Peeling the onion.

[Torus34]

Here in the United States of America there are many levels [Ed.: and side corridors,] to the current 'discussions' -- often little more than shouting matches -- over the issue of abortion. I contend that once the onion is peeled down to an irreducible minimum, the remaining core is a question. That question is, 'What is a human being?' Phrased another way, it becomes, 'What specific characteristic(s) define a human being?'

There are a number of answers to this, ranging from the DNA sequence [Ed.: different for each person with the possible exception of identical twins,] to the ability to use speech, to self-awareness, to . . . .

It's difficult for this poor old country mouse to see how a meaningful discussion can obtain unless both parties agree upon the definition of a human being. Without that, they are discussing apples vs. oranges, itself an exercise in futility.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

 

[poppopfox]

From Britannica - human being, a culture-bearing primate classified in the genus Homo, especially the species H. sapiens. Human beings are anatomically similar and related to the great apes but are distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning. In addition, human beings display a marked erectness of body carriage that frees the hands for use as manipulative members. Some of these characteristics, however, are not entirely unique to humans. The gap in cognition, as in anatomy, between humans and the great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos) is much less than was once thought, as they have been shown to possess a variety of advanced cognitive abilities formerly believed to be restricted to humans.

This is us.

 

[LadyCaptain]

You can probably peel it down to that, but I am pretty sure that a walking, talking, breathing woman with a life and friends and family who love her, is without a shadow of a doubt, a human being.

 

[NatMorton]

Here in the United States of America there are many levels [Ed.: and side corridors,] to the current 'discussions' -- often little more than shouting matches -- over the issue of abortion. I contend that once the onion is peeled down to an irreducible minimum, the remaining core is a question. That question is, 'What is a human being?' Phrased another way, it becomes, 'What specific characteristic(s) define a human being?'

There are a number of answers to this, ranging from the DNA sequence [Ed.: different for each person with the possible exception of identical twins,] to the ability to use speech, to self-awareness, to . . . .

It's difficult for this poor old country mouse to see how a meaningful discussion can obtain unless both parties agree upon the definition of a human being. Without that, they are discussing apples vs. oranges, itself an exercise in futility.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

You are absolutely correct. “What is a human being?” is the core of the abortion debate, not privacy. No one in their right mind would believe a mother’s right to privacy (or any other of her Constitutionally enumerated rights) allows her to end the life of her 2 year old child because we all agree a 2 year old child is a human in possession of the most basic of human rights: the right to live.

The debate hinges on the reality that some believe we don’t become human in this way until birth. Others think it is the point of viability. Still others think it’s the moment of conception. All three perspectives — and just about every other point along this spectrum — have elements of a reasonable argument. And this speaks to the reason Roe had to be overturned. If the abortion debate is really about “what is a human being?” (and it is), it’s just a simple fact that the US Constitution does not grant the courts the authority to make that decision on behalf of the country.

This is a debate that should — and now will — revert to the people and their elected officials. It’s going to be a bumpy ride for the next few years as states sort this out, but ultimately we’ll settle on a collection of abortion laws that represent the will of the people, not the will of a committee of lawyers with lifetime appointments.

Honest legislative victories and honest legislative defeats will leave both sides of this debate in a better place than has judicial fiat.

 

[Loulit01]

From Britannica - human being, a culture-bearing primate classified in the genus Homo, especially the species H. sapiens. Human beings are anatomically similar and related to the great apes but are distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning. In addition, human beings display a marked erectness of body carriage that frees the hands for use as manipulative members. Some of these characteristics, however, are not entirely unique to humans. The gap in cognition, as in anatomy, between humans and the great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos) is much less than was once thought, as they have been shown to possess a variety of advanced cognitive abilities formerly believed to be restricted to humans.

This is us.
View attachment 67389266

Access to the Encyclopedia Britannica is free now? Is that where this is from? Why didn't I know about this site?

(Most of these questions are rhetorical.)

 

[BlueTex]

You are absolutely correct. “What is a human being?” is the core of the abortion debate, not privacy. No one in their right mind would believe a mother’s right to privacy (or any other of her Constitutionally enumerated rights) allows her to end the life of her 2 year old child because we all agree a 2 year old child is a human in possession of the most basic of human rights: the right to live.

The debate hinges on the reality that some believe we don’t become human in this way until birth. Others think it is the point of viability. Still others think it’s the moment of conception. All three perspectives — and just about every other point along this spectrum — have elements of a reasonable argument. And this speaks to the reason Roe had to be overturned. If the abortion debate is really about “what is a human being?” (and it is), it’s just a simple fact that the US Constitution does not grant the courts the authority to make that decision on behalf of the country.

This is a debate that should — and now will — revert to the people and their elected officials. It’s going to be a bumpy ride for the next few years as states sort this out, but ultimately we’ll settle on a collection of abortion laws that represent the will of the people, not the will of a committee of lawyers with lifetime appointments.

Honest legislative victories and honest legislative defeats will leave both sides of this debate in a better place than has judicial fiat.

So 50 different definitions that change over time? A woman's right to privacy will depend on which state and political party is in control? Are rights that can change based on an election really rights?

 

[Loulit01]

This is a debate that should — and now will — revert to the people and their elected officials. It’s going to be a bumpy ride for the next few years as states sort this out, but ultimately we’ll settle on a collection of abortion laws that represent the will of the people, not the will of a committee of lawyers with lifetime appointments.

Honest legislative victories and honest legislative defeats will leave both sides of this debate in a better place than has judicial fiat.

I'm not so sure about this specific part of your post:


“If you think it’s polarized now, you haven’t seen anything yet,” said Mary Ziegler, a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and author of the forthcoming book “Dollars for Life: The Anti-Abortion Movement and the Fall of the Republican Establishment.”

Very soon, if the Supreme Court really discards Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision partly upholding it, we will have two wildly different abortion regimes in this country. About half of states are expected to mostly prohibit abortion; according to the Guttmacher Institute, in 11 states there won’t even be exemptions for rape and incest. A bill moving through the Louisiana Legislature would allow prosecutors to charge those having abortions with homicide.

Blue states, meanwhile, are setting themselves as abortion sanctuaries. Oregon lawmakers recently passed a bill to create a $15 million fund to help cover abortion costs, including for those traveling to the state for the procedure. Something similar is in the works in California. Abortion clinics in Illinois, bordered by several states where abortion is likely to be made illegal, are preparing for a huge influx of patients.
The right won’t be content to watch liberal states try to undermine abortion bans. As the draft of a forthcoming article in The Columbia Law Review puts it, “overturning Roe and Casey will create a novel world of complicated, interjurisdictional legal conflicts over abortion. Instead of creating stability and certainty, it will lead to profound confusion because advocates on all sides of the abortion controversy will not stop at state borders in their efforts to apply their policies as broadly as possible.”

Already, a Missouri lawmaker introduced a measure that would let private citizens sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident get an out-of-state abortion. More such proposals will probably follow. Under a Texas law passed last year, people in other states sending abortion pills through the mail to Texas residents could be extradited to face felony charges, though the authorities in liberal states are unlikely to cooperate.

In anticipation of such legislation, Connecticut just passed a law meant to shield doctors and patients. Among other things, it ensures that no one can be extradited to another state for performing or obtaining an abortion that’s legal in Connecticut, and ensures that people sued under a law like the one proposed in Missouri could countersue to recover their costs.

Experts don’t know how these kinds of interstate battles are going to play out because there’s so little precedent for them. If you’re searching for close parallels, said Ziegler, “you’re looking at fugitive slave cases, because there are not many times in history when states are trying to tell other states what to do in this way.” The point is not that abortion bans are comparable to slavery in a moral sense, but that they create potentially irreconcilable legal frameworks.

Opinion | The Death of Roe Is Going to Tear America Apart

You think we hate each other now? Just wait.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Torus34]

You are absolutely correct. “What is a human being?” is the core of the abortion debate, not privacy. No one in their right mind would believe a mother’s right to privacy (or any other of her Constitutionally enumerated rights) allows her to end the life of her 2 year old child because we all agree a 2 year old child is a human in possession of the most basic of human rights: the right to live.

The debate hinges on the reality that some believe we don’t become human in this way until birth. Others think it is the point of viability. Still others think it’s the moment of conception. All three perspectives — and just about every other point along this spectrum — have elements of a reasonable argument. And this speaks to the reason Roe had to be overturned. If the abortion debate is really about “what is a human being?” (and it is), it’s just a simple fact that the US Constitution does not grant the courts the authority to make that decision on behalf of the country.

This is a debate that should — and now will — revert to the people and their elected officials. It’s going to be a bumpy ride for the next few years as states sort this out, but ultimately we’ll settle on a collection of abortion laws that represent the will of the people, not the will of a committee of lawyers with lifetime appointments.

Honest legislative victories and honest legislative defeats will leave both sides of this debate in a better place than has judicial fiat.

Hi, NatMorton.

Thank you for your extensive response.

I've two comments to add. First, if we define a necessary characteristic of a human being as self-awareness, that doesn't show up in children until well after their first year. To say that self-awareness isn't necessary to be a human being feels a tad strange. I note this just to point out the difficulties in arriving at a definition through logic as opposed to, say, divine revelation.

My second comment is with regard to 'the will of the people'. We can find, in specific politically-controlled jurisdictions, instances in which carefully constructed polls show the will of the people to be one thing and the enacted laws to be counter to that will. Gerrymandering and primary vote turnout levels contribute to that paradox of 'democracy'.

And so it goes.

Regards, best wishes to you and yours.

 

[bluesmoke]

Here in the United States of America there are many levels [Ed.: and side corridors,] to the current 'discussions' -- often little more than shouting matches -- over the issue of abortion. I contend that once the onion is peeled down to an irreducible minimum, the remaining core is a question. That question is, 'What is a human being?' Phrased another way, it becomes, 'What specific characteristic(s) define a human being?'

There are a number of answers to this, ranging from the DNA sequence [Ed.: different for each person with the possible exception of identical twins,] to the ability to use speech, to self-awareness, to . . . .

It's difficult for this poor old country mouse to see how a meaningful discussion can obtain unless both parties agree upon the definition of a human being. Without that, they are discussing apples vs. oranges, itself an exercise in futility.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

Regarding abortion, the question is not "What is a human being" but rather the constitutional question of "When does a fetus become a person." In the former, the death of a fetus is counted as among human deaths. In the latter, it is when the fetus becomes viable that determines being a person. Without accepting those definition, the OP leads all reply astray.

 

[Torus34]

Regarding abortion, the question is not "What is a human being" but rather the constitutional question of "When does a fetus become a person." In the former, the death of a fetus is counted as among human deaths. In the latter, it is when the fetus becomes viable that determines being a person. Without accepting those definition, the OP leads all reply astray.

Hi, bluesmoke.

I submit that 'When does a fetus become a person' is simply a rephrasing of 'What defines a human being?' Unless, of course, we will somehow find a way to differentiate between 'person' and 'human being'.

Regards, best to you and yours.

 

[Loulit01]

Hi, NatMorton.

Thank you for your extensive response.

I've two comments to add. First, if we define a necessary characteristic of a human being as self-awareness, that doesn't show up in children until well after their first year. To say that self-awareness isn't necessary to be a human being feels a tad strange. I note this just to point out the difficulties in arriving at a definition through logic as opposed to, say, divine revelation.

My second comment is with regard to 'the will of the people'. We can find, in specific politically-controlled jurisdictions, instances in which carefully constructed polls show the will of the people to be one thing and the enacted laws to be counter to that will. Gerrymandering and primary vote turnout levels contribute to that paradox of 'democracy'.

And so it goes.

Regards, best wishes to you and yours.

Good post and what I believe to be a Kurt Vonnegut Jr. reference. Nice job.

 

[NatMorton]

Hi, NatMorton.

Thank you for your extensive response.

I've two comments to add. First, if we define a necessary characteristic of a human being as self-awareness, that doesn't show up in children until well after their first year. To say that self-awareness isn't necessary to be a human being feels a tad strange. I note this just to point out the difficulties in arriving at a definition through logic as opposed to, say, divine revelation.

My second comment is with regard to 'the will of the people'. We can find, in specific politically-controlled jurisdictions, instances in which carefully constructed polls show the will of the people to be one thing and the enacted laws to be counter to that will. Gerrymandering and primary vote turnout levels contribute to that paradox of 'democracy'.

And so it goes.

Regards, best wishes to you and yours.

But why must we define self-awareness as a necessary criterion to protect life? A person in a coma does not lose their right to life.

Also, I don't see how quibbles with how we implement democracy matter here. Both sides gerrymander. Those who choose not to turn out to vote from either side don't get a say in the matter. Neither of these is reason to say a democratic process is the wrong process for addressing differences on this issue.

"Oh please, Great Tribunal of Lawyers, our democracy is imperfect, so you need to make the tough decisions for us."

No.

 

[NatMorton]

Regarding abortion, the question is not "What is a human being" but rather the constitutional question of "When does a fetus become a person." In the former, the death of a fetus is counted as among human deaths. In the latter, it is when the fetus becomes viable that determines being a person. Without accepting those definition, the OP leads all reply astray.

You're off base there. In this context, those two questions are asking the same thing. They are not different in any meaningful way.

 

[vegas giants]

Here in the United States of America there are many levels [Ed.: and side corridors,] to the current 'discussions' -- often little more than shouting matches -- over the issue of abortion. I contend that once the onion is peeled down to an irreducible minimum, the remaining core is a question. That question is, 'What is a human being?' Phrased another way, it becomes, 'What specific characteristic(s) define a human being?'

There are a number of answers to this, ranging from the DNA sequence [Ed.: different for each person with the possible exception of identical twins,] to the ability to use speech, to self-awareness, to . . . .

It's difficult for this poor old country mouse to see how a meaningful discussion can obtain unless both parties agree upon the definition of a human being. Without that, they are discussing apples vs. oranges, itself an exercise in futility.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

Not the issue at all. It's a human being that is killed in an abortion and I am fine with that

 

[Torus34]

But why must we define self-awareness as a necessary criterion to protect life? A person in a coma does not lose their right to life.

Also, I don't see how quibbles with how we implement democracy matter here. Both sides gerrymander. Those who choose not to turn out to vote from either side don't get a say in the matter. Neither of these is reason to say a democratic process is the wrong process for addressing differences on this issue.

"Oh please, Great Tribunal of Lawyers, our democracy is imperfect, so you need to make the tough decisions for us."

No.

Hi again, NatMorton.

How democracy is implemented is important. Remember the saying, 'One vote one time once.' It defines the descent into either an oligarchy or a dictatorship. The use of self-awareness as a human characteristic was just one of many possible distinguishments. A person in a coma had, prior to that, probably demonstrated self-awareness, nu? Let's not go further down this particular rabbit hole.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Torus34]

Not the issue at all. It's a human being that is killed in an abortion and I am fine with that

Hi, vegas giants.

How is a human being defined?

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

 

[NatMorton]

Hi again, NatMorton.

How democracy is implemented is important. Remember the saying, 'One vote one time once.' It defines the descent into either an oligarchy or a dictatorship. The use of self-awareness as a human characteristic was just one of many possible distinguishments. A person in a coma had, prior to that, probably demonstrated self-awareness, nu? Let's not go further down this particular rabbit hole.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

Of course implementing democracy in a fair way is important, but why is that relevant here? You seem to be saying that because our democracy is not perfect that maybe this issue should be left with the courts. If that's not what you're implying, what is the relevance of the observation?

 

[vegas giants]

Hi, vegas giants.

How is a human being defined?

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

A member of the species homo sapien

 

[Torus34]

Of course implementing democracy in a fair way is important, but why is that relevant here? You seem to be saying that because our democracy is not perfect that maybe this issue should be left with the courts. If that's not what you're implying, what is the relevance of the observation?

Hi again, NM.

We seem to be straying further and further from the original assertion, to which we agreed, that the definition of what constitutes a human being is central to the abortion brouhaha. I could add that an examination of what, specifically, defines a baby as a baby is also of more than a little importance.

Regards.

 

[Torus34]

A member of the species homo sapien [sic]

Hi again, vg.

So far, so good.

How do we recognize a member of the species h. sapiens from other living things? What are the specific defining characteristics?

Regards, best wishes to you and yours.

 

[NatMorton]

Hi again, NM.

We seem to be straying further and further from the original assertion, to which we agreed, that the definition of what constitutes a human being is central to the abortion brouhaha. I could add that an examination of what, specifically, defines a baby as a baby is also of more than a little importance.

Regards.

I'm not the one who injected "gerrymandering" into the discussion; you did. I'm the one who called it irrelevant.

But yes, a legal definition of when we acquire human rights is the issue here. Fortunately, we now get to sort through that with a democratic process and not one closer to authoritarianism.

 

[vegas giants]

Hi again, vg.

So far, so good.

How do we recognize a member of the species h. sapiens from other living things? What are the specific defining characteristics?

Regards, best wishes to you and yours.

DNA

 

[Lursa]

Here in the United States of America there are many levels [Ed.: and side corridors,] to the current 'discussions' -- often little more than shouting matches -- over the issue of abortion. I contend that once the onion is peeled down to an irreducible minimum, the remaining core is a question. That question is, 'What is a human being?' Phrased another way, it becomes, 'What specific characteristic(s) define a human being?'

There are a number of answers to this, ranging from the DNA sequence [Ed.: different for each person with the possible exception of identical twins,] to the ability to use speech, to self-awareness, to . . . .

It's difficult for this poor old country mouse to see how a meaningful discussion can obtain unless both parties agree upon the definition of a human being. Without that, they are discussing apples vs. oranges, itself an exercise in futility.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

To make any changes to the laws regarding abortion, we need to focus on legal definitions, dont we?

The Const clearly states that only born people are citizens (and people naturalized) with rights in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment.

Then the legal code clarifies this for the purpose of making law:

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant​

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.​

​

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.​

​

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

www.law.cornell.edu

Does this clarify it for you? Do you find this a satisfactory definition? If not, why not?

 

[Torus34]

DNA

Hi again, vg.

No two people have the same DNA, excepting only identical twins. What, specifically, about the DNA specifies human beings/h. sapiens?

Regards.

 

[NolanVoyd]

I remember being young and wondering what people meant when they referred to people as "Human Beans".