Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 4678

Was just going over the last abortion/Bush thread and it occurred to me that the language of RvW only works if you assume that a fetus is a nonhuman. Otherwise the "right to life" argument (as enumerated in the Constitution) would apply.

Now, I figure that there are many reasons for believing that it is, or it is not, human. On one end of the spectrum you have my (religion-fueled) position that it is self-evidently human since things like mere position of the "timeline of development" or capabilities could not delineate human from nonhuman, because the former is completely arbitrary and the latter could (and has been) be used in principle to designate vast segments of the population as "inhuman" based on their abilities.

On the other end is the position advocated by Azrael, that because the fetus is a nondifferentiated clump of cells that cannot feed itself, communicate, etc. that cannot be human (although it may be "alive" in the same sense as other living cells, organs, etc.). This is the position, incidentally, that was assumed by the artificers of Roe v. Wade.

In between are views such as "it's human once it could survive outside the womb" or "it doesn't matter since people only get the rights they are given by those who are stronger than they are."

With me so far?

All I want to do in this thread is get down your views on this issue...is a fetus a living human being or isn't it? Why or why not? I have come across many arguments but it can never hurt to hear a few new ones, or reiterate the old ones.

Have at it.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 5526

Darn it all, squee, you did this on purpose, didn't you?

My performance failure with the 18-pixel neon fetus is going to haunt me forever. I can tell.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

quote:

---

Originally posted by squee
On the other end is the position advocated by Azrael, that because the fetus is a nondifferentiated clump of cells that cannot feed itself, communicate, etc. that cannot be human (although it may be "alive" in the same sense as other living cells, organs, etc.). This is the position, incidentally, that was assumed by the artificers of Roe v. Wade.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Boston, MA, Center of the Universe
Posts: 4509

It's a tumor.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Just to the right of the moon
Posts: 3141

I really couldn't give a flying fuck one way or the other. This is just going to go round in circles like every other dabate on this stultifying topic.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35572

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHiPsJr
If it ain't human, surely, there's nothing wrong with showing off the procedure and its results, right?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Beyond Mason-Dixon Line
Posts: 16170

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cage
It's a tumor.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Shreveport, LA
Posts: 3786

is 100% of its genetic material human? yes?
it's human, in that case. otherwise you have to entertain the notion that quadreplegics aren't human. they can't take care of themselves, right?
all this being said, i have absolutely nothing against killing a person that is threatening to screw up my life.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2002
Location:
Posts: 8663

Like SLF, I agree that you can't pretend a fetus it is some species other than human (though it is most certainly also a parasitic cell-clump). Taking that into account, a fetus is still not yet a person*, and whatever rights people may or may not be entitled to need not yet be given to the parasitic human-clump.

*"Person" is a word I chose abritrarily in an attempt to distinguish the thinking, decision making members of the human species from those who are not.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 15126

You can culture some human cells on a petri dish. They'll never grow into a human being, or anything of the sort, yet their genetic material is 100% human. Would you still consider that cell culture human? Do you have a right to kill it?

[edit: this is targeted at SLH. I lean more towards mmmsivart's way of looking at it all myself.]

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Shreveport, LA
Posts: 3786

yes, that cell culture is human. or human tissue, at the very least. and if that cell culture should happen to threaten my life in some way, yes. i do have a right to kill it.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 15126

Oh well. Basically, my post was just pointing out that just because the cluster of cells are genetically human, doesn't necessarily make them a human. Or a person, I suppose, if you'd use mmmsivart's distinction.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26385

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cage
It's a tumor.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: my mother's bloody womb
Posts: 7139

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paint CHiPs
It's not a tumor.

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Oakland-ish
Posts: 6032

quote:

---

Originally posted by squee
Was just going over the last abortion/Bush thread and it occurred to me that the language of RvW only works if you assume that a fetus is a nonhuman.

Now, I figure that there are many reasons for believing that it is, or it is not, human. On one end of the spectrum you have my (religion-fueled) position that it is self-evidently human since things like mere position of the "timeline of development" or capabilities could not delineate human from nonhuman, because the former is completely arbitrary and the latter could (and has been) be used in principle to designate vast segments of the population as "inhuman" based on their abilities.

On the other end is the position advocated by Azrael, that because the fetus is a nondifferentiated clump of cells that cannot feed itself, communicate, etc. that cannot be human (although it may be "alive" in the same sense as other living cells, organs, etc.). This is the position, incidentally, that was assumed by the artificers of Roe v. Wade.

In between are views such as "it's human once it could survive outside the womb" or "it doesn't matter since people only get the rights they are given by those who are stronger than they are."


All I want to do in this thread is get down your views on this issue...is a fetus a living human being or isn't it? Why or why not? I have come across many arguments but it can never hurt to hear a few new ones, or reiterate the old ones.

Have at it.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 15994

Look, first abandon the predicate that it's being human means a damned thing.

Human are animals, like cats, dogs, rats, monkeys, cattle, etcetera ad nauseum. As animals, they have no intrinsic worth - none. Their only worth is morally identical to the worth of any other animal, and it's only real measure is their utility to society.

By that standard, abortion is just fine by me.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2003
Location: . o O
Posts: 6374

/me looks

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35572

The point of the use of the word 'human' is to say that it has the rights that the government gives to 'humans' (and the 'moral rights' that we give each other, although that is probably not important for the question here). A 3 year old child cannot be legally killed by its mother as that child has the protection of the law, as a human being in US jurisdiction; the foetus doesn't have that protection, in this sense, because it isn't considered to be human (although how that gels with the idea that the murder of a pregnant woman is two murders, I don't know, but I don't know if that is actually a law in any state).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2003
Location: I cant say I buy this completely,
Posts: 2506

Its a baby...and you are killing it, but thats your right.

And why the hell isnt this one like 15 pages long and full of fighting yet?? Boooooring.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: anywhere but here
Posts: 4420

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkyrooster
This is just going to go round in circles like every other dabate on this stultifying topic.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

why squee? why post this thread? you're not asking a "new question" or coming to it from a "new angle". This thread is a waste of bandwidth.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26385

Eatme has become severely disinteresting lately.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pj
I'm with the Rooster.
I'm probably pro-choice, but this argument has been done to death and nothing ever really comes out of it. Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2002
Location:
Posts: 8663

I think squee is secretly taking an ethics or epistemology class or something.

Every week his assignment is to come home and contemplate the meanings of "fun" and "abuse" and "humanity" and "appearances" and "guilt" and so on, and he's erroneously decided posting here for input could be constructive.

Oh well, at least he still has Forrest Whitaker's childlike wonder to him. I reckon many of us made up our minds long ago because it simply becomes too laborous to function in society for any lengthy period of time without having axioms by which we can navigate our lives and judge our actions. I'll decline to speak for anyone in particular, but once again I doubt I'm alone when I admit that I'm often too busy giving hashing out my own opinions to actually stop and consider the validity of others.

No matter what Practical Phil, the arch-enemy of idealism, may tell you-- don't ever lose that childlike wonder, Squee!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged