Roe v Wade: The Constitution is silent on abortion thus the 10th reserves it as an issue for the States. The Feds can neither outlaw abortion nationwide or forbid the States from outlawing it. Citizenship is defined as 'born or naturalized' so the pro-life argument that a fetus is a baby may or may not have merit, but that a fetus isn't a Citizen is black letter law as the Constitution is currently written.
So it's only homicide if the one who dies is a citizen?
It's no different than the requirements of a driver's license or a business license. The states agree to simply recognize each others' legal documents even if the requirements for said documents are not the same.
And if one state applied the label "driver's license" to a different kind of license?
The word marriage has a specific meaning. Some states have suddenly decided (mostly by judicial fiat, but we now have some states which did it correctly) the word has a different meaning.
[...]
The other side just has to mention that it wasn't too many years back that "Marriage" didn't include mixed race couples in quite a few states and the courts ruled that such a marriage was valid in every state.
[...]
So both sides can make a case, which way to rule? Most cases I can get on my soapbox and declare a winner. Can't on this one.
So, you see strength in the arguments for the DOMA, on the basis of the "redefinition" idea. In other words, it's not that same-sex marriage is banned in some places, it's that "marriage" is understood to refer to a particular kind of relationship. The argument is that the word doesn't even apply.
So, how does the comparison with mixed-race marriage work? The bans on mixed-race marriage were bans on particular pairings, but they weren't about the definition of marriage. All the example you gave were similar--various marriages & divorces being allowed, but not the definition of marriage changing.
Bigamy being the possible exception. (Though I'd like to point out an interesting question: Consider the laws that define marriage as being between one man and one woman. If a man marries two women, is he in one marriage, or two? Are the women married to each other? The first wife doesn't even have to be at the ceremony. So... As far as I can see, the "one-man-one-woman" phrasing doesn't actually ban polygamy. And this might be a solid basis for saying that polygamy is not a different definition of marriage. Polyamorous group marriages might be.)
Just to stretch it one further... would you then be implying that torture is a valid form of interrogation?
Like I said, "I understand why it matters for admissibility in court". Meaning, government action is different from private action.
If I found out the identity of a blogger by torturing someone... I should be prosecuted for assault/kidnapping/etc. But the issue here is whether I would be under a gag order about the info.
I can see why they should be able to out someone if they got the identity by subtrefuge, but if the identity is gained through illagel means, that's different. Or should be, at least.
Hmm... Why should the means of investigation matter?
I understand why it matters for admissibility in court--that's about protecting citizens from the government's violation of rights. We want to give government officials strong incentive not to tread on civil rights.
But if it's legal for me to publish a fact, why should I be prevented from talking about it, if I discovered it through illegal means? Sure, I should be held accountable to the law that I broke, but why protect the information, if it doesn't merit protection generally? (I guess you could say, "To avoid allowing people to profit from their illegal methods." That might be valid... On the other hand, maybe the punishment for the crime is enough?)
That's the way the question is usually posed by right-to-lifers; the pro-choice camp sees the question as "which is the greater harm: allowing the killing of an unborn child, or denying the mother the right to self-determination regarding her own body?"
Actually, I didn't mean to imply that the only question is "Whether an actual person is being harmed by another." I was responding to the mindlessness of geekoid's statement, "If it is against your belief, then don't freakin' do it."
The point being: If someone objects to abortion on the grounds that it is killing an innocent human, then it would be hideous for that person simply to say, "I won't do it myself, but I won't try to force that on you." It is literally--and I mean that word precisely--no different from saying, "I won't beat women myself, but you're welcome to do it."
What you're saying is that pro-choice people argue that abortion is a justified homicide. If that's the case, it doesn't change the silliness of "Just don't do it yourself" as an argument to tell pro-lifers to shut up.
(But it's not quite true that the pro-choice camp sees the question that way. Some may--but many (most?) don't agree that we're talking about a homicide at all.)
Not that that has anything to do with the pre-implantation screening process, unless you object to discarding viable in-vitro fertilized ova -- in which case you'd have to be opposed to the way IVF is currently done in general, and the screening issue would be a moot point.
You're absolutely right. In a pro-life understanding, the most objectionable part of IVF is the intentional discarding of embryos. Screening is just deciding which ones to implant. (So it's like deciding which people to kill based on hair-color. Bad, but the main bad thing is the killing itself.)
By the way, there's also something called embryo adoption, where the unused embryos from IVF are given to other women for implantation.
Go to a country where it's legal for husbands to beat their wives. Go up to someone who's lobbying to change the law. Use your logic to tell them to sit down and shut up--"Just don't do it yourself, if it's against your belief."
Anticipated reply: "But that's different. There, an actual person is being harmed by another. We have to protect them."
Right. Which is precisely the question with abortion: Whether an actual person is being harmed by another.
In hindsight, aborting a potential human in the womb seems a lot less brutal.
"Embryo" is a stage of development. It doesn't indicate a distinct organism.
It's certainly a potential "human adult"--and a potential "human infant", for that matter--but it's not a potential human. It's a very-early-stage human.
You can still argue from there that early-stage humans aren't as ethically significant as later-stage humans. You can argue that there some particularly significant aspect of development. (Peter Singer does so, and argue that even infants aren't "people" in the ethically significant sense. See his FAQ, section 3.) You can argue the ethics of various kinds of human beings. But at least keep the biology straight.
Oh, I see. That's pretty interesting... I'd like to get that figured out--it's definitely relevant to the ethical arguments.
It's making me wonder how to classify sperm. I've been thinking of it as a part of the father's body, akin to blood. (Yeah, sperm leaves the body, but so can blood.)
Is it a separate organism from the father? An intermediate organism, destroyed to form a new organism when it combines with an egg? Is it part of the father, just with different DNA? Hmm...
Mind you, there's still an important difference between sperm and embryos. Namely, an embryo is an organism that develops into an adult, given only a friendly, nourishing environment. A sperm (or an unfertilized) egg is not.
It's not a miscarriage. This isn't removing an embryo from a woman to kill it. These are embyros that were never on their way to being born, it doesn't even fall into your definition.
You're right that it's not a miscarriage or abortion. But I don't understand the reasoning that leads to, they "were never on their way to being born".
It's like saying that an infant left in the woods to die--lacking the necessary nourishing care & environment--was "never on the way to becoming an adult."
Ignoring the fact that they are the scraps of In Vitro and not specifically harvest for research.
The only way to create a stem cell line is to specifically harvest an embryo for research.
I assume you either meant:
1.) They weren't specifically created for research.
2.) They would have been killed anyway.
(1) is true but irrelevant. (2) is relevant, but is only half-true. Most embryos created for IVF are being killed if they're not implanted in the mother, but that is not the only option.
Embryo adoption robs the "they would be discarded anyway" argument of its force.
Once you're able to take an ant and turn it into a human being, come back into the discussion.
And it's not just that we can turn it into a human being. It's that an embryo naturally develops into an adult, given a friendly, nourishing environment. (Just like a fetus, an infant, or a toddler.)
Deprived of that, it will die. (Just like a fetus, an infant, or a toddler.)
Oh, so you're claiming that an embryo isn't a stage of human development?
Really?
Embryonic cells do not become part of a human being. An embryonic human organism develops into a human adult.
In other words, I'd rather that these extremely immature human being were given the chance to continue maturing toward adulthood, rather than being tossed aside OR killed for parts to help others.
Yep, it's amusing that they'd rather have the embryos thrown away in the garbage or incinerated rather than be used to actually further medical science.
Some activities that are considered wrong in some cultures are perfectly fine in others. What's wrong is for huge powerful cultures to pressure everyone else to adopt their moral code.
That activity is not considered wrong in my culture.
Ah, the joys of inconsistency! It's universally wrong to make claims about universal wrongs!
There's a saying. "If you ever find a perfect church, don't go there. As soon as you start, it won't be perfect anymore."
There's only one way to get a church like the one you're looking for: Don't let anyone in unless they're perfect.
Of course, the joke from the saying is that no one is perfect, so that won't work. But some people don't get the joke, and actually try to have "perfect congregations". And then you end up with a group of obnoxiously self-righteous twits--because that kind of person focuses on external pseudo-righteousness, and "the other guy's sin".
That confusion is exactly what has happened to modern "Churchianity". It's a shame, really, because if you study various religions and have seen the real thing, you will find that the Christians have one of the most accurate descriptions available.
Hmm... Your comments make me think that you basically get the vision that Jesus laid out, of goodness & humility & love & genuine holiness (as opposed to self-righteousness).
But, speaking as a Christian... the Gospel itself is entirely missing from what you're saying.
Jesus' teachings about life in the kingdom of God weren't particularly new, comparing with the Old Testament. Humility, service, care for the poor, transformed hearts... that was all there in the prophets.
The gospel is not, "Look at Jesus, he shows us a better way to live." (Though he does do that.) The gospel is about what God did for us in Christ, both to forgive and to transform us. It's not about what we accomplish, it's about what he accomplished. It's about being accepted in spite of not remotely deserving it, based on repentance & faith--which does then lead to transformation by the work of the Spirit, to be like Christ in the example he provided.
Part of my point is... I know that churches are filled with hypocrites. I'm one. But some of us know we're hypocrites, and desire transformation, and are being transformed. And there are churches with an atmosphere of grace, who are transformed enough to show credibility in their intellectual profession of faith. But none that are perfect like you want. Because they're full of people.
- pffft, wrong. It is not a human any more than part of a living liver is a human (and part of liver can also grow outside of an organism).
Sheesh. If you want to do more than just make contrary assertions, why didn't you interact with what I proceeded to say about parts vs. organisms? The back-up and explanation of the part you quoted?
The process that a zygote goes through on its way toward adulthood is one of maturation. A sperm does not "mature" into a zygote; a sperm and egg combine to form the new organism.
I already made the distinction between a sperm or egg (which I agree are body parts of your father and mother), and the unique organism that formed when those two body parts combined. That organism required only nourishment & friendly environment--that statement is true about every zygote & blastocyst, regardless of whether they're traveling down the fallopian tube or sitting in a petri dish. If it doesn't implant in the endometrial wall--if it doesn't find the right environment, where it will receive nourishment--it will die.
That has nothing to do with keeping liver cells alive outside the body. Your liver cells can multiple & grow, in the right environment; they will not mature into an adult human!
See what I said elsewhere:...
"X is an organism. Given food & a friendly environment, it will 'mature' into an adult human being."
That applies to: Teenagers, toddlers, infants, late-term fetuses, mid-term fetuses, early-term fetuses, embryos, blastocysts, and zygotes.
- except this has nothing to do with fetuses in a Petri dish. Petri dish is not a friendly environment for the purposes of making a few cells into a live fetus even, forget about a developed baby.
I didn't say that a blastocyst in a petri dish is in a friendly environment! I said that given a friendly, nourishing environment, it will continue maturing toward adulthood.
A blastocyst in a petri dish is in much the same situation as an infant discarded in the woods. It can survive for a time, but not too long. It needs nourishment in order to continue maturing.
So, if a woman is going into IVF and some eggs are extracted that end up being discarded for whatever reason, they have no chance of becoming human at all, they could just as well be used to help actual real existing fully grown humans to live a healthy life.
Apparently, you haven't heard of embryo adoption. There's no reason for those human embryos to be killed; they can be implanted and given a chance to continue the maturation process that already began. (Of course, their mortality rate is high--implantation doesn't always succeed. But high infant mortality rates don't mean we stop feeding discarded newborns.)
Looks to me like you care about a few discarded cells in a Petri dish much more than you care about a living human.
When people discard newborns, I don't harvest their organs, even though it would save others. I don't kidnap homeless people for their organs, either--and that doesn't mean I care about the homeless people "more" than I care about those who need organ transplants.
Are you saying that a sperm cell should not be regarded as having rights because it's not able to grow into an adult without coming into contact with an egg?
In that case, it seems you have a similar problem with blastocysts: *they* don't grow into later-state embryos (let alone adults) if they fail to bind to the uterine wall (and that failure naturally happens quite often).
No. It's not that "it must come into contact with something". That would be parallel with the blastocyst and uterine wall, like you said.
A sperm doesn't simply "come into contact with" an egg; a sperm and an egg combine to form a new organism. The sperm of your father that combined with the egg of your mother was not a distinct organism; it was part of your father's body. (Even after it left his body, it's still one of his body parts, not a distinct organism.) You, the human organism, started at that point. (Even if you don't think that's significant for the rights & ethics & morals question, that's the biology of it.) You implanted in the natural incubator of your mother's uterus, forming connections to receive nourishment for 9 months as you developed toward the infant stage. You continued to receive nourishment from your parents (or someone else, I suppose), and continued to develop through various stages of development. And now you're an adult human. You continue to develop toward the elderly stage.
And I don't buy the idea that at any of the stages of your development, you were less than a human organism, or that there's any distinction between human organism and human being, or between human being and "person with rights to be protected".
Every time in the past that people have accepted such distinctions, we've come to realize the horror of what we were allowing, endorsing, or even praising.
I realize that in your eyes there is probably a big difference in natural termination and willfully doing so,
Right--in your eyes too, I wager. That is, you see a big difference in a human life naturally ending, and being willfully ended. (The difference would be the definition of "human life".)
but if every fertilized egg is a human being, nature seems to be awfully sloppy with lives,
Yeah, infant mortality rate used to be pretty high, too.
It's a point to raise if we're talking about the general Problem of Evil/Suffering as an objection to theism, but it doesn't help decide this question.
and for sure not every fertilized eggs just needs a friendly environment and nourishment...
Are you referring to complications in fetal development, and congenital disorders?
I didn't think to mention that kind of thing. Some require more than nourishment & friendly environment--some require more medical care. (And some might not be treatable with our technology.) But you could say the same thing about infants, toddlers, & teenagers.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's only homicide if the one who dies is a citizen?
And if one state applied the label "driver's license" to a different kind of license?
So, you see strength in the arguments for the DOMA, on the basis of the "redefinition" idea. In other words, it's not that same-sex marriage is banned in some places, it's that "marriage" is understood to refer to a particular kind of relationship. The argument is that the word doesn't even apply.
So, how does the comparison with mixed-race marriage work? The bans on mixed-race marriage were bans on particular pairings, but they weren't about the definition of marriage. All the example you gave were similar--various marriages & divorces being allowed, but not the definition of marriage changing.
Bigamy being the possible exception. (Though I'd like to point out an interesting question: Consider the laws that define marriage as being between one man and one woman. If a man marries two women, is he in one marriage, or two? Are the women married to each other? The first wife doesn't even have to be at the ceremony. So... As far as I can see, the "one-man-one-woman" phrasing doesn't actually ban polygamy. And this might be a solid basis for saying that polygamy is not a different definition of marriage. Polyamorous group marriages might be.)
Like I said, "I understand why it matters for admissibility in court". Meaning, government action is different from private action.
If I found out the identity of a blogger by torturing someone... I should be prosecuted for assault/kidnapping/etc. But the issue here is whether I would be under a gag order about the info.
I asked "why". I understand punishment or lawsuit for the foul means themselves--if they're illegal--but I'm questioning suing for publishing.
Hmm... Why should the means of investigation matter?
I understand why it matters for admissibility in court--that's about protecting citizens from the government's violation of rights. We want to give government officials strong incentive not to tread on civil rights.
But if it's legal for me to publish a fact, why should I be prevented from talking about it, if I discovered it through illegal means? Sure, I should be held accountable to the law that I broke, but why protect the information, if it doesn't merit protection generally? (I guess you could say, "To avoid allowing people to profit from their illegal methods." That might be valid... On the other hand, maybe the punishment for the crime is enough?)
Actually, I didn't mean to imply that the only question is "Whether an actual person is being harmed by another." I was responding to the mindlessness of geekoid's statement, "If it is against your belief, then don't freakin' do it."
The point being: If someone objects to abortion on the grounds that it is killing an innocent human, then it would be hideous for that person simply to say, "I won't do it myself, but I won't try to force that on you." It is literally--and I mean that word precisely--no different from saying, "I won't beat women myself, but you're welcome to do it."
What you're saying is that pro-choice people argue that abortion is a justified homicide. If that's the case, it doesn't change the silliness of "Just don't do it yourself" as an argument to tell pro-lifers to shut up.
(But it's not quite true that the pro-choice camp sees the question that way. Some may--but many (most?) don't agree that we're talking about a homicide at all.)
You're absolutely right. In a pro-life understanding, the most objectionable part of IVF is the intentional discarding of embryos. Screening is just deciding which ones to implant. (So it's like deciding which people to kill based on hair-color. Bad, but the main bad thing is the killing itself.)
By the way, there's also something called embryo adoption, where the unused embryos from IVF are given to other women for implantation.
It's against my belief to beat women.
Go to a country where it's legal for husbands to beat their wives. Go up to someone who's lobbying to change the law. Use your logic to tell them to sit down and shut up--"Just don't do it yourself, if it's against your belief."
Anticipated reply: "But that's different. There, an actual person is being harmed by another. We have to protect them."
Right. Which is precisely the question with abortion: Whether an actual person is being harmed by another.
"Embryo" is a stage of development. It doesn't indicate a distinct organism.
It's certainly a potential "human adult"--and a potential "human infant", for that matter--but it's not a potential human. It's a very-early-stage human.
You can still argue from there that early-stage humans aren't as ethically significant as later-stage humans. You can argue that there some particularly significant aspect of development. (Peter Singer does so, and argue that even infants aren't "people" in the ethically significant sense. See his FAQ, section 3.) You can argue the ethics of various kinds of human beings. But at least keep the biology straight.
Oh, I see. That's pretty interesting... I'd like to get that figured out--it's definitely relevant to the ethical arguments.
It's making me wonder how to classify sperm. I've been thinking of it as a part of the father's body, akin to blood. (Yeah, sperm leaves the body, but so can blood.)
Is it a separate organism from the father? An intermediate organism, destroyed to form a new organism when it combines with an egg? Is it part of the father, just with different DNA? Hmm...
Mind you, there's still an important difference between sperm and embryos. Namely, an embryo is an organism that develops into an adult, given only a friendly, nourishing environment. A sperm (or an unfertilized) egg is not.
Ah, yes. The clever rhetorical response of "Nuh-uh!"
You're right that it's not a miscarriage or abortion. But I don't understand the reasoning that leads to, they "were never on their way to being born".
It's like saying that an infant left in the woods to die--lacking the necessary nourishing care & environment--was "never on the way to becoming an adult."
Assuming you're interacting seriously:
Yeah, #1 wasn't state well at all. As he stated, adult twins aren't even people.
The usual point with "unique DNA" has to do with distinguishing an embryo from its parents.
Either way, your next statement makes no sense:
They fail #1, so what are you talking about?
The only way to create a stem cell line is to specifically harvest an embryo for research.
I assume you either meant:
1.) They weren't specifically created for research.
2.) They would have been killed anyway.
(1) is true but irrelevant. (2) is relevant, but is only half-true. Most embryos created for IVF are being killed if they're not implanted in the mother, but that is not the only option.
Embryo adoption robs the "they would be discarded anyway" argument of its force.
And it's not just that we can turn it into a human being. It's that an embryo naturally develops into an adult, given a friendly, nourishing environment. (Just like a fetus, an infant, or a toddler.)
Deprived of that, it will die. (Just like a fetus, an infant, or a toddler.)
Oh, so you're claiming that an embryo isn't a stage of human development? Really? Embryonic cells do not become part of a human being. An embryonic human organism develops into a human adult.
In other words, I'd rather that these extremely immature human being were given the chance to continue maturing toward adulthood, rather than being tossed aside OR killed for parts to help others.
I take it you're unfamiliar with embryo adoption?
So you're assuming that the things we don't like in sharia law are twisting Mohammed's teachings?
Do you say that based on careful study of the Qur'an? Or is that an assumption, coming from PC sensibilities?
Ah, the delicious^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hnoxious irony of "All people who take religion seriously are bigots!"
Ah, the joys of inconsistency! It's universally wrong to make claims about universal wrongs!
There's only one way to get a church like the one you're looking for: Don't let anyone in unless they're perfect.
Of course, the joke from the saying is that no one is perfect, so that won't work. But some people don't get the joke, and actually try to have "perfect congregations". And then you end up with a group of obnoxiously self-righteous twits--because that kind of person focuses on external pseudo-righteousness, and "the other guy's sin".
Hmm... Your comments make me think that you basically get the vision that Jesus laid out, of goodness & humility & love & genuine holiness (as opposed to self-righteousness).
But, speaking as a Christian... the Gospel itself is entirely missing from what you're saying.
Jesus' teachings about life in the kingdom of God weren't particularly new, comparing with the Old Testament. Humility, service, care for the poor, transformed hearts... that was all there in the prophets.
The gospel is not, "Look at Jesus, he shows us a better way to live." (Though he does do that.) The gospel is about what God did for us in Christ, both to forgive and to transform us. It's not about what we accomplish, it's about what he accomplished. It's about being accepted in spite of not remotely deserving it, based on repentance & faith--which does then lead to transformation by the work of the Spirit, to be like Christ in the example he provided.
Part of my point is... I know that churches are filled with hypocrites. I'm one. But some of us know we're hypocrites, and desire transformation, and are being transformed. And there are churches with an atmosphere of grace, who are transformed enough to show credibility in their intellectual profession of faith. But none that are perfect like you want. Because they're full of people.
Sheesh. If you want to do more than just make contrary assertions, why didn't you interact with what I proceeded to say about parts vs. organisms? The back-up and explanation of the part you quoted?
The process that a zygote goes through on its way toward adulthood is one of maturation. A sperm does not "mature" into a zygote; a sperm and egg combine to form the new organism.
I already made the distinction between a sperm or egg (which I agree are body parts of your father and mother), and the unique organism that formed when those two body parts combined. That organism required only nourishment & friendly environment--that statement is true about every zygote & blastocyst, regardless of whether they're traveling down the fallopian tube or sitting in a petri dish. If it doesn't implant in the endometrial wall--if it doesn't find the right environment, where it will receive nourishment--it will die.
That has nothing to do with keeping liver cells alive outside the body. Your liver cells can multiple & grow, in the right environment; they will not mature into an adult human!
I didn't say that a blastocyst in a petri dish is in a friendly environment! I said that given a friendly, nourishing environment, it will continue maturing toward adulthood.
A blastocyst in a petri dish is in much the same situation as an infant discarded in the woods. It can survive for a time, but not too long. It needs nourishment in order to continue maturing.
Apparently, you haven't heard of embryo adoption. There's no reason for those human embryos to be killed; they can be implanted and given a chance to continue the maturation process that already began. (Of course, their mortality rate is high--implantation doesn't always succeed. But high infant mortality rates don't mean we stop feeding discarded newborns.)
When people discard newborns, I don't harvest their organs, even though it would save others. I don't kidnap homeless people for their organs, either--and that doesn't mean I care about the homeless people "more" than I care about those who need organ transplants.
No. It's not that "it must come into contact with something". That would be parallel with the blastocyst and uterine wall, like you said.
A sperm doesn't simply "come into contact with" an egg; a sperm and an egg combine to form a new organism. The sperm of your father that combined with the egg of your mother was not a distinct organism; it was part of your father's body. (Even after it left his body, it's still one of his body parts, not a distinct organism.) You, the human organism, started at that point. (Even if you don't think that's significant for the rights & ethics & morals question, that's the biology of it.) You implanted in the natural incubator of your mother's uterus, forming connections to receive nourishment for 9 months as you developed toward the infant stage. You continued to receive nourishment from your parents (or someone else, I suppose), and continued to develop through various stages of development. And now you're an adult human. You continue to develop toward the elderly stage.
And I don't buy the idea that at any of the stages of your development, you were less than a human organism, or that there's any distinction between human organism and human being, or between human being and "person with rights to be protected".
Every time in the past that people have accepted such distinctions, we've come to realize the horror of what we were allowing, endorsing, or even praising.
Right--in your eyes too, I wager. That is, you see a big difference in a human life naturally ending, and being willfully ended. (The difference would be the definition of "human life".)
Yeah, infant mortality rate used to be pretty high, too.
It's a point to raise if we're talking about the general Problem of Evil/Suffering as an objection to theism, but it doesn't help decide this question.
Are you referring to complications in fetal development, and congenital disorders?
I didn't think to mention that kind of thing. Some require more than nourishment & friendly environment--some require more medical care. (And some might not be treatable with our technology.) But you could say the same thing about infants, toddlers, & teenagers.