Fertilization-Assigned Personhood [FAP]

[GeoffP]

It's weird that one is being demanded to confront the OP... when in fact, the OP has nothing to do with the limitations being discussed. How could it? Is there anyone on SF that would back the issue of contention in the OP? If so, speak up now. If not, we kind of have to conclude that its a trolling thread designed to showcase the comments the OPer doesn't like from the second post in the thread. Not hugely ethical, that; but in pursuit of the solution, I guess any kind of damnation will have to do.

 

[Bells]

It's weird that one is being demanded to confront the OP... when in fact, the OP has nothing to do with the limitations being discussed. How could it? Is there anyone on SF that would back the issue of contention in the OP? If so, speak up now. If not, we kind of have to conclude that its a trolling thread designed to showcase the comments the OPer doesn't like from the second post in the thread. Not hugely ethical, that; but in pursuit of the solution, I guess any kind of damnation will have to do.

So why can't you answer the question?

You cannot limit personhood.

You example, you are a person. In your own right. You are an individual with rights that are protected and enshrined by the very Constitution of your country. These are inalienable rights and as such, cannot ever be taken away.

A woman is also a person. As such, her rights are inalienable. They cannot be reduced or taken away.

If you declare a foetus to be a "person", or you grant it 'personhood', then you are creating a new class of "person". So by the very definition and allocation of "personhood", the foetus then also gains and naturally obtains inalienable rights and protections. Equal to that of the mother in which it resides.

Now, with one's personhood being inalienable, these rights cannot be limited or reduced and the very protections you have as a "person", it means that the status and protections of the foetus will be exactly the same as the mother's. There is a push to have this apply from the moment of conception. As such, with one's 'personhood' being inalienable, you are either a person or you are not. By the very definition of personhood, there can be no middle ground. If there is, then it cannot be a person.

When a woman, a person, is pregnant and her fertilised egg through to foetus is legally recognised as a person, which brings with it inalienable rights, then what happens with the mother's personhood and her inalienable rights? When people say 'she's a person but the foetus also has rights', then by that very definition, she is no longer actually a "person". Personhood and all the rights that come with it cannot be in conflict with another person. A foetus residing inside the mother and is deemed as a "person" will have equal rights and protections as the mother. Which means that you will instantly have a conflict of inalienable rights. When people say that the mother has a responsibility or obligation to continue with the pregnancy because she is carrying a "person" in her womb, then automatically, she ceases to be a "person". Her inalienable rights suddenly cease to exist. Because the two "persons" cannot compete while existing inside the same body. And it also means that there can never really be exemptions from the moment you declare a foetus a "person". So if the mother falls ill or something happens that requires care that could harm the foetus, then by law, the rights of the "person" she is carrying cannot be infringed upon. It cannot be deliberately harmed or killed to deliberately save the mother. You can't even take it out early because that is also an infringement of its personhood as premature birth can cause it harm or even death.

This is why the directives from the Catholic Church amounts to a refusal of treating even women who are miscarrying or suffering from an ectopic pregnancy if there is still a foetal heartbeat in the "person" inside her. And why a very young girl was allowed to die and was refused an abortion when she was diagnosed with cancer while she was pregnant. Since her foetus was classified as a person, it could not be aborted and she could not be treated as the treatment would harm the "person" inside her, when she was diagnosed early on in the first trimester. They denied her treatment at first and then in the 2nd trimester, started chemo.. They made sure to keep checking on the health of her foetus. She started to bleed since she was pregnant during chemo, miscarried and because of her cancer treatment, she bled to death because of the miscarriage and the cancer treatment that they finally allowed her to have while she was pregnant because it was illegal to terminate the "person" inside her body. The Dominican Republic classifies 'personhood' from the moment of conception. She was 16 years of age. And it is also why a young woman was allowed to die in Ireland because they would not treat her miscarriage as there was still a heartbeat in the "person" in her uterus.. She died a few days later due to organ and heart failure after her miscarriage went septic and caused her to go septic.

Hence the question in the OP..

And it is telling that you disregard it and refuse to answer it.

Don't worry. Politicians who are doing their best to impose 'personhood' on the 'unborn' also refuse to answer it and never address it. The foundation of this refusal is based on political misogyny.

 

[billvon]

You cannot limit personhood.

Disagree. The "personhood" of children is limited. They do not have the right to decide what is done with their bodies; if a 5 year old has a tumor, the parents decide how to treat it, even if the child objects. They cannot vote. They cannot drive. They cannot manage their own affairs. They slowly gain these rights of a full person until they are 21 at which point they have all the rights anyone else has.

Likewise, even fetuses currently have a limited set of rights. If a murderer harms a woman and kills her fetus, in most states he will be charged with some form of homicide - because we recognize that fetuses have SOME (not a lot, but some) rights.

You example, you are a person. In your own right. You are an individual with rights that are protected and enshrined by the very Constitution of your country. These are inalienable rights and as such, cannot ever be taken away.

Of course they can be. Rights are taken away from criminals, the insane, the demented and the brain-dead regularly. Sometimes all of them, sometimes a subset of them depending on the case. An insane man, for example, may lose his right to freedom but not his right to life.

 

[Tiassa]

Something About Ethics: Real Issues vs. Real Desire to Avoid Such

It's weird that one is being demanded to confront the OP... when in fact, the OP has nothing to do with the limitations being discussed. How could it? Is there anyone on SF that would back the issue of contention in the OP? If so, speak up now. If not, we kind of have to conclude that its a trolling thread designed to showcase the comments the OPer doesn't like from the second post in the thread. Not hugely ethical, that; but in pursuit of the solution, I guess any kind of damnation will have to do.

Let us consider implications:

(1) This thread is the third incarnation of an issue discussion that has been taking place over the last nineteen months that pertains to "life at conception" when "conception" actually means "fertilization".

—I am reminded of an occasion recently when one of the participants in the prior LACP thread angrily demanded to know who the hell believes in LACP because he sure as hell never conceded it. Setting aside that his statement suggests he doesn't understand what it means to concede an argument at the outset—i.e., allow a controversial presupposition to stand for the sake of argument—it was even more telling that someone so invested in the abortion debate was (ahem!) "apparently" unaware that this is a real issue in the American public discourse. As you might expect, when those bills and ballot measures were pointed out, he changed the subject.​

(2) Your moral outrage about dry-foot originates with a distorted attempt to resurrect a prior thread without addressing its underlying question. To borrow a phrase, "Not hugely ethical, that".

—Your argument raises the proposition that discussing the facts and implications of a real issue is somehow inappropriate in this community because you have a hard time imagining that anyone would believe in such a standard. There are plenty of PIU advocates here, as we see, and the thing about whether or not anyone in this community will explicitly back FAP is that it is really hard to do so rationally vis à vis the implications, so what we get from personhood advocates in general is all manner of static intended to avoid the question.​

(3) You're a living satire of a Carly Simon song. I'll skip the pedantry of making bones out of the fact that I didn't write the second post in the thread, since we can all figure out what you mean. But that's just it: Of course you think this thread is about you. In truth, Geoff, this is about a real issue taking place in my society. That this should somehow offend you is a peripheral concern at best, and only because you have proposed such a stupid notion.​

Meanwhile, since you're down to some unspecified magical fantasy in order to resolve the conflict of rights, it's true that people can see why you'd rather trade the question out for something of your own devising.

And again, the phrase, "Not hugely ethical, that", occurs to me.

When the FAPpery arises there are plenty in the electorate or the state houses who will vote for the law because it is "pro-life", and "abortion is murder", and neither will they give much consideration to the existential, ontological, and, ultimately, juristic implications of what they're about to do.

Right now, the courts are the ones holding the line. If you ever want to see a opinion written by a court loathing the decision it's handing down, see 2012 OK 42, 286 P.3d 637, "In re Initiative Petition No. 395, State Question No. 761"; it's a straightforward, "Sorry, you can't do this, and don't blame us", decision.

Any PIU advocacy will inherently invoke the equal protection conflict; FAP proposals, such as the one in committee in South Carolina right now, bring the issue explicitly front and center.
____________________

Notes:

The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. "Order In re Initiative Petition No. 395, State Question No. 761". 2012 OK 42, 286 P.3d 637. April 30, 2012. OCSN.net. May 14, 2014. http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465514

 

[GeoffP]

The No-Math Solution

So why can't you answer the question?

You cannot limit personhood.

Of course I can; it lies this side of reasonable neural cognition. Or are you going to now also pretend that power of attorney doesn't pass on to nearest relatives in the case of a brain-dead patient? It doesn't really matter for the purposes of this argument, but are these people persons also?

Speaking of brain-dead: ten seconds to solve that particular drunken dilemma.

If you declare a foetus to be a "person", or you grant it 'personhood', then you are creating a new class of "person". So by the very definition and allocation of "personhood", the foetus then also gains and naturally obtains inalienable rights and protections. Equal to that of the mother in which it resides.

What stage of fetus? What are its biological capacities? What is its cognition? It is that which differentiates a person from a non-person, not crossing the Vagina Line. I think it was Capracus that made that comment that you said offended you so mightily; I begin to see his point in greater colour. Your last sentence here is - actually - telling: the mother in which it resides. So position is a condition of the definition. And when the fetus is capable of being removed? Does that not matter? Is it akin to a kind of trespassing, where the mother can choose to use lethal force, like a kind of "stand your womb"? You haven't addressed these points when they've been posed to you earlier; I would like an answer to them this time, out of curiosity if nothing else.

Now, with one's personhood being inalienable, these rights cannot be limited or reduced and the very protections you have as a "person", it means that the status and protections of the foetus will be exactly the same as the mother's. There is a push to have this apply from the moment of conception.

How unfortunate. I am not part of that push. Neither have I proposed it. Thus, what you are telling me in part is "I cannot logically object to your conception of the situation, but if allowed it might create other political problems for my point of view" - a view which, I remind you, is absolutist. This does not bode well for your consideration of DF as a 'logical' breakpoint, though I grant you it is certainly an observable one.

As such, with one's 'personhood' being inalienable, you are either a person or you are not. By the very definition of personhood, there can be no middle ground. If there is, then it cannot be a person.

Fascinating: what is this 'middle ground' that I have seemingly proposed without intending to, planning to, or having actually presented? I mean, I suppose it's not impossible that, genius that I am, in process of making the arguments I already have that the incredible flames of my own cognition have produced a new, unrelated argument that has sprung up from the other work, like the phoenix rising from the flame, or Aphrodite leaping out of my own fertile mind. However, if so, this fire has not served and has in fact scorched the meanings here.

So can you define what this middle ground is in your conception? If you're suggesting that I have made such a presentation, I think you might find yourself somewhat in error. That or this is sheer pretension on your part.

When a woman, a person, is pregnant and her fertilised egg through to foetus is legally recognised as a person

We are again encouraged to view the situation incorrectly, possibly so as to satisfy your political aims. Why would I take up with the conception that a fertilised egg is now a person?

 

[GeoffP]

Things that are and aren't and never were

Let us consider implications:

(1) This thread is the third incarnation of an issue discussion that has been taking place over the last nineteen months that pertains to "life at conception" when "conception" actually means "fertilization".​

Ah, good! However, I never made such an argument.

(2) Your moral outrage about dry-foot originates with a distorted attempt to resurrect a prior thread without addressing its underlying question. To borrow a phrase, "Not hugely ethical, that".

Well, it would be those things, if only it were those things. You see, the idea might originate with that earlier thread, but my moral outrage about DF originates with Bells' raising the concept of DF that drew me in. I assume DF is cited there also? Not all of us follow the SF 'personalities magazine', Tiassa; I don't know which celebrities you're dining with tonight. Or should I just be more plain: not everyone follows your presumably academic banter on SF, and so I took no notice of your I'm sure very exquisite thread until quite recently. This is the second or third time I've had to explain this to you; I hope this issue is now settled?

But regarding these quotes - are these yours? If so, why do you include them? You're not writing up a particularly pedantic book, but making a pedantic argument on the internet. No need to cite yourself, old fellow; we know the colours of your delusions already.

(3) You're a living satire of a Carly Simon song.

Oh good! Is it the one about anticipation? She's a looker, that one.

I'll skip the pedantry of making bones out of the fact that I didn't write the second post in the thread, since we can all figure out what you mean.

Good ungod. You're right: that was Balerion.

But that's just it: Of course you think this thread is about you. In truth, Geoff, this is about a real issue taking place in my society.

Oh - see, I was so confused that highlighting my points about a breakpoint for abortion somewhere later than the start of the third trimester should have been featured so prominently in a post which was so obviously just about your society; you know, the one you live in. I can't think what I was thinking: I guess that in the debate about an absolute threshold for abortion as being birth versus some meaningful biological point I somehow mistook your juxtaposition of the latter point with rights at fertilisation to mean that you confused these two things. It was just as though for a moment, you seemed to think they were the same! I know, I know: I was foolish to consider that you could possibly be so unutterably stupid.

Meanwhile, since you're down to some unspecified magical fantasy in order to resolve the conflict of rights, it's true that people can see why you'd rather trade the question out for something of your own devising.

Well of course it's magical, Tiassa, all these drugs and scanners and machines that go "bing". Sheer skullduggery. That's what we get up to in our ivory towers, tricks. It's all a big show for the little people. How much can you really trust the wizards of science and their terrifying pipettors? Why, one of them turned me into a newt only last year.

When the FAPpery arises there are plenty in the electorate or the state houses who will vote for the law because it is "pro-life", and "abortion is murder", and neither will they give much consideration to the existential, ontological, and, ultimately, juristic implications of what they're about to do.

And shall we stop them by character assassination or misrepresentation, which you were trying to do to me in the third post? Is this some kind of practical exercise? Nothing too low for the cause, I guess.

Any PIU advocacy will inherently invoke the equal protection conflict

Well, in the minds of the unutterably stupid, I suppose it might. Fortunately, the mid-gestational breakpoint currently being used in every state in your society suggest that the complexities are already well in 'conception'. Maybe you should consider a qualified solution instead of binary.

 

[Trooper]

Inalienable Rights; Before There is Any Government

You cannot limit personhood.

You example, you are a person. In your own right. You are an individual with rights that are protected and enshrined by the very Constitution of your country. These are inalienable rights and as such, cannot ever be taken away.

A woman is also a person. As such, her rights are inalienable. They cannot be reduced or taken away.

If you declare a foetus to be a "person", or you grant it 'personhood', then you are creating a new class of "person". So by the very definition and allocation of "personhood", the foetus then also gains and naturally obtains inalienable rights and protections. Equal to that of the mother in which it resides.

You've reduced the argument to evictionism and property rights.

[Excerpts taken from Harvard University's: Justice with Michael Sandel]

Where do they come from, these inalienable rights? Are they derived from the laws of nature, from God? Either way, how do inalienable rights work in conjunction with property rights?

"…every man has a property in his own person. The labor of his body, and work of his hands, we may say, are properly his."—John Locke

"Whatsoever then he removes out of that state that nature has provided, and left it in, he has mixed his labor with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property."—John Locke

"For this labor being the unquestionable property of the laborer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough , and as good left in common for others."—John Locke

So, the idea that rights are inalienable seems to distant Locke from the libertarian. The libertarian wants to say that we have absolute property rights within ourselves, and therefore, we can do with ourselves whatever we want. Locke is not a sturdy ally for that view. In fact, he says that if you take natural rights seriously, you’ll be lead to the idea that there’ll be certain constraints with what we can do with our natural rights. Constraints either by god or by reason reflecting on what it really means to be free. To really be free means to recognize that our rights are inalienable.

There is a difference between Locke and the libertarian, but when it comes to Locke’s account of private property he begins to look again, like a pretty good ally of the libertarian. His idea of private property suggest that we are the proprietors of our own person, and therefore, of our own labor, and the fruits of our labor.

There are some examples that can bring out the moral intuition that our labor can take something that we do not own and make it ours, e.g. land and even male gametes.

The male gamete trespasses. The female does the work. According to Locke and the libertarian, women are the sole proprietors of the zygote. Once the child is born, can we then consider the child joint property, if the male contributes his labor?

Historically, children were considered the property of parents, even assets. Parents could even give away these possessions. In fact, Aristotle said that there can be no injustice towards children because children are parts of our own bodies, and since there can be no injustice towards oneself, there can be no injustice towards one’s child. This seems to give a license towards violence that would not exist, if the child were viewed as a separate individual, rather than a possession.

"I brought you into this world, I can take you out."

We have begun to accept that children have rights, and need to be treated as individuals, but not zygotes. Women don't want to be forced to labor for a zygote.

"On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"

And when we do choose life, how then can we strip men of their choices, their rights, and their freedom? How can we force men to labor for something that we own, to work our land, our property, our fields?

I do not know.

 

[Tiassa]

Smoke and Mirrors, Sleight of Pen

Ah, good! However, I never made such an argument.

True; rather, you've been trying to strip away that context entirely in order to misrepresent the issue so that you can polish your egocentrick knob. All of your subjective moral outrage means nothing if you refuse to consider reality. And in the end, you've resorted to magickal fantasy in a pathetic attempt to evade the issue.

In other words, your observation—

"It's weird that one is being demanded to confront the OP... when in fact, the OP has nothing to do with the limitations being discussed."​

—is quite telling. After all, why would anybody think a topic post should be discussed when others are sacrificing their intellects, integrity, and dignity wailing their moral outrage in order to change the topic to something else?

Well, it would be those things, if only it were those things. You see, the idea might originate with that earlier thread, but my moral outrage about DF originates with Bells' raising the concept of DF that drew me in.

Well, it would be more objectively useful to comprehend what it is Bells is talking about before going off on your subjective moral outrage. Aesthetic tantrums such as you're pitching do not make persuasive objective arguments.

Or should I just be more plain: not everyone follows your presumably academic banter on SF, and so I took no notice of your I'm sure very exquisite thread until quite recently. This is the second or third time I've had to explain this to you; I hope this issue is now settled?

I don't see why you're getting so bent out of shape on this point. So you want to throw hissy-cows without having a clue what you're upset about. Fine with me. Just go do it somewhere else.

But regarding these quotes - are these yours? If so, why do you include them? You're not writing up a particularly pedantic book, but making a pedantic argument on the internet. No need to cite yourself, old fellow; we know the colours of your delusions already.

I would wonder what the hell you're on about there, except it's probably just another attempt to distract the discussion from the reality that frightens you so.

Well of course it's magical, Tiassa, all these drugs and scanners and machines that go "bing".

You still have yet to explain what happens at viability that changes the fact that the fetus exists inside a person's body.

And shall we stop them by character assassination or misrepresentation, which you were trying to do to me in the third post? Is this some kind of practical exercise? Nothing too low for the cause, I guess.

It's called logic, and deals with these things called facts: You still have yet to explain what happens at viability that changes the fact that the fetus exists inside a person's body.

Well, in the minds of the unutterably stupid, I suppose it might. Fortunately, the mid-gestational breakpoint currently being used in every state in your society suggest that the complexities are already well in 'conception'. Maybe you should consider a qualified solution instead of binary.

Again with the dishonesty. Let us be clear: The binary solution is already on the table. Pretty much any dolt in the room can figure out you don't want to address the facts. Get your head out of whatever flaccid fantasy world you're diddling around in for the sake of ego gratification and start dealing with observable reality.

"Maybe you should consider a qualified solution instead of binary"? Right.

Just think about that for a moment. The logic is astounding:

• FAP bills in Congress and state houses propose a "binary" solution.

• The question arises: How does that "binary" solution work when the two elements come into direct conflict with one another?

• To suggest that one ought to search for "qualified" solutions instead of "binary" solutions ignores the fact that the question derives from a real proposed binary solution.​

Get logical. Get real. Deal with facts instead of fancy. Right now, you are in effect protesting that anyone should have asked the obvious question about the "binary" solution proposed by fappers. Then again, this isn't surprising insofar as the anti-abortion movement has long focused on aesthetics and appeals to emotion, and really hates the idea that logic exists, since it perpetually doubts them.

 

[GeoffP]

Facts, FAPs, Ego and the Mi-Go

True

If I were a kind fellow, I'd just stop you there. But, you have a cross to erect; and I, vinegar for your thirst.

; rather, you've been trying to strip away that context entirely in order to misrepresent the issue so that you can polish your egocentrick knob. All of your subjective moral outrage means nothing if you refuse to consider reality. And in the end, you've resorted to magickal fantasy in a pathetic attempt to evade the issue.

Well, I'm not sure how medicine equates to fantasy. They say that wit does seem like magic to the witless, though; maybe in there is some kind of traction for this question.

—is quite telling. After all, why would anybody think a topic post should be discussed when others are sacrificing their intellects, integrity, and dignity wailing their moral outrage in order to change the topic to something else?

I love the resurgence of this word "telling". This is "telling"; that is "telling". If only these things actually told something. Even a story nattered back as if by a parrot would be something. Questionable grammar aside, perhaps the next time you're looking to have your ego stroked by daring me to negative feedback, you should hold up a false example based on someone else's writings. I appreciate how fear may move a man, but there's no need to start a new thread either. I mean, what the hell was the point of juxtaposing my work with the idiocy you describe in the OP? Shaming? That has failed.

Well, it would be more objectively useful to comprehend what it is Bells is talking about before going off on your subjective moral outrage. Aesthetic tantrums such as you're pitching do not make persuasive objective arguments.

No, no: you're the failed aesthete. Bells is the one that believes her shit outright without the benefit of a fish story about the 'room for law to operate in', as if law could not be informed by reason, but only by outrage or lots and lots of shrieking.

I don't see why you're getting so bent out of shape on this point.

Well I know why you don't, because misrepresentation, false juxtaposition and false dilemma are seemingly nothing to you; or so I must infer. But at the least a man with a working spine would have put my name up in the text you cited and made some kind of attempt to understand it before flying off on some new spurious rampage. I suppose for the moment it's enough that you get the message about cutting out this shit, though I suspect the rest of your screed will puncture my hopes yet again. Hope springs eternal, and miracles can happen. But don't go treading on my faith, chief: ours is a fragile belief, these days.

I would wonder what the hell you're on about there, except it's probably just another attempt to distract the discussion from the reality that frightens you so.

No, no, no: that won't do. You don't get to hijack my language like that, chief. In order to solve this, let's pretend for a moment that you actually believe the above, shall we?

Now, what I've got on offer is a conception about a biologically-based date limit for abortion actually later than the one presently used in abooout every single Western nation and state in existence, yes? Unless you can find one with a limit later than 27 weeks. Hell, you might; I've found that some lunatics really do run their own asylums. But at any rate the vast majority of all people in that world live with about 17-24 weeks as functional limits overall, barring medical or other mitigation. This, then - and you'll note the word you used above and I helpfully bolded - would be the reality, yes? You follow me, I hope? So apparently this reality frightens me so badly that I want to actually make it more liberal - since I'm sure you appreciate that any date in the 17-24 week range myst mathematically be less than 27 weeks, or even later. So presumably my fear makes me want to frighten myself more?

See, you prattle on about logic and 'getting real' and so forth, but some of your spittle makes me wonder about the mathematics skills you're employing in service of your accusations. And from that, well, all kinds of questions about your rational process emerge. Then again if the only point of the thread was to inflate your self-determinate standing, well... Is it still an ego trip if someone trips you over your own ego? Let me know your thoughts.

You still have yet to explain what happens at viability that changes the fact that the fetus exists inside a person's body.

Tsk. This is the fifth or sixth time I've had to explain this, I think: so, for a fetus viable in the external environment at a given date, the only fact of importance for you is location. So you consider the issue at that point a case of trespassing?

Again with the dishonesty. Let us be clear: The binary solution is already on the table. Pretty much any dolt in the room can figure out you don't want to address the facts. Get your head out of whatever flaccid fantasy world you're diddling around in for the sake of ego gratification and start dealing with observable reality.

Which is that a viable, fetus is only a person if displaced about a foot or so, irrespective of developmental state. I'm struggling to see how proposing a slightly more reasonable scenario than the hysterical definition of 'life' you cling to - the sensation of drowning will produce such sensations - but I do agree with you that any dolt in the room might think I don't want to deal with facts. For some of our neighbours, they are mystical horrifying beasts lurking in the shadowed mountains above us; real but terrifying, deadly and unreachable.


...No? Well, I had to connect "Mi-Go" somehow.

"Maybe you should consider a qualified solution instead of binary"? Right.

Just think about that for a moment. The logic is astounding:

• FAP bills in Congress and state houses propose a "binary" solution.​

I have to ask at this point: do you have any idea what 'binary' means? I could phrase it as false dilemma, if that's more clear. The FAPpers are proposing, so far as I've bothered to read about them in your posts, a single fixed limit, which is complete prevention. You want a different, but single fixed limit, which is no limit. The binary element in this is that you demand that we perceive it as one hell or the other and choose accordingly; if you want not this FAPping evil, you insist, then choose mine instead. Well, we, the modern Neo New Atheists have different ideas. We have presented them, again and again, and you have rejected them in preference for your binary synthesis. I thank you for your kind words about my logic; I wish I could say the same about yours, but I do not find any logic in evidence there.

Get logical. Get real. Deal with facts instead of fancy. Right now, you are in effect protesting that anyone should have asked the obvious question about the "binary" solution proposed by fappers. Then again, this isn't surprising insofar as the anti-abortion movement has long focused on aesthetics and appeals to emotion, and really hates the idea that logic exists, since it perpetually doubts them.

Jebus, you really don't know what I was saying. I reiterate here that what I mean by binary is a bit mathematical. What I should have said was: you are proposing an all-or-nothing false dilemma. In your view, it must be all one or the either. No good pretending otherwise, we've seen you do it again and again. The FAPpers are not proposing a binary solution. You are not proposing a binary solution. Both of you are proposing single, or 'fixed' solutions. You are demanding we choose between them, and that is the binary selection. I hope that clarifies things, though from your lumping me - and, by view, the sensible public with the 'anti-abortionists' - one wonders what sort of ground this particular seed will fall on.

 

[Bells]

You've reduced the argument to evictionism and property rights.

[Excerpts taken from Harvard University's: Justice with Michael Sandel]

Where do they come from, these inalienable rights? Are they derived from the laws of nature, from God? Either way, how do inalienable rights work in conjunction with property rights?

"…every man has a property in his own person. The labor of his body, and work of his hands, we may say, are properly his."—John Locke

"Whatsoever then he removes out of that state that nature has provided, and left it in, he has mixed his labor with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property."—John Locke

"For this labor being the unquestionable property of the laborer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough , and as good left in common for others."—John Locke

So, the idea that rights are inalienable seems to distant Locke from the libertarian. The libertarian wants to say that we have absolute property rights within ourselves, and therefore, we can do with ourselves whatever we want. Locke is not a sturdy ally for that view. In fact, he says that if you take natural rights seriously, you’ll be lead to the idea that there’ll be certain constraints with what we can do with our natural rights. Constraints either by god or by reason reflecting on what it really means to be free. To really be free means to recognize that our rights are inalienable.

There is a difference between Locke and the libertarian, but when it comes to Locke’s account of private property he begins to look again, like a pretty good ally of the libertarian. His idea of private property suggest that we are the proprietors of our own person, and therefore, of our own labor, and the fruits of our labor.

There are some examples that can bring out the moral intuition that our labor can take something that we do not own and make it ours, e.g. land and even male gametes.

The male gamete trespasses. The female does the work. According to Locke and the libertarian, women are the sole proprietors of the zygote. Once the child is born, can we then consider the child joint property, if the male contributes his labor?

Historically, children were considered the property of parents, even assets. Parents could even give away these possessions. In fact, Aristotle said that there can be no injustice towards children because children are parts of our own bodies, and since there can be no injustice towards oneself, there can be no injustice towards one’s child. This seems to give a license towards violence that would not exist, if the child were viewed as a separate individual, rather than a possession.

"I brought you into this world, I can take you out."

We have begun to accept that children have rights, and need to be treated as individuals, but not zygotes. Women don't want to be forced to labor for a zygote.

"On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"

And when we do choose life, how then can we strip men of their choices, their rights, and their freedom? How can we force men to labor for something that we own, to work our land, our property, our fields?

I do not know.

Let's have a look at GITMO as an example.

One of the biggest issues with GITMO is that its detainees are stripped of their personhood. The way the United States Government has been able to get away with it is by having the prison itself literally on enemy soil (Cuba is not an ally) and thus, not on US soil. Those detainees are thereby stripped of their "personhood", because they are denied any Constitutional and legal rights that would normally and usually apply to a "person" and all that entails. They are not classified as 'prisoners of war', because to do so would entail rights and protections that are again awarded to a person who is imprisoned by one party to the war.

So the problem with personhood is that by limiting it, you actually strip it. If a person cannot fully enjoy the protections and rights afforded to them by their Constitution and thus, legal rights, if they are denied of this, then they do lose their "personhood".

Billvon tries to make the argument that parents limit their children's personhood because the child is too young, so they cannot vote, they cannot drive, etc. You are still legally protected and you still have your Constitutional rights and all that entails, even if you do not vote or drive. In other words, those things do not make you or define you as a "person". When he argues that rights are taken away from criminals, the insane and people who are brain dead. They actually are not. A criminal is still a person and thus, they are afforded their full Constitutional rights - such as the right to a fair and public trial, legal representation, etc. The same applies for someone who is insane or in a coma. Their Constitutional rights are not removed, nor are they stripped of it. They cannot be because to do so would be unconstitutional as it would be stripping them of their 'personhood'. It is why it is illegal to, for example, forcibly take bodily organs from one person without their consent, to give it to another person. Hence the issue with GITMO detainees. They are stripped of their personhood because they are being denied any Constitutional rights and rights given to them by international laws and protocols that would normally apply to a 'person' held prisoner in a time of war.

Hence why, when Governments in the US attempt to legally recognise a zygote to foetus as a "person", then it automatically grants that zygote to foetus, all of its Constitutional rights and all that entails. It creates a new class of 'person'.

Hence the question.. How can one exercise their rights, as is their right, when their rights are in competition with a "person" existing inside their body? Because if you limit, say the mother's personhood, because she has another person growing inside her, then you are then stripping the mother of her 'personhood'. Personhood is inalienable (they cannot be limited - refer to the discussion about personhood and Constitution and issues with GITMO). They cannot be limited. You either have them or you do not. The only way you be stripped of them is by creating laws that limit your 'rights' as a "person".. Which is what personhood laws do. They create a competition between the rights of two "persons"... And if under those laws you restrict one's rights over the other, then yeah, the mother becomes the equivalent of a GITMO detainee in regards to what rights she has. Hence why when you see people going 'she's a person but'.. It's not hard to figure out what the issue is there.

And no one who advocates personhood for those who are not yet born, have been able to address with this issue. And it is a very important issue.

 

[billvon]

Hence the question.. How can one exercise their rights, as is their right, when their rights are in competition with a "person" existing inside their body?

Happens all the time. How can your right to swing your fist be abrogated just because someone nearby might get hit? That is a simple question for a non-Internet person to answer. You can exercise your right to swing your fist as long as the exercise of your right does not injure others or put them at risk for injury.
We often limit the exercise of rights due to the "competition" of other people in the area for their rights. Indeed, most laws do exactly this; our system of laws plays off your right to do anything you want with the risks/injuries/losses to other people.

Because if you limit, say the mother's personhood, because she has another person growing inside her, then you are then stripping the mother of her 'personhood'.

No more so than you are stripping a parent of their personhood by saying they cannot beat their children, and no more so than you are stripping a teen of his personhood by saying he cannot use heroin.

Personhood is inalienable They cannot be limited. You either have them or you do not.

Again trivial to disprove, as previous examples have shown.

And no one who advocates personhood for those who are not yet born, have been able to address with this issue. And it is a very important issue.

It is a non-issue since limiting someone's rights does not remove their personhood.

Billvon tries to make the argument that parents limit their children's personhood because the child is too young, so they cannot vote, they cannot drive, etc. You are still legally protected and you still have your Constitutional rights and all that entails, even if you do not vote or drive.

No, your rights have been removed. In the case of a teenager, not permanently. In the case of an Alzheimer's patient or an insane man, often permanently.

In other words, those things do not make you or define you as a "person". When he argues that rights are taken away from criminals, the insane and people who are brain dead. They actually are not. A criminal is still a person and thus, they are afforded their full Constitutional rights - such as the right to a fair and public trial, legal representation, etc.

No, they most certainly are not. Their freedoms are removed and they are often kept in a cage. They cannot vote, cannot exercise free speech without approval, cannot open a business etc. That is a clear and obvious removal of their rights.

The same applies for someone who is insane or in a coma. Their Constitutional rights are not removed, nor are they stripped of it. They cannot be because to do so would be unconstitutional as it would be stripping them of their 'personhood'.

And yet it is in fact done.

Your argument is collapsing here. On the one hand you claim that locking someone in a cage, depriving them of their freedom to vote, removing their right to free speech, to drive, to manage their own affairs etc isn't a loss of rights or of personhood, but denying someone an abortion is. Is the absurdity of describing a criminal kept in a cage as a "free person" and a free woman who cannot get an abortion a "non-person" with no rights evident to you?

 

[Balerion]

The problem, at least in this thread, is one of semantics. By insisting that restricting abortions at all amounts to "stripping a woman of her personhood," the argument is framed in such a way as to make practical or rational discussion impossible. It is effectively the fringe-liberal answer to the far-right "Life begins at conception." Or, perhaps more accurately for its absurdity, it is akin to the claim that contraception is murder. I presume this is at least in part responsible for billvon's fine summation of the DF.

But, then, does it even matter? Does anyone here waste their time debating Christian fundies who argue against condom use? The detractors here are merely on the polar opposite of those people.

 

[billvon]

The problem, at least in this thread, is one of semantics. By insisting that restricting abortions at all amounts to "stripping a woman of her personhood," the argument is framed in such a way as to make practical or rational discussion impossible.

Agreed. It's a common tactic, one that allows the far left to reduce the argument to "why do you hate women?" and allows the far right to reduce it to "why do you want to kill unborn children?"

But, then, does it even matter? Does anyone here waste their time debating Christian fundies who argue against condom use? The detractors here are merely on the polar opposite of those people.

I think if such a fundie posted on here the thread would very quickly garner thousands of replies.

 

[Bells]

Happens all the time. How can your right to swing your fist be abrogated just because someone nearby might get hit? That is a simple question for a non-Internet person to answer. You can exercise your right to swing your fist as long as the exercise of your right does not injure others or put them at risk for injury.
We often limit the exercise of rights due to the "competition" of other people in the area for their rights. Indeed, most laws do exactly this; our system of laws plays off your right to do anything you want with the risks/injuries/losses to other people.

No more so than you are stripping a parent of their personhood by saying they cannot beat their children, and no more so than you are stripping a teen of his personhood by saying he cannot use heroin.

Okay..

Laws enacted must be constitutional. If it is not, if it infringes on people's constitutional rights, then the law is deemed unconstitutional.

Do you understand what I am getting at here?

Your constitution does not give you the right to beat your children, because the laws enacted under the country's constitutional deem it an illegal offense. Ergo, if you kill a "person", you have broken the law, because that "person" enjoys and is granted their constitutional rights by merely being a "person". As such, they have rights to be protected from harm from others, for example. I'll put it this way, you have the right to not have someone take something from your body to give to someone else because they need it. They cannot do this without consent. So in that regard, two "persons", competing for one thing, lets say it's a kidney.. one cannot infringe on your rights by taking your kidney from your body if you are not willing or consenting to give it.

Again trivial to disprove, as previous examples have shown.

It is a non-issue since limiting someone's rights does not remove their personhood.

Actually no. Refer to the GITMO example and your kidney as an example.

No, your rights have been removed. In the case of a teenager, not permanently. In the case of an Alzheimer's patient or an insane man, often permanently.

Are you saying your Constitution does not recognise children or teenagers or the sick and elderly or those suffering from Alzheimer's for example, as "people"?

So the "We the people" does not include children, teenagers, criminals, those who are mentally ill or disabled, the elderly who suffer from dementia or Alzheimer's?

Is that what you are arguing?

Your permissions are limited. But your constitutional 'personhood' is not. It cannot be. The reason the US Government is able to detain people for years without a trial at GITMO is because they have been stripped of their personhood. The people detained in GITMO are no longer recognised as "persons". If they were, then they would automatically gain constitutional rights and rights under International Laws and protocols, which would render their detention as being illegal by the laws and thus, the Constitution of the United States.

No, they most certainly are not. Their freedoms are removed and they are often kept in a cage. They cannot vote, cannot exercise free speech without approval, cannot open a business etc. That is a clear and obvious removal of their rights.

And yet it is in fact done.

Your argument is collapsing here. On the one hand you claim that locking someone in a cage, depriving them of their freedom to vote, removing their right to free speech, to drive, to manage their own affairs etc isn't a loss of rights or of personhood, but denying someone an abortion is. Is the absurdity of describing a criminal kept in a cage as a "free person" and a free woman who cannot get an abortion a "non-person" with no rights evident to you?

You do realise that the denial of someone their right to vote, have legal representation is unconstitutional, yes?

You are also not recognising the issue of competing interests. Such as if you fall ill and you need a heart transplant, you cannot forcibly take a viable heart from a person without their consent. A woman who is pregnant allows the pregnancy to continue with her consent. Granting personhood to the unborn, creates a competition.. So even if she falls ill and requires treatment or requires a termination of the "person" inside her, then because it is a person, she cannot end it's life because it has legal rights now which is enshrined and protected by the laws and thus, your constitution. Just as you can't take a heart from a prisoner because your heart is failing and the prisoner on death row is an exact match, you can't just kill him to take the heart to save yours. And before you pounce on prisoners on death row, there is an ongoing debate of the constitutionality of capital punishment within the context of the Eighth Amendment.

 

[billvon]

Your constitution does not give you the right to beat your children, because the laws enacted under the country's constitutional deem it an illegal offense.

Exactly. And being unable to beat your children because it is illegal does not make you a non-person - even if you want to do it, and even if you once had that right. Likewise, being unable to obtain an abortion in the case that abortion became illegal would not make you a non-person - even if you want to do it, and even if you once had that right.

I'll put it this way, you have the right to not have someone take something from your body to give to someone else because they need it. They cannot do this without consent.

Correct. Conversely if you do decide to allow someone to take something from your body (say, donating a kidney) you cannot change your mind later and demand it back, because doing so would cause the recipient harm. You will be forced to let them use your body part. Thus there are cases where you do NOT have the right to choose what is done with your body parts. This does not make the donor a non-person.

Are you saying your Constitution does not recognise children or teenagers or the sick and elderly or those suffering from Alzheimer's for example, as "people"?

The Constitution does not speak to the definition of "person." That was defined later by our courts.

So the "We the people" does not include children, teenagers, criminals, those who are mentally ill or disabled, the elderly who suffer from dementia or Alzheimer's?

Correct. It refers to the people of the United States. It would be inaccurate to claim that there are Constitutional "life and liberty" protections for an unborn fetus, for example, just because many people consider it a person - just as it would be inaccurate to claim that there were Constitutional "life and liberty" protections for a brain dead accident victim. It may indeed cover some of them partially, but all the examples you gave are examples where the FULL coverage of the Constitution is not applicable. This has been verified several times by our courts.

Your permissions are limited. But your constitutional 'personhood' is not. It cannot be.

It can and has been, and those definitions of legal personhood have been upheld by the Courts.

You do realise that the denial of someone their right to vote, have legal representation is unconstitutional, yes?

Nope. We do it to children and felons in prison all the time.

 

[GeoffP]

Hence why, when Governments in the US attempt to legally recognise a zygote to foetus as a "person", then it automatically grants that zygote to foetus, all of its Constitutional rights and all that entails. It creates a new class of 'person'.

Except that that is not what any person is arguing here, and that granting personhood to a fetus on virtue of having attained one stage, by definition does not apply to earlier stages. By definition.

Hence the question.. How can one exercise their rights, as is their right, when their rights are in competition with a "person" existing inside their body? Because if you limit, say the mother's personhood, because she has another person growing inside her, then you are then stripping the mother of her 'personhood'. Personhood is inalienable (they cannot be limited - refer to the discussion about personhood and Constitution and issues with GITMO). They cannot be limited.

They can be managed and shared. Only an extremist would see it as one thing or another. I have seen no convincing argument from you that one must be absolutely triumphant over the other at the stages we're talking about. Mind you, I appreciate that this would be difficult given the uniqueness of the issue.

And no one who advocates personhood for those who are not yet born, have been able to address with this issue. And it is a very important issue.

Poor grammar aside; yes, they have. We have done so many times. It is a farce for you to continually claim that the woman has no rights, or that personal rights are absolute over any scale. Please present arguments founded on more than mere opinion; Gitmo prisoners, for example, are not a suitable parallel.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I might. But the essential fact remains - if performed for reasons of medical requirement or other mitigating circumstance, then it is moral. If not, not.

I await my impending crucifixion by iceaura. Do you need any lumber or metal hardware? There's a sale on today.

Well an ectopic pregnancy is a medical requirement but what if the child is so severely deformed it may not live anyway or live with incredible deformities and the family finds out too late and wants to abort?

Interestingly no one has thought of the following scenario involving in vitro fertilization drugs which enables a woman to get pregnant with more embryos than she can safely carry. Once the woman is pregnant they normally suggest an abortion of some of the embryos. So for example if she is carrying six, they will abort 2 or three if the mother approves. Would you find that acceptable?

Some people are really bothered that they just toss out viable embryos for disposal.

 

[GeoffP]

Well an ectopic pregnancy is a medical requirement but what if the child is so severely deformed it may not live anyway or live with incredible deformities and the family finds out too late and wants to abort?

That's a tougher one, but I've never believed that in such a case the baby must be carried to term. But should we throw around scenarios? What will that prove? I'm asking for rational solutions based on simple biological precepts; an evidentiary process.

Interestingly no one has thought of the following scenario involving in vitro fertilization drugs which enables a woman to get pregnant with more embryos than she can safely carry. Once the woman is pregnant they normally suggest an abortion of some of the embryos. So for example if she is carrying six, they will abort 2 or three if the mother approves. Would you find that acceptable?

Well, based on what I've already said, what do you think I'd say?

Be one with everything, grasshopper

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

That's a tougher one, but I've never believed that in such a case the baby must be carried to term. But should we throw around scenarios? What will that prove? I'm asking for rational solutions based on simple biological precepts; an evidentiary process.

Its not meant to prove anything. Its simply meant to gage your thoughts on the subject.

You say you want limitations on LTA but its already restricted. Anymore restrictions and there would be no LTA's since fetus viability is always considered in LTA's. These precepts are left up to the woman's doctor. That I say is fair.

 

[Tiassa]

At the Bat

I have to ask at this point: do you have any idea what 'binary' means? I could phrase it as false dilemma, if that's more clear. The FAPpers are proposing, so far as I've bothered to read about them in your posts, a single fixed limit, which is complete prevention. You want a different, but single fixed limit, which is no limit. The binary element in this is that you demand that we perceive it as one hell or the other and choose accordingly; if you want not this FAPping evil, you insist, then choose mine instead.

Again, you miss the point by such a degree that it seems deliberate.

Spoiler

[video=youtube;O4O9MPV_uf8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4O9MPV_uf8[/video]​

It's not a matter of choosing; when it comes to choosing, the end result is self-evident. The problem is that FAP creates a whole new class of person that results in far more juristic questions than just banning abortion.

The central conflict of this question ends at birth; hence, dry-foot is a bright line in this context.

Unless, of course—

Well, we, the modern Neo New Atheists have different ideas. We have presented them, again and again, and you have rejected them in preference for your binary synthesis.

—one resorts to some undescribed magick or an abstract, subjective moral authority.

Any legal personhood assigned in utero begs question, but the fappers have put it front and center.

If the plan is to move the piano by having you push it off the veranda and Balerion catch it six stories below, would you really ask me why I'm complicating things by wondering about gravity?

Perhaps it is simply an inadequate comprehension of the legal concepts in play, but really, dude, you seem to be missing the point. It might also have something to do with your tendency to let your feelings define what constitutes a fact. I mean, at least Pablo Sandoval had the excuse of trying to advance a runner, but, you know, what you're coming up with isn't even Little League.

It's interesting how many people will advocate these laws by working proactively to quell discussion of the implications.

This is actually a question going on in American society, but, you know, whatever. We all recognize that your fantasies of vengeance and triumph are definitive, and reality can simply go screw. Because, you know, that's the rational thing to do, right?