A Conception's Right To Life

[Lagboltz]

Good heavens Mr. Palerider you certainly are irritable today.

A hard legal defiition of a crime or of guilt does not prove that you are guilty of the crime. You could just as easily claim that vision is what makes a human being a human being and you would be just as successful in proving that as you have been in proving that sentience is what makes us human.

I gave an example of how DUI is judged by a chemical assay. It is a legal measure that is used to prove guilt only if your particular circumstance falls within that measure. I don't understand your point here as it applies to quantitative assays. You seem to changing the subject.

The argumement is fallacious. While one could theoretically count the number of neurons, the number is meaningless unless you can first prove that sentience is what makes a human being a human being in the first place.

Here you seem to be admitting the validity of my very narrow statement concerning a definition of non-sentience.

Since I have offered up hard and credible evidence to support my postion, I am afraid that your argument can't advance even a nanometer until you offer up hard and credible evidence that challenges what I have already provided.

Hard credible evidence? You offered three "points" without proof or stating that it was hard credible evidence. To clear the air, why don't you justify the three points of your case and show your hard credible evidence.

Your mistake is in assuming that the definition is relavent in the absence of any proof that sentience is even importat to the discussion. You simply pulled sentience out of your ass etc.

Well now, Mr. Irritablity, I don't think anyone in the right state of mind would consider that sentience is not one of the singularly most important human traits. You will have to prove that it is not the most important traits of humanness. You should never consider the concept of sentience to have the same importance as rectal sphincter of any being. What do you think is the most important trait of humanness?

Just for fun, I will redefine your entire argument into an emotionaly charged and tearful self examination, on your part, that you have indeed come to see the error of your positon and you apologize on your knees to all of the dead whose deaths you have, in ignorance of the truth, supported.

Well, that was fun. But on a more somber note, we are otherwise trying to keep emotion out of the scientific aspects of arguments. I outlined the basis of my emotional thinking in a separate post because it was a bit off topic. Maybe you could too, such as insight as to why you are so intent on dismantling Roe vs. Wade, and so emphatically stress murder.

If I had been using that tactic all along think of how many coverts I could now claim.... etc.

Yes, I understand where you are coming from, and you understand where I am. We are both trying to construct a statement of principles pertaining to the subject of abortion rights. The principles must have a sound basis. And that is the crux of our contention. I can construct a sound basis as well as you can. Your constant decrying of my basis is flat-out wrong.

Great. You have made the claim. [definition of non-sentience] Now prove it.

You are asking me to prove that an organism with no neurons can have sentience. That could only happen if there were some ethereal spirit thingyness that embodies sentience outside the small group of cells. Are you proposing that?

I have proven every claim that I have made with credible evidence.

For example, you have not proven your statement #2. Mare Tranquillity challenged you on that in post #173, and you gave Mare opinion, but no proof. Furthermore, if you proved your statement #3, I would like to see your proof that the right to live takes precedence over every other right. Please show me the proof, and I apologize if you stated it clearly somewhere and I missed it.

Not even a nanometer. Not even an angstrom. In fact, you are losing ground steadily. You have sharpened your argument to points that will be even harder to prove than your original gross generalizations. Until you offer up some hard and credible proof to support your musings, you are mired in logical fallacy and and a fallacious argument simply can not move forward against one solidly grounded in fact.

No matter how many times you say it, you have no credible proof of your three rules. Even if you did, my arguments are equally as strong as yours. You have not proved a thing. You have just made 3 dogmatic rules without proof. I will make four rules that are equally dogmatic. The first three are your statements even though the third makes no syntactic sense.

1. Unborns at any stage of development are living human beings.
2. Human beings have a right to live.
3. The right to live takes precedence over any other right that may be invoked so long as one doesn't represent an imminent threat to another's life. [/QUOTE]
4. Humans who are non-sentient have no rights.

You absolutely cannot claim that I am saying that sentience is necessary for humanness. I am simply adding another rule without that claim. My fourth rule is a necessary guideline for human life that is overpopulating the world and my set of rules will guide some women out of a misery that they don't want to bear. Your rules are guided by an undercurrent of deep emotion, and that makes you self-serving.

 

[Dr.Who]

Thanks for the heads-up. "an embryo prior to the gastrulation phase" is quite a mouth full (keyboard-full?) Possibly "pre-neural phase" would be OK terminology? That phase as I understand it still occurs in time for accuracy of home pregnancy tests, and certianly for morning-after pills.

Much better.

Though a lack of pain is still no excuse to kill someone.

A lack of being a person might be but no one can decide who is or is not a person. The best science tells us that everyone is unique at conception. Religions have their own dates. And the courts use viability somewhat ambiguously and arbitrarily.

yet most abortions take place well after conception, after most religions state, and very soon after the date of viability.

It would be nice if we all agreed to make them safe and rare for the time being. Unfortunately there are those in the pro-choice side who are really pro-abortion.

 

[Lagboltz]

Though a lack of pain is still no excuse to kill someone.

For an embryo prior to the gastrulation phase , I wouldn't think that pain would be possible. But you are right that in later periods, pain would be an issue. I stayed away from that area.

yet most abortions take place well after conception, after most religions state, and very soon after the date of viability

Your point is well taken. I was concerned with how one applies an intellectual concept to a real-life issue as Palerider has been doing. My goal was to define a position beyond reproach, in that an organism with no neural system could not have the extremely complex attribute of sentience, or self-awareness, let alone pain.

 

[palerider]

I gave an example of how DUI is judged by a chemical assay. It is a legal measure that is used to prove guilt only if your particular circumstance falls within that measure. I don't understand your point here as it applies to quantitative assays. You seem to changing the subject.

You gave an example, but it is meaningless. Blood alcohol is a measure of drunkeness to be sure and it is easy enough to prove that a blood alcohol of a certain amount is likely to impair a person of a certain weight to a certain degree. The analogy is not applicable, however, to sentience as you have yet to prove that sentience is what makes a human being, a human being.

Here you seem to be admitting the validity of my very narrow statement concerning a definition of non-sentience.

Admit what? You have offered no proof. Am I to admit that you are right when you can offer no substantive evidence to support your claim?

Hard credible evidence? You offered three "points" without proof or stating that it was hard credible evidence. To clear the air, why don't you justify the three points of your case and show your hard credible evidence.

I have proved every point I have made.

Well now, Mr. Irritablity, I don't think anyone in the right state of mind would consider that sentience is not one of the singularly most important human traits. You will have to prove that it is not the most important traits of humanness. You should never consider the concept of sentience to have the same importance as rectal sphincter of any being. What do you think is the most important trait of humanness?

DNA is the singular most importaint trait of humanness. Every other trait is a derivative of the first and therefore secondary. No secondary trait is more important than any other as the primary trait determines what the entity is. If I am more sentient than you, I am not more human than you. If I am better looking than you, I am not more human than you? No secondary trait that I may posess can make me more or less human than you. We are what we are by virtue of our DNA. Again, humanness, personhood, sentience, or whatever you care to call it is a matter of kind, not degree. Human is what we are, not a product of the degree to which we manifest our potential.

Well, that was fun. But on a more somber note, we are otherwise trying to keep emotion out of the scientific aspects of arguments. I outlined the basis of my emotional thinking in a separate post because it was a bit off topic. Maybe you could too, such as insight as to why you are so intent on dismantling Roe vs. Wade, and so emphatically stress murder.

There is no emotional component of my argument.

Yes, I understand where you are coming from, and you understand where I am. We are both trying to construct a statement of principles pertaining to the subject of abortion rights. The principles must have a sound basis. And that is the crux of our contention. I can construct a sound basis as well as you can. Your constant decrying of my basis is flat-out wrong.

If you can, why have you not done it. You offer opinion after opinion after opinion with no evidence to support any of them.

You are asking me to prove that an organism with no neurons can have sentience. That could only happen if there were some ethereal spirit thingyness that embodies sentience outside the small group of cells. Are you proposing that?

I am asking you to prove that sentience is what makes a human being a human being. You are making the claim that prior to achieving sentience, that the unborn isn't human enough to be protected by the law. I am asking you to prove that prior to achieving sentience, that the unborn is not human enough to be proected by the law. Prove that a non sentient unborn is less human than you and therefore less deserving of the protection of the law.

For example, you have not proven your statement #2. Mare Tranquillity challenged you on that in post #173, and you gave Mare opinion, but no proof. Furthermore, if you proved your statement #3, I would like to see your proof that the right to live takes precedence over every other right. Please show me the proof, and I apologize if you stated it clearly somewhere and I missed it.

Of course I have. I have proven each and every pertinent point of my argument and have offered credible proof to support them. I really shouldn't have to go over this again, but I will for your benefit, and perhaps to keep you on topic. Chip is correct in his claim that in your effort to prove your argument, you are drifting further and further away from the actual topic. There is, I understand, a reason that you must drift.

1. Unborns are human beings.


"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers)

"Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human being from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else."E. Bleschmidt, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE 16–17

"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology” T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed.

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

If these aren't enough, feel free to visit any medical school library and ask for the following volumes

KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN page14

SUSAN TUCKER BLACKBURN & DONNA LEE LOPER, MATERNAL, FETAL AND NEONATAL PHYSIOLOGY: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE page 49

MICHAEL R. HARRISON ET AL., THE UNBORN PATIENT: PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT page14

DALE RUSSELL DUNNIHOO, M.D., PH.D., FUNDAMENTALS OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS pages 286–99

Now if you can provide some equally credible material stating explicitly that unborns are something other than living human beings, by all means, do it. Otherwise, I have proved my point # 1.

(continued)

 

[palerider]

(cotinuation)

2.Human beings have a right to live.

Amendment 5 of the US Constitution:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 14 of the US Constitution:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In addition, I have referenced you to page 1152 (depending on the edition) to Black's Legal Dictionary. This is THE dictionary that you will find in the Supreme Court chambers. It is used to settle disputes when an argument arises over legal terms. This dictionary defines person as "a human being" No qualifiers such as sentience, blue eyes, 10 fingers, 10 toes, or two ears. Simply, a human being. Having proved that unborns are human beings, I have also proved that they are persons and all persons, according to the Constitution have a right to live and may not be denied their life without due process of the law.

So I have proved y point #2.

3. The right to live takes precedence over any other right that may be invoked so long as one doesn't represent an imminent threat to another's life.

The above references to the US Constitution also cover this point. One simply may not be denied the right to live (lgally killed) without due process. For exceptions, refer to Black's legal Dictionary for definitions and explanations of justifiable homicide which include self defense, and killings by police officers in the fulfillment of their duty.

These points are exactly why the court had to declare that unborns were not human beings in order to give women the right to kill them. The statement made by Justice Blackmun in the majority decision of roe v wade is the final nail in my argument.

"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."

In the years since roe, the suggestion of personhood has been answered in spades. Both by science, and by the judicial system itself. Again, people are in prison having been charged for the murder of unborns. One can not be charged for any sort of criiminal homicide unless one has, in fact, killed a person.

No matter how many times you say it, you have no credible proof of your three rules. Even if you did, my arguments are equally as strong as yours. You have not proved a thing. You have just made 3 dogmatic rules without proof. I will make four rules that are equally dogmatic. The first three are your statements even though the third makes no syntactic sense.

I have proved my points and it is now for you to provide credible information refuting the proofs that I have offered. I can save you a great deal of tiime by telling you that no such proofs exist. I know, because I spent a great deal of time looking for them.

You absolutely cannot claim that I am saying that sentience is necessary for humanness. I am simply adding another rule without that claim. My fourth rule is a necessary guideline for human life that is overpopulating the world and my set of rules will guide some women out of a misery that they don't want to bear. Your rules are guided by an undercurrent of deep emotion, and that makes you self-serving.

Overpopulation is a myth and has no bearing on the abortion discussion. If you appled your logic to overpopulation, you would have to favor killing those who we know are a drain on our resources and don't contribute an amount equal to what they take. Further, you would have no justification for killing unborns as any one of them may grow up to provide answers to the very problems you are so concerned with. A very few individuals are born in any generation that are in the upper part of the 99th percentile with regard to intelligence. The present rate of abortion suggests that there is a good likelyhood that the very intellects required to solve the problems you are worried about are or already have been killed.

In any case, the overpopulation myth isn't a rational justification for allowing one individual to kill another with no legal consequence.

And again, do feel free to point out any part of my argument that represents irrational emotionalism.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Anecdote does not constitute rational argument any more than emotional handwringing. Do you have the ability to put together a rational argument on this, or any subject.

By the way, her mother was awarded almost 3 million dollars as recompense for the violation of her daughter's rights. Get the jungle to punish those who are responsible for violating the rights of another.

Three million dollars, but she's still dead, no right to life. Right to recompense after a wrongful death if you have the money or pull to get it, but still no right to life.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Emotional handwringing does not constitute rational argument. To confirm the flaw in your thinking, compare the US to practically any of the third world hell holes where human rights are rarely considered. You have a terrible habit of making statements that you simply can't support. That is why you will never win an argument with me as I rarely if ever make a statement that I can't support. I don't base my positions on emotion, or personal feelings, I base my postions on the facts as they exist.

So other places are worse and that makes us... okay? Our barbarism is no less barbaric because we can point to others who are worse. So what's your point?

Again, you attempt to make a religious argument where none exists. I have never argued for the sacredness of anything. Animals have what rights we give them because they are completly unable to respect rights or reciprocate with the respect of the rights of others. Your argument has no bearing whatsoever on the facts of abortion.

The terms "sacred" and "profane" have secular meanings as well, and that's how I used the term sacred.

In the secular meaning of the word you have continually argued for the sacredness of unborn life.

You said, "Animals have what rights we give them..." and I agree with you, but unlike you I know that all other lives have only the rights we give them--there is no right to life in our world.

 

[palerider]

Three million dollars, but she's still dead, no right to life. Right to recompense after a wrongful death if you have the money or pull to get it, but still no right to life.

The 3 million is for the violation of her right. Sorry mare, once again, you are simply wrong. Had s/he not had a right to live, there would have been no recompense. You have, once again, failed to prove your argument. If you would just think them through to their logical end, do your research, and detatch your emotions from the issue enough to look at the facts and honestly determine whether they support you or not, you might find that you could make a valid arguent once in a while. Of course, you would nearly always have to argue on the opposite side of an argument but at least you could make some valid points.

 

[palerider]

So other places are worse and that makes us... okay? Our barbarism is no less barbaric because we can point to others who are worse. So what's your point?

The point is that you are wrong in that we have brought the jungle with us.

The terms "sacred" and "profane" have secular meanings as well, and that's how I used the term sacred.

You are wrong in that use of the word as well.

You said, "Animals have what rights we give them..." and I agree with you, but unlike you I know that all other lives have only the rights we give them--there is no right to life in our world.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Our government wasn't established to give us rights, but to protect the rights that we already have by virtue of being a human being. I wouldn't expect you to grasp such a concept as you are angry at the entire world. You see catholics who are out to get you behind every hedge and it stands to reason that your view of the world you live in would be very skewed. You see yourself as a victim in everything. Even the killing of children.

 

[Chip]

Three million dollars, but she's still dead, no right to life. Right to recompense after a wrongful death if you have the money or pull to get it, but still no right to life.

Just because she was murdered, that does not mean she didn't have the right to life.

That only means her right to life was violated.

Rights get violated all the time.

That doesn't mean those rights don't exist.

That only means they were violated.

Remember, we all have free will ... and the decision to respect the rights of others often boils down to a matter of choice.

 

[Dr.Who]

DNA is the singular most importaint trait of humanness. Every other trait is a derivative of the first and therefore secondary. No secondary trait is more important than any other as the primary trait determines what the entity is. If I am more sentient than you, I am not more human than you. If I am better looking than you, I am not more human than you? No secondary trait that I may posess can make me more or less human than you. We are what we are by virtue of our DNA. Again, humanness, personhood, sentience, or whatever you care to call it is a matter of kind, not degree. Human is what we are, not a product of the degree to which we manifest our potential.

Well DNA is pretty good indicator. A darn good indicator actually. But it is not perfect and there is one indicator that comes first and is therefore primary: when a human is conceived if the contributors of genetic material are humans then the product is human. For laymen, if your parents are human then you are human. This allows Down's children to be recognized as human which we all know to be true already. We would then simply say that a down's child is a human not that a down's child is an exception to the rule of humaness.

 

[palerider]

Well DNA is pretty good indicator. A darn good indicator actually. But it is not perfect and there is one indicator that comes first and is therefore primary: when a human is conceived if the contributors of genetic material are humans then the product is human. For laymen, if your parents are human then you are human. This allows Down's children to be recognized as human which we all know to be true already. We would then simply say that a down's child is a human not that a down's child is an exception to the rule of humaness.

I don't believe that I have ever heard of a genetic disorder disqualifing one as a human being. Your suggestion that parentage may be the most important though, might disqualify many in the future as being human beings. To suggest that parentage is what makes one a full fledged member of a species would disqualify Dolly, for example, from being a sheep since she was not the offspring of two sheep. Numerous dogs, cats, mice and other experimental animals would also be disqualifed as they also, are not the product of male and female of their species.

DNA is the single most important trait of humanness. Everything else, including genetic disorders is derivative from the primary trait.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Just because she was murdered, that does not mean she didn't have the right to life.

That only means her right to life was violated.

Rights get violated all the time.

That doesn't mean those rights don't exist.

That only means they were violated.

Remember, we all have free will ... and the decision to respect the rights of others often boils down to a matter of choice.

That is the point I was making, the right to life that we extend to each other is a gift because we don't have to respect anyone else's life.

You and Pale are talking about the "legal" right and I was talking about the larger perspective in which such a "right" does not exist. And just for Pale, the fact that we have the "decision to respect the rights of others" but often choose not to do so is what I meant by bringing the jungle with us.

Can one be said to have a "right" if said "right" is not enforceable? No, I don't think so, as long as we can choose to take the life of another and they have no recourse--because they're dead--then I fail to see how there can be a "right" to life outside of the very narrow, but ultimately unenforceable, legal one.

 

[palerider]

That is the point I was making, the right to life that we extend to each other is a gift because we don't have to respect anyone else's life.

Sorry, but it isn't a gift. You don't get punished for not giving a gift. You do get punished for not respecting the rights of others. Again, your anger and suspicion are clouding your reason rendering you incapable of putting together a coherent argument.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Sorry, but it isn't a gift. You don't get punished for not giving a gift. You do get punished for not respecting the rights of others. Again, your anger and suspicion are clouding your reason rendering you incapable of putting together a coherent argument.

Some people get punished, many do not. And yes, in this case if they can catch you, then you are punished for not giving the gift--otherwise you are home free. What anger and suspicion? Are you sober?