Well, obviously you deny it because it undermines your position. My point is, is that for purposes relevant to the analysis of the locus of fundamental rights, possession of these is predicated upon one having a very particular sort of genotype. You got that genotype, you got those rights. Any other conclusion has no sufficient rationale, and is arbitrary. Indeed, trying to tie the acquisition of rights to arbitrary stages in the life-cycle of an organism, leads to absurd conclusions - like the claim (which some choicers have made) that infanticide is morally permissable. Of course they are not a doctor until they have had sufficient education and experience. Again, your analogy fails, because the status of enjoying inalienable rights is not a contingent matter of fact the way being a doctor is. The line of reasoning that you're employing. If a person has not reached puberty yet, it is no violation of their sexual function to mutiliate them. Of course that's absurd - but that's the exact form of your own reasoning to justify abortion on demand.
No it does not as my position is based on reality. That is why your reasoning fails, because you decide which genotype. Self serving in the least. Just like your reasoning. The only thing absurd is your reasoning and example.
It's simply not debatable. The legal definition for a natural "person" is "a human being." A human child in the zygote, embryo & fetal stage of their life, growth and development is a "human being." If all human beings are "persons" (per the legal definitions) then a child while in the womb is a "person" as well.
As long as you focus on WHAT the fetus is, you will never get to the crux of the matter, which is WHERE it is. You can discuss what it is from now until the end of time, and it doesn't matter because without the woman it's attached to, it's NOTHING. You can also discuss the proper political action from now until the end of time, and it won't change anything. Women will have abortions when they think it best.
Because of your limitations on grasping reality said reality does not reduce itself to your level of recognition or debating ability. Reality remains reality and the best you can hope for is change and change if and when it will come will not be because of your reasoning ability.
At some point the fetus "is" just a blob of cells. Prior to formation of the embryoblast .. there a hollow blob of cells called the blastocyst. It is inside this blob that the embryoblast will form (cells that will eventually form the human). None of the cells in the blastocyst will ever be part of the born human. Further along .. once some cells that will actually form the born human exist.. we need to ask the question. "Is this a living human" such that it should have rights. What does it lack you ask ? A heart and a brain are two things .. there are more but these will suffice for now and serve as a starting point. Without heart or brain no living human exists.
It is pretty hard to dehumanize a dead person dont you think ? Without heart or brain .. (the definition of clinically dead) there is no living human in existance. The zygote can be a single cell .. or sometimes the term is used to describe the group of cells just after conception. Unfortunately ..none these cells will not be part of the "born human" . These cells will create the blastocyst cells and it is inside this hollow mass of cells that the cells that will form the human will start to be created (the embryoblast) That is some of the science. .. The human is being created .. it does not yet exist.
The status of a person is .. to a large degree determined by that person's "humanity" Things that it has in common with other humans. Social bonds, common traits, shared experience. These are "emperical properties" so your definition of personhood is false. The zygote has no "rights relations" The cell is a home for the DNA .. this DNA has the program codes "create a human" turned on. This feature is the only significant feature of the zygote cell that distinguishes it from any other human cell. The "locus" is a "locus of control" .. such that the DNA controls the activity of the cell. Every cell does this .. and every cell DNA has the information to create a human. Your desire to give all cells "personhood" is not realistic. Moral autonomy .. Interesting that a creature with no brain can have such capacity. Regardless, your argument fails on the basis that it would give personhood to all cells which is not realistic. A zygote cell is not a "homo sapien" Lacking all the traits required to fit into that classification other than "eukaryote" By the criterion you have discussed ... the zygote is no different than any other human eukaryotic cell and should be treated as such.
ahh no .. the zygote a human cell .. The zygote is not significantly different than any other human cell except the programing codes "to creat a human" in the zygote DNA are turned on. The "human" has yet to be created.
These 'things that humans have in common' with other humans, things that enable us to speak of humans not merely on the metabolic or animal level, but in terms of the moral status of persons, are nonempirical properties. I cannot observe the contents of another's mind, yet that mind is the locus of various sorts of ideal entities - e.g. memories, the mental faculties of will and volition, the ideas of right and wrong, the moral relations of rights and responsibilities, etc. - which are all indispensable for us to be able to intelligibly speak of ourselves as having moral autonomy. Upon this mind, then (which properly speaking is not an immaterial but rather a nonempirical entity), is predicated that moral autonomy which confers on us the status of person. Personhood is a nonempirical moral relation, and a person is the locus of such relations. Persons are nonempirical entities which, in the jargon, "supervene" on living organisms whose central nervous systems are constituted in a particular way. All normal members of species whose central nervous systems facilitate a highly complex engagement with their environment (particularly the mental environment created by their socially mediated awareness of the intentions and preferences of others of their kind), will perforce be the subject of a certain set of reciprocal prerogatives and obligations. It does not matter at what stage of the life-cycle they occupy; all members of a species of moral actors are found in this web of reciprocal obligations. My point was not about cells, but about metabolically integral organisms. True, at the very earliest stages of development, this sort of organism is basically a single cell. But nonetheless one's moral status as person depends not on what stage in the life-cycle an organism has reached, but rather on whether one is a normal member of a species endowed with sufficiently rich social intelligence to have the capacity to grapple with normative questions. The autonomy is exhibited by all normal archetypal members of the class; and it is precisely in virtue of this, that we say that automomy is a nonempirical property that supervenes upon the genotype. Any normally constituted being that has the appropriate genotype, will count as a person. Again: the relevant capacity for moral reasoning that is constitutive of personhood, is pitched at the level of the genotype, not the phenotype. ...You are taking a biologically reductionist approach and it completely misses the point of the abortion controversy, as for that matter it does any moral controversy.
I truly believe a Fetus has more right to life than 70% of the Brain Dead True Liberals out there sponging off the Goverment. Unfortunatly, it's mostly the True Liberals spitting out new-borns every hour somewere around this nation. Unfortunatly these new-borns grow to be more True Liberals that will spong off the Goverment. And this True Liberal cycle continues.......To eventualy be a large part of this nations Financial Breakdown.
A cell has none of - mental faculties of will, ideas of right and wrong. If these are indispensible to moral autonomy .. as you claim, then the cell has no moral automony. The cell has no moral autonomy by your definition. A zygote cell is not aware of preferences of others of its kind ? No person A zygote cell is a member of the classification homo sapien? No person . A zygote cell is not a member of "homo sapien" No person A zygote cell is not endowed with sufficiently rich social intelligence to have the capacity to grapple with normative questions. . We already covered Autonomy. genotype - then your claim is that every human cell is a person. You are taking a biologically reductionist approach and it completely misses the point of the abortion controversy, as for that matter it does any moral controversy. 1) When I took a Philosophy class on the abortion debate biological reductionism was indeed a subject a big part of the conversation though not part of every conversation. 2) Why are you talking about genotype and species if biological reductionism is not allowed ? Regardless .. as any good Philosopher knows .. a claim without support is not worth much. You claim biological reductionism misses the point of the abortion controversy .. is not supported. (the why is missing)
Mississippi Voters To Decide When Life Begins... Mississippi Abortion-Personhood Amendment Gets November Vote 9/9/11 : Mississippi voters will be able to vote on the personhood amendment in the state when it goes to the polls in its statewide elections in November, but abortions will not necessarily be banned even if its approved.
You know head arms legs body. Here http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/07week/01_07.jpg I see a human being who has been murdered brutally. No blob of goo there. Weeeeellll. after being slightly torn apart by a "doctor" then yes he/she is kinda mutilated.
You are either sorely uninformed or way too gullible. Try an unbiased web site, maybe you can learn something.
A doctored image? A biased web sight? These are lame excuses. Look up more pictures this is not the only one there are plenty more on different sites. Many of them more disturbing than this one.
Actually I do, but abortions almost never happen early on and the majority happen at 8-10 weeks sometimes even farther.
You have been emotionally manipulated by false advertising. Well instead of the fraudulent - most likely - and unaunhenticated pictures from the Anti Abortion Propaganda Industry (AAPI) (It's one of their best sellers) take a look at what the most common result of an abortion would actually look like. The most common type - representing 85% of abortions - would be a suction aspiration performed at less than 12 weeks. At that stage remember we are talking of an embryo/fetus that is mainly gelatinous watery materials and is easily removed by gentle suction - much like the old dental suction used to clear saliva from your mouth. http://www.eileen.250x.com/Main/FET_DEV.PIC/12weeks.htm Perhaps you can tell now that those anti-abortion sites have fraudulent pictures. http://ehealthforum.com/health/topic72367.html Most of these images are from late-term abortions, which are... As has been constantly stated... Very rare. The fake "baby malachi" images are in there still, even though everyone knows those are fake. Also, several of those fetuses look like they were dead long before they were aborted; and were thus probably removed after they died by themselves in the womb, in order to save the mother's life. The most common abortions do not look like these images!! http://eileen.250x.com/Main/infrmdC/Ab_Pictures.htm A number of the pictures, to anybody who has actually seen fetal demise in the second or early third trimester are obviously purposely distorted. By this I mean that the head is too small and the trunk too well developed (they aren't mainly head with a very thin trunk, as they should be, but more in the proportions of a full term infant). For this reason I suspect some of them are outright fakes and a ready source of such fakes would be the manufacturer who supplies Heritage House and this model will show what I'm talking about. (check the prices on these items and you'll understand what I refer to as the Anti Abortion Propaganda Industry (AAPI).
