Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (3427)	12/16/2002 10:05:52 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 7720

Personhood and citizenship are two different things. Yes, they are. And our Constitution, the wise and noble determinant of law for our country, addresses both of them, somehow managing to avoid mentioning the fetus in the process. Now, what should we make of that? One does not need to be a strict constructionist to conclude that the framers found the fetus unworthy of mention for purpose of law. If they considered it a citizen, or even a non-citizen person, they would have said so. All I object to is making out that there has been a persistent consensus that birth is the "great divide". It might not be a great divide, but it is the default divide for purposes of law. For purposes of morality, there are lots of options. The difference between not conceiving and a morning after pill is that there is a conceptus in the second case. I read with some amusement the discussion elsewhere about differences and the importance or significance of differences. Yep, that's a significant difference. But is it the salient difference? Before conception we have a human sperm and a human egg. Once they hook up we have a human embryo. The difference must be of at least some significance because we have a word for the result--embryo. If things pan out, that embryo will become a person and maybe a citizen. The egg and sperm who stay home are human. The embryo created by venturesome eggs and sperm is human. Being human is not the issue. Laz said that the basis of your position was religious. You argued that it is not dogma and I agree with you. I'm sure your position is not rote but well thought out. But I have trouble seeing how the line you're drawing can be anything other than religious. A hooked-up egg and sperm, aka an embryo, is significantly different for line-drawing personhood only if you consider that God or fate or a miracle or nature or ensoulment or serendipity has occurred and it's not our place to undo it--it would be wrong for us to undo it. That notion of the wrongness of undoing what has been ordained has religious basis. I agree with Laz. since it is the same organism from conception to maturation into an articulated human, it is at least arguable that humanity begins at conception...Even if the argument were inconclusive, it raises the stakes for aborting Yes, it's arguable. In my last post I mentioned a variety of lines, all of which are arguable. I respect your choice. I would respect your argument more if you acknowledged that all the other choices are also arguable. so the invocation of "kissing and intercourse" is irrelevant No, it's not irrelevant. Intercourse is the action, taken either responsibly or irresponsibly, that triggers the condition called pregancy. Nothing irrelevant about that. The best way to avoid abortion is not to have sex. The line cannot rationally be birth, since there is no material difference between the child before leaving the womb and after doing so. The only difference is method of life- support. Back to the business of differences vs. important differences. Duh! And that's not important? Parasite vs. breathing is not significant? There are important differences all along this path to personhood. Among the important differences, which is THE salient difference? You say conception for purposes of morality, a judgment that I think you prefer because it resonates with you religiously, and somewhere between conception and the end of the first trimester for legal purposes. My moral judgment would be somewhere between the second trimester and viability but, for legal purposes, my libertarianism and my humanism say it must be birth. Therefore, why should I feel uncomfortable in expressing a strong opinion on the matter? Well, you shouldn't IMO. Like I said before, I respect your personal moral judgment. But I think you should feel uncomfortable arguing to impose your religiously based, personal, moral judgment on others. You stated categorically that people should not come into the world without an assurance of a good family. Sorry, there are implications to such a statement. As I compose this post, I can't help chuckling over my odd "more conservative than thou" position. Yes, there are implications to such a statement. I noticed you skirted around addressing them. The salient implication, IMO, is about personal responsibility. I'm surprised you're opposed to that. <g>