Posted on 08/05/2002 5:30:51 PM PDT by jwalsh07
My point is that since Indians were not counted in the first census and blacks were apportioned as three fifths of a person , Article 2, Section 1 can not define what is or isn't a person.
By the way, I just found that analogy, it wasn't original work. Just to keep it real as they say. :-}
Whats the difference between a "person" and a "human being"?
er, and if you are CONNECTED to a heart-lung machine to keep you alive, then you are a machine. I think not.
You can still be yourself, yet fully dependent on something else to remain living.
The second is that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
What is made clear here is that they are referring to citizens on one hand but making clear on the other hand that "persons" of any sort are guranteed their unalienable rights.
Seeme to me that an unborn person would have unalienable rights (life, liberty, persuit of happiness, protection of laws), but not citizenship. Seems to me that otherwise, a person killing a pregnant woman would be charged with homicide - but instead, they get charged with DOUBLE homicide - 2 lives.
If you have a human being entirely within your power, he has no rights you must respect.
A person has all their appendages within their power and may chose what to do with them. A human being has several appendages. Appendages do not have human beings.
Absolutely. For the final four months of her life, my mother was completely dependent on others to care for her. She was as helpless and defenseless as any unborn child. Any suggestion that a person is any less of a person because he or she is physically dependent on others to sustain life is beneath contempt. It is the doctrine of devils.
No it is not. And you seem to be the only person who thinks it is.
You dote on the similarities, but ignore the differences. The differences are not small or passing. They are substantial enough that the entire field of medicine - regardless of their personal opinions about abortion - recognizes a fetus as a distinct human life, rather than an appendage of its mother. They are distinct enough that even a rabidly pro-abortion philosopher like Peter Singer - who advocates not just abortion, but also euthenasia of born children, the sick, and the infirm - admits the basic humanity of the fetus. They are substantial enough that your argument amounts to lunatic raving unless you at least acknowledge and address them, which you have so far failed to do.
Not until it's born. Sorry.
See our latest "Big Win" for details.
What exactly do you mean "born"? E.g., Do you distinguish between vaginal birth and caesarean?
A person has all their appendages within their power and may chose what to do with them. A human being has several appendages. Appendages do not have human beings.
Excellent example of dehumanizing inconvenient human lives. But it does not refute the moral formulation. It sadly illustrates it.
As I previously remarked, "Dehumanizing terms are used (even absurd ones like "appendage" by you, or "parasite" by others). But the fact remains. These are human beings whose rights you do not want to respect. Therefore you frame arguments in the terms of their helplessness, and another's power over them. "
A developing fetus is a human being. This is not a matter of scientific debate. Yet science has never been sufficient to prevent people from devaluing human life for the sake of exploiting or even exterminating it.
Which dictionary are you using?
Singer at least admits straight up that what he advocates is the deliberate killing of a human being. No attempt to hide behind inane and mentally bankrupt "appendage" or "squatter" arguments.
No mealy-mouthed doubletalk about social conventions and hypercritical hair-splitting legal definitions contrasting "person" with "human being." No, sir. Singer frankly says, "Yes, they're human beings. But a human life has no instrinsic value greater than that of a paramecium or any other life form."
The fact that he could say such things openly and be thought respectable is strong evidence of just how morally bankrupt certain influential segments of our society have become.
Most others do not recognize human beings as property.
I have not heard even one person say "it's the fetus's woman." Yet I have heard countless times that "it's the woman's fetus". Every person I have ever heard recognizes that a woman's fetus is her fetus.
Your philosophical "appendage" argument ignores the fact that this "appendage" grows to live a life of its own, independent of a "host." Appendages don't do that.
As I said, it is not philosophical. It is a fact that -- baring medical intervention -- when the woman dies so do all her appendages die with her. Therefore the fetus appendage is dependant on the woman.
Zon: Baring medical intervention when the woman dies the fetus always dies with her.341
Now you recognize the survivability of the fetus with medical intervention.
It's not a new recognition as you may have implied. I recognized it in my earlier posts; 337 and also in my original 223 post, which you responded to, where I wrote: "Many appendages a woman has can be removed and be kept alive separate from the woman." In that original post I also identified the survivability of donated organs.
Please also recognize the case of an invalid being supported by a nurse. He also dies when she does, barring medical intervention.
I hope that's not some sort of revelation for you. I mean, it's obvious isn't it. Many people that have required medical intervention have died because they didn't get medical intervention.
Many women have died, yet their unborn children have survived. No mere appendage does that.
Sadly, not to everyone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.