ; )

Posted by: Doug at May 20, 2008 8:21 PM


Chang: The Yllas has the crazy voices in the head.

She has said that she has ataxia, and I don't think that necessarily affects the mind.

She has come up with some funny things once in a while, though less now and more in the past.

In that vein, she mentioned "channelling" and if anything I'd say she's channelling Lewis Carroll in 'Jabberwocky' mode and Carmen Miranda too hee hee hee. yllas has been described as a "fruitbat" and if anything I'd say that fits.

I often work with electrical power production/transmission/distribution facilities, and maybe I should turn off the electricity to the insane asylum. (yllas, that means your computer screen would get darker.)

But seriously, I think she's just a sad person - and the ataxia may well be quite involved there - who has largely given up on rational discussion. Few think her other than a waste of time and I guess we'll see...

Posted by: Doug at May 20, 2008 8:38 PM


[maybe I should turn off the electricity to the insane asylum. (yllas, that means your computer screen would get darker.)]

LOL it would do her good. The doctors should know how riled she gets on the computer.

Yllis, you need stronger medication but in the meantime we just have a little fun with you.

Posted by: Olaf at May 20, 2008 10:25 PM


yllis is a voodoo-doll sticking pins in itself.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 21, 2008 10:13 PM