SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lane3 who wrote (3722)1/28/2001 2:18:36 PM
From: E  Read Replies (2) of 82486
 
<<Legally speaking, I think it is.. For millennia we've had birth as the bright line for when human life begins.>>

To commence juridical citizenship when one is born has been a reasonable custom that i'm not arguing with. This isn't the same thing as saying that for millennia we've accepted that "human life" begins at birth, though.

"Human life" isn't the same as "a human being." The religious right declares that they are identical, of course! -- because they believe that as soon as an egg is fertilized, voila, it has a soul and should have legal standing. That's an article of religious faith that they are fighting to force down the throats of citizens of different faiths.

I'm trying to avoid a reductio ad absurdum at either end of the gestation cycle, because though I may not know much about legal history, I do know these things:

1. A fertilized egg is not a human being, it's a blueprint for one.

2. An eight month fetus is not a blueprint for a human being, it's a human being...

(its lack of a yet-established national citizenship based on the Declaration of Independence or Constitution notwithstanding.)

<<<Just because we've always done it that way doesn't mean we have to keep doing it that way, but when something is already established, it sticks until there's a compelling reason to change it and a workable way to implement the change. >>>

IMO, there are very compelling reasons to change it.

A couple of reasons compelling to me:

We haven't had the infanticide discussion, and I don't like decisions on such significant moral issues to be made without discussion. I oppose legalizing infanticide. I also oppose performing it without giving it its name because the Constitution sensibly ties citizenship with birth.

People "know" the difference between a legal condition and a "real life" one. In "real life," an eight month old fetus is a child, whatever its right to inherit or apply for a passport.

Which leads directly to a second reason compelling to me. If these late term abortions continue, providing ammunition to the right, we will lose the fight to preserve a woman's right not to be forced to carry an embryo inside her body until it develops into a dependent human being.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext