Peeling the onion.

[Torus34]

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

Hi, NolanVoyd.

Thanks for an evening chuckle. They tend to be few and far between these days.

Regards, and best wishes for you and yours.

 

[vegas giants]

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.

Every human being shares a common DNA different from any other species

 

[Patriotic Voter]

The definition of a human is absolutely NOT what makes abortion moral or immoral. The only way to make everyone agree is do what I always tell people to do: search for, read, and post totally objective, extremely obvious, repeatedly proven facts from websites I trust to be unbiased (such as medical associations and law schools) about the positive and negative effects of abortion on society in general (not just the mother's family and friends) and the constitutionality of restricting or banning abortion rights.

 

[Torus34]

Every human being shares a common DNA different from any other species

Hi again, vg.

OK. Let's take that as a definition. That same DNA is found in a male human sperm cell. Therefore, a male human sperm cell is a human being, right?

What I'm attempting to do by these questions isn't intended to reflect upon you as a fellow human being in any way. Nor, for that matter, do I intend to change your beliefs, whatever they may be. That's probably impossible. My purpose is simply to show just how complex the whole process of abortion really is. Lots of folks are satisfied with really straight-forward, simple comments and beliefs, but when examined, these are often flawed.

Regards, stay safe 'n well . . . and keep thinking.

 

[trouble13]

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.

I disagree...

The core question, imo, is if a person has the liberty to kill a life they created.

 

[Torus34]

I disagree...

The core question, imo, is if a person has the liberty to kill a life they created.

Hi, trouble13.

Thank you for taking time to respond to my post. I note your disagreement.

I wonder, though, if you have considered the ramifications of the second sentence. Let's say I plant a cabbage seed. It sprouts and grows. Have I the right to uproot it and kill it?

I'm not trying to poke fun at your statement. Rather, I'm attempting to show that some of the issues of the day are deserving of precise and careful thought. With regard to abortion, part of that process is defining what constitutes a human life.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[trouble13]

Hi, trouble13.

Thank you for taking time to respond to my post. I note your disagreement.

I wonder, though, if you have considered the ramifications of the second sentence. Let's say I plant a cabbage seed. It sprouts and grows. Have I the right to uproot it and kill it?

I'm not trying to poke fun at your statement. Rather, I'm attempting to show that some of the issues of the day are deserving of precise and careful thought. With regard to abortion, part of that process is defining what constitutes a human life.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

Point taken about a cabbage.

I don't see what there is to debate in terms of a human life. Regardless of what stage its in its all human life.

A human embryo is both alive and human

 

[vegas giants]

Hi again, vg.

OK. Let's take that as a definition. That same DNA is found in a male human sperm cell. Therefore, a male human sperm cell is a human being, right?

What I'm attempting to do by these questions isn't intended to reflect upon you as a fellow human being in any way. Nor, for that matter, do I intend to change your beliefs, whatever they may be. That's probably impossible. My purpose is simply to show just how complex the whole process of abortion really is. Lots of folks are satisfied with really straight-forward, simple comments and beliefs, but when examined, these are often flawed.

Regards, stay safe 'n well . . . and keep thinking.

Incorrect. A sperm cell only contains half the number of chromosomes

 

[Torus34]

Point taken about a cabbage.

I don't see what there is to debate in terms of a human life. Regardless of what stage its in its all human life.

A human embryo is both alive and human

Hi again, trouble13.

Thanks again for the chat.

I'm not trying to get you to change your beliefs. That's neigh on impossible in the vast majority of instances. If you start, even a little, to look at the common comments about the various issues facing us and dig a bit on the 'talking points', I'll consider myself well rewarded.

Regards, best wishes to you and yours.

 

[trouble13]

Hi again, trouble13.

Thanks again for the chat.

I'm not trying to get you to change your beliefs. That's neigh on impossible in the vast majority of instances. If you start, even a little, to look at the common comments about the various issues facing us and dig a bit on the 'talking points', I'll consider myself well rewarded.

Regards, best wishes to you and yours.

I'm not trying to change your mind either. I'm just sharing my perspective. It's what open minded people do

 

[bluesmoke]

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.

The diff btx a person and a human being is that all persons are human beings but not all human beings are persons. A case exception would be corporations that the SC ruled are people or persons in certain respect.

 

[bluesmoke]

Point taken about a cabbage.

I don't see what there is to debate in terms of a human life. Regardless of what stage its in its all human life.

A human embryo is both alive and human

The point to do with human being v person is that a human embryo is alive, but not viable to be a person.

 

[trouble13]

The point to do with human being v person is that a human embryo is alive, but not viable to be a person.

Is that a justification to kill it

 

[Torus34]

The diff btx a person and a human being is that all persons are human beings but not all human beings are persons. A case exception would be corporations that the SC ruled are people or persons in certain respect.

Hi, bluesmoke.

Thanks for the post. It's a distinction I hadn't thought of. In repayment, note that corporations were only too happy to be able to contribute as 'persons' to the 'campaign' funds of politicians. They did not, however, press the Supreme Court for the right to vote, considering the possession of the right to cast a single vote as not worth the effort and legal fees involved.

Regards, beat wishes to you and yours.

 

[Lursa]

@Torus34 Hello. I was wondering why you have not responded to my post 23?

It provided what you asked for in your OP and also has a couple of questions that should enable further discussion.

I hope you'll find time to address them.

 

[multivita-man]

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.

That's not the core question for me. Although there's no question that the issue of when a fetus begins to develop sentience and a nervous system does factor heavily in this discussion, for me, the core question or issue is human autonomy. Governments that prohibit or severely restrict abortion are interfering with a person's autonomy and their natural right to use their body as they see fit.

That being said, I don't think that autonomy exists in total isolation, either. All things equal, there's a difference between aborting a fetus at 6-10 weeks and aborting a nearly developed baby that's just weeks away from being born. I am probably more sympathetic to restrictions on mid or late-term abortions among women who are using abortion as birth control.

Admittedly, these lines are not easy to draw, which is why, as much as I can conceded that Roe v Wade contained controversy, I think it was generally a good compromise. Unfortunately, today's conservative movement was born out of the abortion debate and for that reason is totally opposed to compromise and reasonable discussion of any kind.

 

[Torus34]

That's not the core question for me. Although there's no question that the issue of when a fetus begins to develop sentience and a nervous system does factor heavily in this discussion, for me, the core question or issue is human autonomy. Governments that prohibit or severely restrict abortion are interfering with a person's autonomy and their natural right to use their body as they see fit.

That being said, I don't think that autonomy exists in total isolation, either. All things equal, there's a difference between aborting a fetus at 6-10 weeks and aborting a nearly developed baby that's just weeks away from being born. I am probably more sympathetic to restrictions on mid or late-term abortions among women who are using abortion as birth control.

Admittedly, these lines are not easy to draw, which is why, as much as I can conceded that Roe v Wade contained controversy, I think it was generally a good compromise. Unfortunately, today's conservative movement was born out of the abortion debate and for that reason is totally opposed to compromise and reasonable discussion of any kind.

Hi, multivita-man.

Thank you for taking time to post a response. Lotsa stuff in it to discuss. We share, btw, a queasy feeling about very late term abortions. Happily, they are quite rare in the United States of America. A major education program coupled with information on and access to abortion pills would probably reduce both late and middle-term abortions more than somewhat.

There's a tendency for both the far right and the far left to assume absolutist positions. In fact, it's what we can use as a guide to defining the 'far' ends of the spectrum. A goodly part for the feeling by those who are center or left that conservatives -- that is, those who espouse neoliberal positions [The terminology gets convoluted, no?] -- are unyielding is because of the reliance on one side on facts and logic while the other side works from an emotional/morality starting block.

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

 

[Patriotic Voter]

The point to do with human being vs. person is that a human embryo is alive, but not viable to be a person.

Personhood has nothing to do with viability. You will still be a person after you die. It is all about the answer to one yes or no question: Has the human life been born yet?

 

[bluesmoke]

Hi, bluesmoke.

Thanks for the post. It's a distinction I hadn't thought of. In repayment, note that corporations were only too happy to be able to contribute as 'persons' to the 'campaign' funds of politicians. They did not, however, press the Supreme Court for the right to vote, considering the possession of the right to cast a single vote as not worth the effort and legal fees involved.

Regards, beat wishes to you and yours.

I noted such and therefor used the wording of person rights of a corp as being "...persons in certain respect."

 

[bluesmoke]

Personhood has nothing to do with viability. You will still be a person after you die. It is all about the answer to one yes or no question: Has the human life been born yet?

In R v W, establishing personhood protects the unborn child from abortion for having the rights of a "person" under the Constitution. The question was at what point is an unborn child a person due the equal protection under the Constitution, such as due process. The answer was the viability standard, establishing the point at which an unborn fetus becomes a person.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

In R v W, establishing personhood protects the unborn child from abortion for having the rights of a "person" under the Constitution. The question was at what point is an unborn child a person due the equal protection under the Constitution, such as due process. The answer was the viability standard, establishing the point at which an unborn fetus becomes a person.

Incorrect. When a fetus is viable, states can decide whether to let the mother get an abortion or not. To call viable fetuses people, there must be a federal law identifying them as such. That law would obviously be unconstitutional.

 

[Lursa]

@Torus34 Hello. I was wondering why you have not responded to my post 23?

It provided what you asked for in your OP and also has a couple of questions that should enable further discussion.

I hope you'll find time to address them.

 

[Lursa]

@Torus34 Hello. I was wondering why you have not responded to my post 23?

It provided what you asked for in your OP and also has a couple of questions that should enable further discussion.

I hope you'll find time to address them.

 

[Lursa]

@Torus34 Hello. I was wondering why you have not responded to my post 23?

It provided what you asked for in your OP and also has a couple of questions that should enable further discussion.

I hope you'll find time to address them.

 

[Lursa]

In R v W, establishing personhood protects the unborn child from abortion for having the rights of a "person" under the Constitution. The question was at what point is an unborn child a person due the equal protection under the Constitution, such as due process. The answer was the viability standard, establishing the point at which an unborn fetus becomes a person.

The court was very clear, the unborn is not a person, at any point.

"On 22 January 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court declared that an unborn child enjoys no constitutional protection before he or she emerges from the womb. Even after viability, the fetus in utero counts only as a "potentiality of human life.""​

​

--and--​

​

The Supreme Court’s abortion rulings include four principal elements: 1. The unborn child is a non-person and therefore has no constitutional rights; 2. The right of his mother to kill that non-person is a “ liberty Charles E. Rice 3 interest” protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; 3. The states may impose some marginal restrictions on abortion but are barred from effectively prohibiting abortion at any stage of pregnancy; 4. Efforts undertaken in the vicinity of an abortuary to dissuade women from abortion are subject to more stringent restrictions than are other forms of speech, assembly and association.​

​

http://www.uffl.org/vol%209/rice9.pdf