Phank on "truly terrible political policy"

[Cow Poke]

(also, CP, notice how Phank changed "human being" to "person" in his reply? "person" can be a legal definition and can be bestowed on non-human beings. A corporation is a "person" under the law, for instance. But a "human being" is a scientific designation. Phank can't deny that a fetus is a human being.)

Yeah, noticed that, which is why I asked the question I asked in post 14.

[Sparko]

The problem with "person" being a legal definition is that it can be legally taken away from anyone. Hitler took it away from jews. They were no longer persons, so it was legal to gas them and torture them.

Instead of embracing such an ephemeral definition of a "person", Phank should be in fear of it. His own "personhood" is valid only at the whim of the political system he lives under.

[Cow Poke]

The problem with "person" being a legal definition is that it can be legally taken away from anyone. Hitler took it away from jews. They were no longer persons, so it was legal to gas them and torture them.

Instead of embracing such an ephemeral definition of a "person", Phank should be in fear of it. His own "personhood" is valid only at the whim of the political system he lives under.

Well, yeah, if, in the general course of nature, a fetus who does not die (or is not killed) at SOME POINT becomes a human being. That's beyond dispute.

So, the problem for Phank, and those like him, is AT WHAT POINT does this happen? (and, is there any point at which a fetus is 3/5ths person?)

[Sparko]

Well, yeah, if, in the general course of nature, a fetus who does not die (or is not killed) at SOME POINT becomes a human being.

They are always a human being. It is at what point does the law consider them a person? This is what Phank is using to confuse the issue.

[Paprika]

They are always a human being. It is at what point does the law consider them a person? This is what Phank is using to confuse the issue.

American law considers them a person at all times unless when the mother or someone she authorises is trying to kill them.

[phank]

I am with you on that one, bro. Phank is obviously a bot. We should send drones over to his location to um, shut him down.

(also, CP, notice how Phank changed "human being" to "person" in his reply? "person" can be a legal definition and can be bestowed on non-human beings. A corporation is a "person" under the law, for instance. But a "human being" is a scientific designation. Phank can't deny that a fetus is a human being.)

This is correct. "Person" is a legal category, while "human being" is a biological category. A fetus is fully human. I hope this is not at issue here...

[phank]

The problem with "person" being a legal definition is that it can be legally taken away from anyone. Hitler took it away from jews. They were no longer persons, so it was legal to gas them and torture them.

Instead of embracing such an ephemeral definition of a "person", Phank should be in fear of it. His own "personhood" is valid only at the whim of the political system he lives under.

This is entirely true. Whether or not this qualifies as entirely evil is another question.

[Sparko]

This is correct. "Person" is a legal category, while "human being" is a biological category. A fetus is fully human. I hope this is not at issue here...

so you are OK with killing a human being who has done nothing to threaten you?

[phank]

American law considers them a person at all times unless when the mother or someone she authorises is trying to kill them.

No, under American law one becomes a person at birth. Now, whether it's acceptable to kill human beings is not nearly so clear. We can easily name several situations where one is not only permitted, but indeed even required, to kill other humans. We recognize such situations as battlefield activity, self-defense, capital punishment, abortion, etc. as allowable circumstances. And of course there are pacifists, willing victims, people (and whole states) who oppose capital punishment, and maybe half who oppose abortion according to polls (though that half is far from equally distributed.)

So the question we're dealing with here isn't WHETHER it's OK to kill humans, because clearly it is depending on circumstances. The question is, under what circumstances should we consider it allowable, how should those circumstances be defined and identified, and what are the consequences of NOT allowing it.

In the case of battlefields, the consequences are, you lose the battles. In the case of abortion, the consequences are a high death rate from back-alley abortions and a boost to organized crime (we have been there and done that). In the case of self-defense, you die. Are these consequences sufficient to permit killing? People disagree. Should we permit disagreement? Good question. We can look at nations where disagreement is not permitted. Do we like the results?

[phank]

so you are OK with killing a human being who has done nothing to threaten you?

No, I'm not OK with that. I don't think I said I was. But I'm even LESS OK with trying to force my opinions down the throats of others. Most women who have abortions, do so because a child represents a threat to them personally. And since it's their life, their body, their business and not mine, my position is that Big Brother should keep out of it. I will make nobody else's personal decision for them.

[Sparko]

No, under American law one becomes a person at birth. Now, whether it's acceptable to kill human beings is not nearly so clear. We can easily name several situations where one is not only permitted, but indeed even required, to kill other humans. We recognize such situations as battlefield activity, self-defense, capital punishment, abortion, etc. as allowable circumstances. And of course there are pacifists, willing victims, people (and whole states) who oppose capital punishment, and maybe half who oppose abortion according to polls (though that half is far from equally distributed.)

So the question we're dealing with here isn't WHETHER it's OK to kill humans, because clearly it is depending on circumstances. The question is, under what circumstances should we consider it allowable, how should those circumstances be defined and identified, and what are the consequences of NOT allowing it.

In the case of battlefields, the consequences are, you lose the battles. In the case of abortion, the consequences are a high death rate from back-alley abortions and a boost to organized crime (we have been there and done that). In the case of self-defense, you die. Are these consequences sufficient to permit killing? People disagree. Should we permit disagreement? Good question. We can look at nations where disagreement is not permitted. Do we like the results?

Yeah because them evil fetuses are in there killing their mothers like the chest-poppers in Alien, right? So the mom has to defend herself from them by killing them.

An unborn child has done nothing to anyone. It is not a monster, it is not a parasite, it is not a criminal, it is not an enemy combatant. It has done nothing to deserve death.

Yet you think it is OK to allow abortion to "prevent back alley abortions"???? really? To prevent mothers from harming themselves while killing their own unborn child, you think it is OK to make it legal to just kill the unborn child. The whole "back alley coat hanger abortion" thing is a myth to begin with. A lot more mothers and children die from legal abortions than ever did doing illegal ones.

That's completely stupid.

[Zymologist]

It's disturbing to me that abortion has been redefined as an act of self-defense.

[Cow Poke]

Which is why it's silly to call Texas Senate Bill 5 "truly terrible political policy".

[Sparko]

No, I'm not OK with that. I don't think I said I was. But I'm even LESS OK with trying to force my opinions down the throats of others. Most women who have abortions, do so because a child represents a threat to them personally. And since it's their life, their body, their business and not mine, my position is that Big Brother should keep out of it. I will make nobody else's personal decision for them.

do you have a problem with locking up burglars, or murderers, or drunk drivers? I assume not, so you really don't have a problem with forcing your opinions down the throats of others.

A fetus is a human being. It is not part of the mother's body. It is not a tumor or growth that she can decide to have removed. It is a HUMAN BEING.

[Cow Poke]

The heart of the legislation that Wendy Davis opposed dealt with restricting abortion after 20 weeks. Even foreign countries who we deem "liberal" ban abortions BEFORE 20 weeks. Belgium and France ban abortions after TWELVE weeks.

I'd still like to know what's "truly terrible" about a ban on late term abortions.