Is 'personhood' important?

[Chuz Life]

My Lawd, I declare! I'm SLOW. Pardon me while I have a moment.

Chuz - I just realized what your name was suppose to be = "choose life" . . . I was reading it all this time as "Chuzz" life.

I get that from time to time.

My estimate is 1 in 25 don't get it.

 

[drz-400]

You have stated numerous times that a human in the fetal stageof their life is a 'person.'

The 14th Amendment (supposedly) protects ALL persons equally.

You have yet to explain away this discrepency.

It protects All legal persons. That means that the conception of a person under the law is normative. The conception of a person under law is not taken from metaphysics, or psychology. Instead it is taken from the courts, the constitution, and jurisprudence. A fetus is not considered a legal person. I could verify this simply from prior court precedent. You would be the one that has to justify why a fetus should now be considered a constitutional person. I have said why I believe this is a bad interpretation of the constitution. It is perfectly sound to think a fetus is a human being, a person, and yet is not protected under the best interpretation of our constitution.

 

[Chuz Life]

It protects All legal persons. That means that the conception of a person under the law is normative. The conception of a person under law is not taken from metaphysics, or psychology. Instead it is taken from the courts, the constitution, and jurisprudence. A fetus is not considered a legal person. I could verify this simply from prior court precedent. You would be the one that has to justify why a fetus should now be considered a constitutional person. I have said why I believe this is a bad interpretation of the constitution. It is perfectly sound to think a fetus is a human being, a person, and yet is not protected under the best interpretation of our constitution.

It's perfectly sound,... Only if you ignore the fact that the 14th uses the words "any" and "all" persons,.. and does not say "only the persons we recognize."

Your point is taken about "legal" persons,... but only in the respect that Blacks were once denied their "legal personhood" status by the use of very similar lines of reason that you and others are using to deny "persons" who don't yet meet YOUR criteria.

The fact is (and the spirit of) the 14th amendment is to recognize and secure the rights of all.

Equally.

And to afford them due process.

Using your line of reason, I could easily make the case that slavery should be legal again.

However, I'd rather not.

 

[drz-400]

Your point is taken about "legal" persons,... but only in the respect that Blacks were once denied their "legal personhood" status by the use of very similar lines of reason that you and others are using to deny "persons" who don't yet meet YOUR criteria.

The fact is (and the spirit of) the 14th amendment is to recognize and secure the rights of all.

Equally.

And to afford them due process.

Using your line of reason, I could easily make the case that slavery should be legal again.

I'd rather not.

I have said that is impossible to treat a fetus and a women equally. They are inside the same body. This complicates the situtaion a little more. I'm not sure how my reasoning would make it easy for you to make the case for slavery. By stating it simply protects all persons you are begging the question, since you have yet to prove a fetus is or should be a constitutional person.

 

[Chuz Life]

I have said that is impossible to treat a fetus and a women equally. They are inside the same body. This complicates the situtaion a little more. I'm not sure how my reasoning would make it easy for you to make the case for slavery. By stating it simply protects all persons you are begging the question, since you have yet to prove a fetus is or should be a constitutional person.

Blacks were once seen as lesser "non legal" non deserving of rights,... "persons."

Your logic is not significantly different than the logic used to deny them "legal personhood" and Constitutional protections.

 

[drz-400]

But it is. People under the law are considered free and equal. We are relying on how citizens tend to think of themselves in a democratic society, not on duties and obligations. That is why I have continually said people should be free to make their own decisions about the sancitity of life, we should not define it for them.

 

[Chuz Life]

But it is. People under the law are considered free and equal. We are relying on how citizens tend to think of themselves in a democratic society, not on duties and obligations. That is why I have continually said people should be free to make their own decisions about the sancitity of life, we should not define it for them.

Do you agree that the right that a person has to their life is useless if others have the right to deny it either out of ignorance or convienience to themselves?

 

[drz-400]

Do you agree that the right that a person has to their life is useless if others have the right to deny it either out of ignorance or convienience to themselves?

Yes, this is exactly why we should consider people (in the normative, political sense) free and equal. This way people can view themselves as self-authenticating sources of valid claims. Others cannot make claims for them.

 

[Chuz Life]

Yes, this is exactly why we should consider people (in the normative, political sense) free and equal. This way people can view themselves as self-authenticating sources of valid claims. Others cannot make claims for them.

So much for the legal concept of "arguing by proxy."

PROXY;

1: the act or practice of a person serving as an authorized agent or substitute for another (used esp. in the phrase by proxy)

2 a: authority or power to act for another

b: a statement or document giving such authorization

specif
: an oral consent or written document (as a power of attorney) given by a stockholder to a specified person or persons to vote corporate stock

3 a: a person authorized to act or make decisions for another
Example: appointed a health-care proxy

 

[drz-400]

So much for the legal concept of "arguing by proxy."

PROXY;

1: the act or practice of a person serving as an authorized agent or substitute for another (used esp. in the phrase by proxy)

2 a: authority or power to act for another

b: a statement or document giving such authorization

specif
: an oral consent or written document (as a power of attorney) given by a stockholder to a specified person or persons to vote corporate stock

3 a: a person authorized to act or make decisions for another
Example: appointed a health-care proxy

Once again, this is why we accept people as free and equal. Some pluralism will exist, since citizens will not be able to agree on a absolute moral authority, or religion, or what some would call "natural law." Our institutions and political structure represent fair agreements between free and equal persons. Our representatives are to regard citizens as free and equal persons. I believe the rest can be justified using rawls original position. We have asked ourselves, what would we agree to without knowing any details about our position in society.

 

[Chuz Life]

Once again, this is why we accept people as free and equal. Some pluralism will exist, since citizens will not be able to agree on a absolute moral authority, or religion, or what some would call "natural law." Our institutions and political structure represent fair agreements between free and equal persons. Our representatives are to regard citizens as free and equal persons. I believe the rest can be justified using rawls original position. We have asked ourselves, what would we agree to without knowing any details about our position in society.

Yet more platitudes,....

Do you believe in the concept of "equal rights for all?" DRZ?

 

[drz-400]

Yet more platitudes,....

Do you believe in the concept of "equal rights for all?" DRZ?

Yep, everyone that is protected under the law should have equal rights.

How do you plan to achieve that if we consider a fetus a constitutional person?

 

[Chuz Life]

Do you believe in the concept of "equal rights for all?" DRZ?

Yep, everyone that is protected under the law should have equal rights.

That's kind of the point of my question, isn't it?

The 14th Amendment says "Any and All and it even includes criminals and illegal aliens."

It (the 14th) doesn't say "any and all LEGAL persons" it says "any and all PERSONS."

You are on record as accepting the fact that a human in the fetal stage of their life is a "person."

So, I'll ask you again,... "do you believe in the concept (as enumerated by the 14th Amendment) of "equal rights for all?"

How do you plan to achieve that if we consider a fetus a constitutional person?

Answer with an un-equivocal yes to my above question and we will talk about it.

 

[Lakryte]

A paralyzed man is an individual life because he does not rely on any biological connection to another organism.

So the key word is not 'capable of independent existence' but rather "biologically disconnected?" You keep changing the definition of what you call an individual life and I am trying to keep up with you.

And a 'devloping organism' is far from an 'organism', in the same way that a baking cake is not a cake and a dead person is not a person.

By that logic a human teenager is not an organism.

It's getting silly in that you are clearly expecting everyone else to use language in the exact same way as you do. This isn't the case.

A person/intelligence does not have to be involved in order for something to be 'taken'.

Out of that list of nearly 100 definition please find the one you are referring to instead of expecting me to find one.

Because the law is bigger than you are, and it disagrees with your morality.

If the law is bigger than me, it is also bigger than you, and if a pro-life law is passed you will just have to deal with it and moral relativism will be flushed down the toilet.

Again, you're using the language of absolutism to try and describe relativism - it simply doesn't hold.

Am I? I am using the same language people who defend abortion are using. I am actually attacking absolutism in that post.

People who want slaves should be able to have slaves right?
People who want abortions should be able to have abortions right?

I view a slave as property, not a person. Why should society regulate my morals?
I view a fetus as a "parasite" not a person. Why should society regulate my morals?

That is not absolutist language at all. I am using moral relativism in the same way slave owners would have used it when defending their so called right to slaves.

 

[Chuz Life]

People who want slaves should be able to have slaves right?
People who want abortions should be able to have abortions right?

I view a slave as property, not a person. Why should society regulate my morals?
I view a fetus as a "parasite" not a person. Why should society regulate my morals?

That is not absolutist language at all. I am using moral relativism in the same way slave owners would have used it when defending their so called right to slaves.

Outstanding observation.

Do you mind if I use this elsewhere?

 

[iangb]

So the key word is not 'capable of independent existence' but rather "biologically disconnected?" You keep changing the definition of what you call an individual life and I am trying to keep up with you.

The two are pretty much synonymous. If something is biologically connected (united, even) to something else then it's generally unlikely that one is capable of independent existence.

The problem with 'independent existence' is that it is a very vague term. Chuz (if memory serves) tends to pick an end and run with it - he tends to either say no-one meets the qualifier (as we are all socially codependent) or everything does (as everything is capable of being considered on its own). However, both of those versions of the definition either make it redundant or rule out everything from 'organism' status - I've gone for a middle ground, using biological dependence only (as we are dealing with a biological definition) and required a more biological connection (as this rules out parasites, etc). The link between the mother and the foetus is complex and interwoven in the extreme - much more like an organ than a parasite.

By that logic a human teenager is not an organism.

No, because 'being a teenager' does not disqualify an organism from the relevant 'organism' status. Being dead, or developing (coming into being) do disqualify an organism.

Out of that list of nearly 100 definition please find the one you are referring to instead of expecting me to find one.

The enormous list was kinda my point. A quick scan through it show several examples... clearly the most relevant would be: "26. To remove by death: The flood took many families."

If the law is bigger than me, it is also bigger than you, and if a pro-life law is passed you will just have to deal with it and moral relativism will be flushed down the toilet.

Actually, your very statement here supports relativism. Yes, if there were pro-life laws I would just have to 'deal with it' - that doesn't mean that I have to abandon my morals to suit the law, in the same way that you have not abandoned your morals to support the current situation.

Am I? I am using the same language people who defend abortion are using. I am actually attacking absolutism in that post.

People who want slaves should be able to have slaves right?
People who want abortions should be able to have abortions right?

I view a slave as property, not a person. Why should society regulate my morals?
I view a fetus as a "parasite" not a person. Why should society regulate my morals?

That is not absolutist language at all. I am using moral relativism in the same way slave owners would have used it when defending their so called right to slaves.

I doubt you will find many moral relativists who think that the law should cater for all different morals, no matter what those morals may be (I would guess they would be calle 'normative relativism fundamentalists'? ). The absolutist language you are using is that you are espousing an absolutist perspective on moral relativism - you are saying that "all people should be allowed to live by their own (relative) set of morals". The relativist view would be that 'allowing people to follow their own set of morals is sometimes good and sometimes bad, depending on the observer'.

 

[Chuz Life]

The problem with 'independent existence' is that it is a very vague term. Chuz (if memory serves) tends to pick an end and run with it - he tends to either say no-one meets the qualifier (as we are all socially codependent) or everything does (as everything is capable of being considered on its own).

:shock:

In the future, when my opinions or views are in question,... I would appreciate it if you put it in the form of a question to me,... Rather than do as you did here and try to speak for me.

 

[drz-400]

That's kind of the point of my question, isn't it?

The 14th Amendment says "Any and All and it even includes criminals and illegal aliens."

It (the 14th) doesn't say "any and all LEGAL persons" it says "any and all PERSONS."

You are on record as accepting the fact that a human in the fetal stage of their life is a "person."

So, I'll ask you again,... "do you believe in the concept (as enumerated by the 14th Amendment) of "equal rights for all?"



Answer with an un-equivocal yes to my above question and we will talk about it.

Yes, so we can keep the debate going. Now justify your position. Please start from the current position, that the current interpretation of the constitution does not regard a fetus as a constitutional person. You can overule this, but you must justify it, you cannot simply say because it is a person since that is begging the question in this case.

Edit: I can't keep my mouth shut. Criminals and illegals have been given protection of the 14th amendment by prior court precedent. So this is not really helping your case.

 

[Chuz Life]

Yes, so we can keep the debate going. Now justify your position. Please start from the current position, that the current interpretation of the constitution does not regard a fetus as a constitutional person. You can overule this, but you must justify it, you cannot simply say because it is a person since that is begging the question in this case.

Edit: I can't keep my mouth shut. Criminals and illegals have been given protection of the 14th amendment by prior court precedent. So this is not really helping your case.

Great!

You are for "equal rights for all persons equally."

You also acknowledge that a human fetus is a "person."

Do you view the 14th's protections of the rights of "persons" to be "inclusive" of "any and all" persons?

Or,... do you view the 14th's protections of the rights persons to be narrowly defined and exclusive,....limited (in spirit) ONLY to those 'persons' recognized by our laws at the time the amendment was written?

 

[ecofarm]

I think the abortion debate comes down to whether one thinks a fetus is a person or not. It's not about people wanting to kill babies for the devil's joy. It's not about people wanting to dominate women and exclude them from decisions. It's not about the Bible, misogynists, the adoption system, population or morals and ethics.

It's about one thing: either you think a fetus is a person and therefore the right to life trumps the right to choose an abortion, or you think a fetus is not a person and therefore the right to choice trumps, well, the absence of anything else.

I don't think people are evil, murderous of babies, woman-hating or freedom-demolishing. I just think we have a disagreement about whether or not a fetus is a human (person, if we want to play semantics). Personally, I think a fetus is a human/person and that is why I am pro-life. Many states in the US apparently agree with me, as killing a pregnant woman generally results in 2 charges of murder.

Of course, it is pretty easy for me to consider a fetus to be a person (or, more specifically, deserving of a person's rights). I'm not sure how much that would matter anyway, being ecocentric; however, that's a whole nother can o worms and it is probably best to just approach this from an anthropocentric viewpoint.

 

[drz-400]

Great!

You are for "equal rights for all persons equally."

You also acknowledge that a human fetus is a "person."

Do you view the 14th's protections of the rights of "persons" to be "inclusive" of "any and all" persons?

Or,... do you view the 14th's protections of the rights persons to be narrowly defined and exclusive,....limited (in spirit) ONLY to those 'persons' recognized by our laws at the time the amendment was written?

I think the abortion debate comes down to whether one thinks a fetus is a person or not. It's not about people wanting to kill babies for the devil's joy. It's not about people wanting to dominate women and exclude them from decisions. It's not about the Bible, misogynists, the adoption system, population or morals and ethics.

It's about one thing: either you think a fetus is a person and therefore the right to life trumps the right to choose an abortion, or you think a fetus is not a person and therefore the right to choice trumps, well, the absence of anything else.

I don't think people are evil, murderous of babies, woman-hating or freedom-demolishing. I just think we have a disagreement about whether or not a fetus is a human (person, if we want to play semantics). Personally, I think a fetus is a human/person and that is why I am pro-life. Many states in the US apparently agree with me, as killing a pregnant woman generally results in 2 charges of murder.

Of course, it is pretty easy for me to consider a fetus to be a person (or, more specifically, deserving of a person's rights). I'm not sure how much that would matter anyway, being ecocentric; however, that's a whole nother can o worms and it is probably best to just approach this from an anthropocentric viewpoint.

Heres a response to both, consider my previous post:

Let us consider a fetus is a constitutional person, and that its competing rights such as its right to life outweigh the rights of a women. Should we prohibit abortion? Well it would seem we would have to. A women may not have to go out of her way to protect a fetus if its life is in danger, so certain life saving surgeries for the fetus would not be required of her, however, by not requiring this we are also denying the fetus a right to life. So we see an inconsistency right from the begining.

An abortion though would require an attack on a fetus, and this would defenetely be unconstitutional if we consider a fetus a constitutional person with competing interests, and that its right to life trumps a womens rights to privacy, bodily seveignty,whatever. However, this view of a fetus as a constitutional person becomes even more muddled. Should we allow women to have an abortion even if her life is in danger by having a child? The women could defend herself, but it would be unconstitutional for a women to kill the inncocent life of the fetus to save her own. The feus's right to life would then be overriding even her own right to life in this situation. I cannot see how this could be justified. To me these inconsitencies make considering a fetus a constitutional person absurd.

I reject the status of a fetus being a constitutional person on these grounds (also for maintaining the coherency and integrity of the law). It is inconsitant with the view of the 1st amendment (we could also consider the 14th) to force a women to be a samaritan and allow doctors to perform life saving treatment to the fetus (for reasons I have stated a million times by now). Likewise the same reasoning applies for the women to kill the innocent fetus to save her own life. It does not come down to choice vs. life if we consider a fetus a constitutional person. A veiw that the 14th amendment protects the fetus, but also can infringe upon its first amendment rights is inconsistent with a hollistic view of the constitution, which I regard as the best way to interpret the document. The constitution is a charter, and I agree with Chuz Life that its principles should be interpreted morally.

 

[ecofarm]

Those aren't inconsistencies. Those are the difficult circumstances that arrive anytime a rule/law/belief is not absolutely perfect all of the time. In other words, they are common difficulties that arise in every moral dilema. Things like "should a person be allowed to commit suicide to end their own suffering?", "should a woman be allowed to terminate a pregnancy because of possible or existing dangerous complications?", "should we be allowed to kill as a matter of justice?" and "when does collateral damage become unacceptable?" all hearken back to a 'right to life' that is neither absolute nor perfect.

Just because there are difficult questions, circumstances and exceptions is no reason to abandon a respect for life (perhaps human in particular). As they say, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[drz-400]

Those aren't inconsistencies. Those are the difficult circumstances that arrive anytime a rule/law/belief is not absolutely perfect all of the time. In other words, they are common difficulties that arise in every moral dilema. Things like "should a person be allowed to commit suicide to end their own suffering?", "should a woman be allowed to terminate a pregnancy because of possible or existing dangerous complications?", "should we be allowed to kill as a matter of justice?" and "when does collateral damage become unacceptable?" all hearken back to a 'right to life' that is neither absolute nor perfect.

Just because there are difficult questions, circumstances and exceptions is no reason to abandon a respect for life (perhaps human in particular). As they say, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Which is exactly why we should take the best interpretation of the constitution we can.

A person under the constitution has derived rights. What you are suggesting is that we should also protect people in these difficult circumstances because life has some intrinsic value, this is a derivative claim. That claim is not supported by the constitution, and is actually prohibited from being enforced by the 1st amendment.

 

[Chuz Life]

The constitution is a charter, and I agree with Chuz Life that its principles should be interpreted morally.

I have never said,.. and neither have I ever believed that the "Constitution should be interpreted morally."

I believe the Constitution should be interpreted "realistically," "literally," and with consideration for the essence or "spirit" or the "intent" being expressed.

I have a hard time reading the 14th Amendment and coming away with it's use of the wording "any persons" and "all persons" as being anything less than "inclusive."

It's clear that you never going to concede that point,.... so I guess we should just let it drop and agree to disagree.

How anyone can use the wording of the 14th Amendment in conjunction with the wording of the 1st Amendment to DENY rights by denying a 'person' equal protection is beyond my ability to comprehend.

 

[iangb]

:shock:

In the future, when my opinions or views are in question,... I would appreciate it if you put it in the form of a question to me,... Rather than do as you did here and try to speak for me.

In what way was I wrong?