War On Women

[4588686]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1346810688' post='2478567']
What qualities make a human being human in your personal philosophy?
[/quote]

There is more involved in determining personhood than genetics. A lump of flesh is genetically 'human' that doesn't mean that it is allocated the rights of a human person. I'm not saying that a fetus is just a lump of flesh. But you're criteria for what constitutes a human person, or even a human being, goes beyond the merely genetic. Do you consider a totally brain-dead person a human person? I realize that I haven't answered your question yet but I want to start off by attacking your assertion that your definition of person-hood is totally objective and lacks any philosophical baggage.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Hasan

[4588686]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1346812697' post='2478585']
lol Hassan, if Lilla ain't getting thru to you, I'm bowing out. This has nothing to do with religion. This has to do with biological science. A fetus, a zygote etc is an individual human organism.[/QUOTE]

I'd agree that it is a human organism.

[QUOTE]He/she isn't self-aware. Infants aren't self-aware either. Irrelevant. That doesn't make them non-human, or sub-human because you and a bunch of modern ethicicists think self-awareness is a criterion for personhood and necessary for legal protection. That's not scientific. It cannot be empirically verified. It's a philosophic assertion that has ZERO grounds in biological science (again NOT that fetuses lack cognitive functions such as self-awareness, but that self-awareness is what gives a biological organism value and it's a shiitake mushroom philosophical assertion at that.[/QUOTE]

That is almost entirely true.
[QUOTE]There's always someone here on phatmass whining about religious people forcing their unfounded beliefs into public policy, but it's ok I suppose to force unfounded beliefs into public discourse so long as they aren't religious. Then it's totes ok.[/QUOTE]

Me. I'm always whining about that. In fact I'm the number one whiner that religious people have a tendency to use their unfounded religious beliefs to as licence to restrict behavior that has no serious impact on their life at all. like gay marriage. I do not complain that people with religious beliefs want to craft public policy. If your going to be beeshy, that's fine. I have no problem with it. At all. Please, beesh me out. But stop trying to hide your jabs.


[QUOTE]Excuse the bitchiness. I'm off my meds and my tolerance for this brand of stupid has taken quite a hit.
[/quote]

I didn't ask for an apology. But I'd really have more respect for you if you'd just call me a moron or an arse portal rather than this sort of passive-aggressive non-apology.

Thank you for apologizing for not being able to take my brand of stupidity. That really means a lot to me.

[4588686]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1346810456' post='2478561']
You keep talking about the soul thing. I keep telling you the soul has nothing to do with it. The scientific definition of a human being is determined by DNA, by chromosomes.

Like you said earlier (didn't you) Aquinas thought abortion was wrong always. In his view the dignity of a human life was inviolable quite apart from theological speculations about whether there is a soul, or if this human being has a soul etc.

If you want to base your definition of "human being" on some mystical philosophy, thats fine for YOU, but I don't think in democratic society a fetus, which is in every scientific objective way a human being, should be denied human rights because they don't measure up as "human" in your personal religious views.

I think the sane thing for a multicultural, pluralistic society to do is to go by the objective, biological definition and not some dreamed up benchmarks for what a person is. Because not only are we incompetent judges of that kind of thing, it also frequently ends in murder.
[/quote]

If the organism did not live within a woman then I would agree with you that it is better to be safe than sorry. But if a women is going to have her right to control her body overriden by the law demanding that she do nothing to her body that might harm that organism then the issue get's much trickier. Does an organism which is developing into a human person, presumably, have more right to continue that growth than a woman does to control her body? That is why it is a difficult question. With all due respect, and I say that sincerely, you haven't said anything that resolves that difficulty, that I can see. So an organism that has no brain, no sense of self at all, no desire to live, and only occupys the physical space of a few cells, has more rights to continue developing than the woman whose body it is occupying? In a context that is not colored with the religious belief in an eternal souls or the will of any God, that would an immensely difficult claim to maintain, I think.

[r2Dtoo]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1346814051' post='2478597']
If the organism did not live within a woman then I would agree with you that it is better to be safe than sorry. [/quote]
That's interesting. What's your take on harvesting stem cells from frozen embryos?

[Lilllabettt]

So, the human being who is small (takes up little space) does not have rights.
And, the human being who has no sense of self or desire to live does not have rights (the severely disabled, the suicidal)
And, the human being who is totally dependent on another does not have rights (the elderly, sick, infirm)
And, the human being whose continued existence is a "burden" on other's existence (the poor, the blacks, the Jews, the Gypsies)

take your logic all the way to its conclusion and see what you get.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Lilllabettt

[4588686]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1346814623' post='2478609']
So, the human being who is small (takes up little space) does not have rights.
And, the human being who has no sense of self or desire to live does not have rights (the severely disabled, the suicidal)
And, the human being who is totally dependent on another does not have rights (the elderly, sick, infirm)
And, the human being whose continued existence is a "burden" on other's existence (the poor, the blacks, the Jews, the Gypsies)

take your logic all the way to its conclusion and see what you get.
[/quote]

That's not my logic, and you know it.

[Lilllabettt]

This was your explanation for why fetal human beings don't deserve human rights:

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1346814051' post='2478597']
So an organism that has no brain, no sense of self at all, no desire to live, and only occupys the physical space of a few cells, has more rights to continue developing than the woman whose body it is occupying? In a context that is not colored with the religious belief in an eternal souls or the will of any God, that would an immensely difficult claim to maintain, I think.
[/quote]

1.they are brainless 2. have no sense of self 3. no desire to live 4. are small 5. are dependent on another for life and a drain on her resources

Edited September 5, 2012 by Lilllabettt

[missionseeker]

What I want to know is why do women have to bare the burden of contraception? Why not just give out free condoms? Or perform free vasectomies as well. Those at least don't require years of hormones that can change how your entire body functions.

Or where are the options for women who DON'T want BC as their only medical option to gynecological problems? Say those with PCOS or irregular periods who want actual answers. I have a friend who has to drive 300 miles for a doctor who didn't just say "sorry, you can never have kids. Here's some BC and you'll be fine". BC doesn't FIX the problems. Unless a doctor looks at hormone levels and gives half an ounce of effort to find out what the problem is, nothing will FIX it. It just masks the symptoms.

What about women who choose not to abort their babies, despite pressure, or even despite rape? (it does happen.) Why is it ok for them to be denied insurance?

Or how about those women who prefer to give birth in their own homes or a birthing center? Why is it ok that my sister's insurance will not cover her midwife's (in a birthing center, certified by the state, completely legal) cost, but it must cover if she wanted to abort her baby?


If we're going to call it a war on women, let's at least address all of the issues, not just one or two...

[4588686]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1346815423' post='2478619']
This was your explanation for why fetal human beings don't deserve human rights:



1.they are brainless 2. have no sense of self 3. no desire to live 4. are small 5. are dependent on another for life and a drain on her resources
[/quote]

You stretched or exaggerated all of those categories and then broke them up and applied your exaggerated interpretation individually. For example rendering my argument that a fertilized egg is only a few call sized organism as a human being who is 'small.' Obviously the point of that criteria had nothing to do with the size in an of itself but the complexity of the system not that somebody born with dwarfism is somehow less human than I am. If I were shrunk to a micro-level that would have no bearing on my personhood whereas if a fertilized egg were 12 foot tall that wouldn't make it a human person. I realize that I used the phrase 'physical space' in front of few cells, and if you want to blast away at that then fine, but I think that it is pretty clear that the point was the complexity not the actual size relative to any other human being.