Jinto

Organells are sub-clellular structures. You have just proven that single cells are independent life-forms. Which says nothing about the macroscopic structures they form.

Also: Infants rely on nutrients delivered by the parents. They do not, however, make use of their parent's organs to sustain life, and have no connection to them. An infant's lungs breathe their own air. It's not a question of dependency, it's a question of whose organs are performing the fetuses life functions, such as respiration, digestion, filtration, etc.

You misunderstand. I am referring to the difference gbetween a transplant and feeding off my bloodstream, using my organs while they are still in my body and not theirs.

The reason I don't have the right to recover "my" organs when they have been transplanted is because they aren't my organs. They are now a part of her body and therefore her organs. A fetus, however, is not a transplant recipient. It's trying to use my organs while they are still mine, anbd my sovriegnty over my own body includes my right to deny use of it, EVEN IF THEY NEED IT FOR THEIR OWN SURVIVAL. Otherwise, I would be forced to give up my kidney to anyone who needs a transplant if they needed such a transplant for their survival.

When asked a question about how your morality handles a situation, saying "I don't have the authority to decide that" amounts to not answering the question. If, however, you have decided that the laws of this country ARE a moral authority, then you ARE bound by Roe vs. Wade and this discussion is over.

Having the ability to become a person (under exacting biochemical conditions that we still can't replicate artificially) does not a person make.

Why?

It's not a redefinition, and frankly, if equal inalienable rights are good things, then you ought NOT to apply those rights to nonpersons, since if personhood does not constitute a standard for legal rights, then you have no basis on which to limit those rights to just one species. What you are doing is arbitrarily giving rights to nonpersons on the sole basis that they share DNA with many persons, which is horrible discrimination against those nonpersons who don't happen to share DNA with persons.

Actually, if left to natural growth, the fetus will die. That's why it requires an exacting biochemical environment called a uterus to develop. And again: possible future personhood does not equal current personhood. You do not have the right to drink at 20 because you will eventually develop the right to drink 1 year from then.

Okay, let me explain this to you: the reasons are independent of the law. If there was no law in effect, these reasons would ALL still apply. The fact is that the law is in addition to, not part of, these reasons.

And not one of those reasons applies to a fetus.

The dictionary is ignorant of basic grammar. The adjective comes before the noun, not after.

Some as-yet-undetermined number of extraterrestrial intelligences have issue with that statement.

Personhood is not dependent on other's perceptions of personhood. If everybody agreed that it was right to treat someone as property, then the law will reflect their perceptions, regardless of whether your law is based on "We the people" or "We the humans." What IS your point?

Homo is a genus, not a species. And that is the definition of human, not human being, human being an adjective to the noun being. Again, basic grammar supercedes the dictionary.

I see. And this doesn't set a nice legal precedent for legal discrimination against nonhuman persons? Besides, I advocate that all humans that have been BORN be given legal rights, precisely because of the problem in defining personhood. This does include some nonpersons in the mix, but it ensures that all persons are included and in any case, it also avoids the "right to life" from forcing people to forego their right not to have something feeding off of their bloodstream. Simple, no?

Nice ad hominem. Tell me, did you realize that was a fallacy when you wrote it?

And the sperm can develop into a life that can function independently. All it has to do is find an egg, just as all a zygote has to do is find a uterus. If you're going to make highly conditional requirements for the possibility of attaining independence, then what's one more added to it? The sperm is an indivvidual cell of species homo sapiens, just as a zygote is an individual cell of species homo sapiens. You've already conceded the irrational posittion that every zygote is sacred, again, what's one more conditional requirement?

Possibility != reality.

Which is why I restrict the use of personhood for denying right to life to actual nonpersons and not every inconvenient member of the species. DUH.

LWF, will you tell me why it is that you don't consider blacks to be people? After all, you have repeatedly used the argument that if we restrict rights to actual people that that makes it okay to discriminate against blacks, so the only conclusion I can reach is that you don't consider blacks to be people. Why are you so racist?

Yes there is. Fetuses are not sentient. Neither are they capable of survival without feeding off of their mother's bloodstream.

I know you disagree. You don't need to tell me that. But will you please tell me where I have falsely redefined person to not include you, or otherwise include only "desireable" people?

By the way, I noticed that you never responded to my question of how a slave is not a person.

My morality allows me to attempt to end horrible conditions. If the stupidity of the person causing them makes that unfeasable without killing them, then they will be killed. It is this principle which allows law enforcement to work: the principle that people who infringe on other's rights may be removed even if it involves an even greater infringement on their rights. You will notice that people are much less likely to infringe on the rights of someone who is both able and willing to use force against them than someone who is able, but not willing.

If everyone on Earth hates your daughter, then I would probably be hesitant about saving her life. After all, if someone is that widely hated, then there just might be a reason for it.

However, I am more worried about this "if there is ANY possibility of saving one life without taking another." Does this mean that you would just stand there and let your daughter be raped because it affords the possibility of saving both the rapist and your daughter rather than attempting to kill the rapist? That's an... interesting... position.

long winded fool

Single cells are independent life forms. And they are also organisms. A collection of cells which form an independent life form do not necessarily have all the properties of the life form which they together make. This is a fallacy of categorical division. Because a cell is human doesn't mean that the cell is a human. A single skin cell of human origin is human and not a human. A single celled member of the species homo sapiens sapiens, which we all start out as, is human AND a human.

Also: Infants rely on nutrients delivered by the parents. They do not, however, make use of their parent's organs to sustain life, and have no connection to them. An infant's lungs breathe their own air. It's not a question of dependency, it's a question of whose organs are performing the fetuses life functions, such as respiration, digestion, filtration, etc.

Not to consider the fetus a human being, but to consider the human fetus deserving of life in your opinion, correct?

The reason I don't have the right to recover "my" organs when they have been transplanted is because they aren't my organs. They are now a part of her body and therefore her organs. A fetus, however, is not a transplant recipient. It's trying to use my organs while they are still mine, anbd my sovriegnty over my own body includes my right to deny use of it, EVEN IF THEY NEED IT FOR THEIR OWN SURVIVAL. Otherwise, I would be forced to give up my kidney to anyone who needs a transplant if they needed such a transplant for their survival.

But the organs were grown by you, have your genetic code, and are required for your body to function in a particular way. What is it about location that makes a thing yours? Do you have to be in current physical possession of a thing to claim it as yours? If you leave your car in the parking lot of my store and I need it to get go get my lunch, is the car now mine? The donated organs are still provably yours, since if a blood test on the girl later shows HIV, you will be immediately notified. You are saying that the girl has the right to use your organs, even if you want them back. Why does she have this right? Isn't it because she needs them for survival? And we're back to whether or not a fetus is a human being. If a fetus is a human being, (or human organism if you prefer) then the girl is analogous to the fetus.

When asked a question about how your morality handles a situation, saying "I don't have the authority to decide that" amounts to not answering the question. If, however, you have decided that the laws of this country ARE a moral authority, then you ARE bound by Roe vs. Wade and this discussion is over.

How can I be both bound by Roe vs. Wade and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? The problem is that these laws are contradictory to each other. Since the definition of person has in the past been used to discriminate against human beings, it is logical to apply rights to all human beings and ignore the definition of person. This was instiuted with the UDHR, preventing this atrocity from ever occurring again. It was once again repealed for the convenience of the ruling majority by Roe vs. Wade. Since my morality is based in logic, and since fascism is an illogical and impractical means of controlling a society, I object to all forms of discrimination against minorities, however trivial they may appear next to discrimination against human beings who are more similar to me and with consequences that appear greater.

Having the ability to become a person (under exacting biochemical conditions that we still can't replicate artificially) does not a person make.

What does make a person?

It's not a redefinition, and frankly, if equal inalienable rights are good things, then you ought NOT to apply those rights to nonpersons, since if personhood does not constitute a standard for legal rights, then you have no basis on which to limit those rights to just one species. What you are doing is arbitrarily giving rights to nonpersons on the sole basis that they share DNA with many persons, which is horrible discrimination against those nonpersons who don't happen to share DNA with persons.

It is a redefinition of the word person to apply "personhood" to only whites or only those of certain IQ, or only those outside of the womb. I ask again, what exactly is a person? Once you decide this, so long as you erroneously assume that human rights only apply to persons, you have a defining line for exactly what human beings can be killed and what human beings have the right to life. Obviously, since zygotes are not persons and adult humans are, personhood is a developed trait. At what point is a human being a "person?"

Discriminating against nonperson species is not necessarily to be avoided. A human beings right to convenience can legally supercede a cockroaches right to life, however no one human's right to convenience can legally supercede another human's right to life without assuming the might makes right mentality.

Actually, if left to natural growth, the fetus will die. That's why it requires an exacting biochemical environment called a uterus to develop. And again: possible future personhood does not equal current personhood. You do not have the right to drink at 20 because you will eventually develop the right to drink 1 year from then.

False analogy. The fetus ought not have the right to life because it will eventually develop personhood. The fetus has the right to life because all humans have the right to life. All humans have the right to life in regards to other humans, because arbitrarily exterminating members of one's own species is detrimental to the species, not to mention the society in which they live. The reason human life is "sacred" is because I'm a human life. I desire to survive individually and propogate the species. Life which desires its own destruction cannot survive. Since human life is sacred, it ought to be illegal to take the life of another human for reasons other than protecting the lives of more humans. The right to life is the most basic, universal and instinctual right for any given species. This is why all humans have the right to life in regards to other humans. (we probably don't have any recognizable right to life in the eyes of any other species.) This is why killing the most defenseless of humans evokes such repulsion in healthy human beings. We all desire to protect our own kind. The pro-choice have made a mistake in their analysis of exactly what is our own kind. Fetuses are every bit as human as adults. They're simply inactive humans.

Some as-yet-undetermined number of extraterrestrial intelligences have issue with that statement.

Extraterrestrial intelligence does not exist. If it did, it would not take exception to this statement. It would take exception to the statement that not all members of its species have the right to life. All humans, intelligent or not, have the right to life. If there were an extraterrestrial intelligence, we would include their species in our "human rights." Maybe "human/wookie rights?"

Personhood is not dependent on other's perceptions of personhood. If everybody agreed that it was right to treat someone as property, then the law will reflect their perceptions, regardless of whether your law is based on "We the people" or "We the humans." What IS your point?

You are assuming that "human" can be redefined, which you're right. It is very hard, if not impossible, to logically redefine the word human without an objective biological discovery. It is much easier to logically redefine the word "person" since persons are merely life forms which we recognize as having a certain nonspecific level of intelligence and consciousness, two things very hard to measure.

Homo is a genus, not a species. And that is the definition of human, not human being, human being an adjective to the noun being. Again, basic grammar supercedes the dictionary.

I use human being as a noun refering to a member of the family Hominidae and genus homo, like almost all other people. Neanderthal man was a "human being." Not homo sapiens sapiens but a member if the family Hominidae and genus homo nonetheless. We do not have to have any knowledge of his level of consciousness to know that he was a human being. He could have been born in a coma, lived 30 years and died, having never acheived consciousness, and we'd still call him a human being.

I see. And this doesn't set a nice legal precedent for legal discrimination against nonhuman persons? Besides, I advocate that all humans that have been BORN be given legal rights, precisely because of the problem in defining personhood. This does include some nonpersons in the mix, but it ensures that all persons are included and in any case, it also avoids the "right to life" from forcing people to forego their right not to have something feeding off of their bloodstream. Simple, no?

Couldn't this possibly also include some persons in the mix? Is it impossible for personhood to occur before birth? Can you prove that nine month old fetuses are not aware? Can you prove that they cannot feel pain and that they have no desire to remain alive? Isn't it true that the only real difference between a fetus 10 minutes before birth and an infant 10 minutes after is the use of its lungs? Would this be a logical criterion, do you think? You have the right to remain living only if you can use your lungs without someone else's aid?

I'm sorry, but your argument necessarily equates to a toned down version of a fascist philosophy. You (or those you base your arguments on) think that by pushing the question of the right to life back inside the mother you can escape this, but you can't. The pro-choice argument is a rationalization of fascism which merely pushes human life back to the point of being totally dependent and "out of sight out of mind" and then appealing to less important rights of the human life on which this other life depends. (By less important I mean, right to life more important than right to choose what to do with one's body. If the mother's life is threatened, abortion in self defense is justified. If her right to choose is the only thing threatened, abortion is not justified because of equal human rights.) I hate to say it for fear of scaring away further potential discussion, but the comparisons zealous pro-lifers often make to things like Nazi Germany are applicable to legal abortion. Instead of murdering adult humans en masse by appealing to the superiority of the Aryan race, we are murdering undeveloped humans en masse by appealing to the superiority of consciousness. Unconscious human beings ought to have the right to attain consciousness, even if it means keeping them alive with effort made by other humans for as long as they are alive. This is cooperation: the foundation of society. All societal cooperation is fundamentally designed to keep as many in the society alive as possible for as long as possible.

Which is why I restrict the use of personhood for denying right to life to actual nonpersons and not every inconvenient member of the species. DUH.

What is to stop someone from denying that any member of the species they find inconvenient is a person?

Yes there is. Fetuses are not sentient. Neither are they capable of survival without feeding off of their mother's bloodstream.

Ah, then sentience is the deciding line? Sentience defines person? Anything not sentient and inconvenient doesn't by necessity have the right to life?

I know you disagree. You don't need to tell me that. But will you please tell me where I have falsely redefined person to not include you, or otherwise include only "desireable" people?

It's not that you have done this. It's that it can easily be done and therefore is an unwise criterion. It is impossible to say that a human being who does not fall under the currently accepted definition of what a person is is not entitled to be alive if rights apply to all human beings.

By the way, I noticed that you never responded to my question of how a slave is not a person.

A slave is not a person because it is property and no persons are property.

My morality allows me to attempt to end horrible conditions. If the stupidity of the person causing them makes that unfeasable without killing them, then they will be killed. It is this principle which allows law enforcement to work: the principle that people who infringe on other's rights may be removed even if it involves an even greater infringement on their rights. You will notice that people are much less likely to infringe on the rights of someone who is both able and willing to use force against them than someone who is able, but not willing.

I don't think this is the case. I don't think a criminal can be killed unless he is considered a direct threat to the lives of others. You do realize that your morality is a "might makes right" morality. You necessarily believe that you have the authority to enforce your morality on those who disagree, killing them if it is the only way feasible to get what you desire. You may be able to come up with many circumstances where you are tolerant of morality you don't necessarily agree with, but you have presented a case where you will kill those who would rather live differently than you, solely because you don't like it.

If everyone on Earth hates your daughter, then I would probably be hesitant about saving her life. After all, if someone is that widely hated, then there just might be a reason for it.

However, I am more worried about this "if there is ANY possibility of saving one life without taking another." Does this mean that you would just stand there and let your daughter be raped because it affords the possibility of saving both the rapist and your daughter rather than attempting to kill the rapist? That's an... interesting... position.

Again, you have an outlook on morality that is very similar to fascism. I do not know how I would act in a violent and traumatic situation. Morally, it would be wrong to kill a rapist for raping my daughter. If you disagree, I hope you at least don't teach this violent and vengeful solution to your children.

Jinto

Yada yada yada. Quit projecting your own fallacies onto me. Like I said: You have just proven that single cells are independent life-forms. Which says nothing about the macroscopic structures they form. So stop comitting fallacies of categorical division.

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.

It's a question of which organism that organ is currently a part of. It's unreasonable to remove and then retransplant the organ, so the best I could do is sue for money damages resulting from loss of the organ, and that's in a stolen organ scenario. If the organ was freely donated, then I have no right to anything as per basic contract law. Now, on the other hand, if the organ is still in my own body, then I'm sure you will agree that no one has the right to forcibly remove it.

No, the reason why she has the right to use them is because they are now a part of her body, and to remove them would constitute an unreasonable assault on her person. This is the rationale in a stolen organ scenario: again, if the organs were freely donated, then they are considered a gift under contract law and I have no right to anything. Whether or not she could survive without them has nothing to do with it, an unnessecary transplant would still be beyond my ability to recover. However, if someone is currently trying to steal my kidney (it's still attached to me), then I have every right to defend myself, even if the person they are trying to steal it for will die without the transplant.

You're not bound by the UDHR. As we recently proved with the war on Iraq, the resolutions of the UN have never had any meaning except as tools for the U.S. to use to rally support when it suited their political agenda. Pay attention.

It is logical to apply rights to all beings, regardless of whether they are human or not. However, it is not logical to apply rights to all humans, because this is discrimination on account of species.

And since you're so fascinated with fascism, I wonder what you would think of a government that gave us the right to estract organs from anyone we wanted if we needed a transplant to live, or otherwise granted unconditionally the unwanted use of others bodies wherever it is nessecary to preserve life functions, regardless of the hardship endured by the person whose organs you are using. I'd consider that fascist.

Simplest non-self-referential definition: any life-form, device, or program capable of applying flexible and dynamic inductive and deductive reasoning to incoming stimuli. Now, I'd like to save fully expounding on this for a philosophy discussion since it's complex enough to form it's own topic (in fact, it's one of the great questions of philosophy, and one we will have to resolve within the next two or three decades, given the rate at which computer power is growing). But, anyone still in the sensorimotor stage of cognitive development probably would not qualify.

Again, I'm using birth as the breaking point for reasons of practicality and also because it stands well before the cognitive abilities associated with personhood can develop. Also, while originally it was a side issue, my other argument about right to restrict involuntary use of one's own body has a great deal of force and would apply even if somehow a fetus could be considered a person. This argument has been productive in that respect at least.

And just why is it that somehow it's okay to discriminate against the cockroach but not against the human? Because you are a human? This sounds more and more like you are avoiding discrimination based on how similar life-forms are to you and the percieved consequences for discrimination.

Provide arguments, not assertations.

I was RIGHT! Wow, I knew that you were into discriminating against other life forms because they aren't like you, but I never expected an open admission!

Jinto: *is amazed*

So, you take a strict darwinian view of life, based on "survival of the fittest?" You don't believe that humans should have the right to life in the laws of some other sentient species, or presumably that some other sentient species should have a right to life in ours... In what way is this NOT a "might makes right" philosophy? <sarcasm>I'm supposed to be the fascist here damnit.</sarcasm>

Taking care of your own kind... you know, that was used as the justification for a LOT of racism back in the 20's: in fact discrimination was seen as a good thing precisely because it prevented niggers (sic) from taking jobs away from the white kind.

Actually, the drake equation suggests that there are currently some 50 extraterrestrial intelligences in the galaxy at this time. Linkage.

Of course it would take exception to the statement that "rights apply to the human species only, not persons." You're basically saying that should we ever meet any of these people, it's okay to treat them as property. And you're damn right we'd amend the UDHR (assuming that the UN ever gains actual legal power) to remove its specificity (is that a word?) to humans. We should do that before they ever get here. It's the only moral thing to do. But... (the rest of this sentence would contain a personal attack if I actually completed it.)

Hard does not mean impossible. And I can already think of a way to redefine the word human to discriminate against anyone who is infertile. Human: species homo sapiens. A species consists of related organisms capable of interbreeding. Since infertile persons, particularly those who are infertile because of a genetic deficiency, are incapable of interbreeding with humans, they cannot be considered human. Therefore, infertile people have no right to life. Corroboration: since the right to life is based on the instinct to propogate the species, and because infertile couples are incapable of doing this, then the species has no interest has no interest in preserving their rights, since they will not serve to propogate it.

Damn, don't you just hate semantics? The worst part about this scenario is that it could actually happen, given that those who harp on the species/subspecies designations rather than personhood tend to be right-wing across the board, and therefore would consider not having children or otherwise becoming a part of a nuclear family to be unnatural. Believe me, you're safer with person. At least the definition of that word seems to expand over time, rather than contract.

If a baby was born in a coma it would get thrown out with all the other stillbirths, no questions asked. Your scenario is practically impossible.

You have about as much chance of finding a fetus that qualifies as a person as Patrick Kelly has of finding a four-year old that can consent to sexual intercourse. Recall earlier this post: my criterion for personhood are higher than simple self-awareness: even the fish on your dinner table displays that, or at least he did until he ran into that fisherman. The life-form must also be able to apply reason to that awareness.

As for the difference between before and after birth: the point is not that it has suddenly become a person, because it hasn't. The point is that its survival no longer depends on leeching off of someone else's body with or without their consent. The point is that it's now possible to transfer it to someone else without it dying. The point is that this criterion serves to give everyone who is a person their rights while avoiding forcing people to unwillingly use their bodies as incubators for a non-sentient life-form. That's the bloody point.

Do you actually have a point, or are you just here to call be a fucking nazi? News flash: the state has no right to conscript women into use as incubators for life-forms which aren't sentient anyway.

What further potential discussion? Oh, you mean your ad hominem attacks? Nah, dinna worry about it. I can sit here and take ad hominem all day, it's nice to know that I've already won the rational argument.

And while we're at it, let's just murder bonobo chimpanzees en masse because they don't share enough of our DNA.

And what unconscious human beings are killed by abortion?

And do you really think that life at the expense of everything else is reasonable? Wait, of course you do, how silly of me.

The same thing that stops someone from denying that any person they find inconvenient is a member of the species.

Sentience, roughly as defined eralier this post, is indeed the philosophical deviding line. But you're focused on convenience too much: a convenient fetus whose mother wanted it and perhaps conceived it deliberately would have just as little right to life. It would be her choice that keeps it alive.

Except to be a human being, they would have to fall under the currently accepted definition of person, so there can be no human beings that do not fall under the accepted definition of a person.

Sorry, but if the only way to stop a criminal from raping or inflicting massive (but nonlethal) injury on a person is to kill him, he will die. You criticize my morality because it allegedly emphasizes "might makes right." This is incorrect. Right makes right, might just makes right happen. Of course, might can also make wrong happen, but that's why you can't restrict right from using might to make right happen. It's like the old NRA argument: "If you take away the guns from law-abiding citizens, then the only people who will have them are the criminals."

I don't see any similarity to fascism. But let's clarify something: I'm talking about what happens when the guy is IN THE PROCESS of raping you daughter. Frankly, if I had a daughter, and she was in a situation where her choices were put a fucking knife in his fucking throat, or be raped, she should damn well do the former. This is different from seeing the guy who raped my daughter yesterday, and killing him in revenge. The difference being: one is killing to stop a crime from being committed, the other is killing in retaliation for a crime. While I do advocate the former (which was the scenario I presented to you), I do not advocate the latter, because it still doesn't stop her from being raped yesterday, so it's killing for nothing.

But basically your response is: don't fight back, just let the guy rape you. What's next, having the punishment for raping your daughter be that he gets to marry her? I'm sorry to compare you to yahweh, but your lack of empathy is just unbelieveable.

Jinto

By the way, you missed some arguments when you went through my last post: either you're suffering from selective amnesia, or you're just trying to ignore any points you can't refute and just hoping they'll go away.

I would appreciate a response to these arguments as well.

dk

I would appreciate a response to these arguments as well. [/QUOTE]

Three good reasons I can think of off hand...
1) In a long thread arguments get rehashed.
2) Some arguments are trite.
3) Its more productive to focus upon the best arguments each side offers.

long winded fool

You are committing a fallacy of composition. Because a whole has a certain property, you argue that the parts of the whole have that property. This is not logical. In order for it to apply to your argument, the fetus must be a part of the human being it is inside, which is false by definition. Unless all pregnant women have two heads and unless this is a genetic defect, your argument fails.

No, the reason why she has the right to use them is because they are now a part of her body, and to remove them would constitute an unreasonable assault on her person. This is the rationale in a stolen organ scenario: again, if the organs were freely donated, then they are considered a gift under contract law and I have no right to anything. Whether or not she could survive without them has nothing to do with it, an unnessecary transplant would still be beyond my ability to recover. However, if someone is currently trying to steal my kidney (it's still attached to me), then I have every right to defend myself, even if the person they are trying to steal it for will die without the transplant.

Correct. So you agree that you have every right to protect yourself from having your organs used against your will, but do not have the right to kill a human being who is currently, (whether you willed it or not) using your organs for survival.

It is logical to apply rights to all beings, regardless of whether they are human or not. However, it is not logical to apply rights to all humans, because this is discrimination on account of species.

So you think that all species ought to have rights? I don't think you do. So which species ought to have rights? The ones which have persons? How could one possibly discriminate against any person if all humans have rights? Do you see that this necessarily entails a motive of eliminating unwanted humans? You cannot claim that human rights is discrimination against people, since all people are humans. You can only claim that people rights is discrimination against humans.

And since you're so fascinated with fascism, I wonder what you would think of a government that gave us the right to estract organs from anyone we wanted if we needed a transplant to live, or otherwise granted unconditionally the unwanted use of others bodies wherever it is nessecary to preserve life functions, regardless of the hardship endured by the person whose organs you are using. I'd consider that fascist.

So would I. I would also consider a government that differentiated between those who live off donated organs and those who don't fascist. I'm not arguing that women should be forced to get pregnant. I'm arguing that they should be forced to refrain from killing humans. Forcing organ donation is fascist, applied to both donors and donees. You can't force a human to "give you back" something that you want and that they need to survive just because you no longer want them to have it. Forcing a fetus to "donate" its life to the convenience of the mother is fascist.

Simplest non-self-referential definition: any life-form, device, or program capable of applying flexible and dynamic inductive and deductive reasoning to incoming stimuli. Now, I'd like to save fully expounding on this for a philosophy discussion since it's complex enough to form it's own topic (in fact, it's one of the great questions of philosophy, and one we will have to resolve within the next two or three decades, given the rate at which computer power is growing). But, anyone still in the sensorimotor stage of cognitive development probably would not qualify.

Then babies aren't persons and don't have any right to life. I find the word "probably" to be very interesting here. If there are "probably" no children inside a school, can you bulldoze it without checking?

Again, I'm using birth as the breaking point for reasons of practicality and also because it stands well before the cognitive abilities associated with personhood can develop. Also, while originally it was a side issue, my other argument about right to restrict involuntary use of one's own body has a great deal of force and would apply even if somehow a fetus could be considered a person. This argument has been productive in that respect at least.

I don't think so. If the fetus were a person and was intentionally using your body against your will, said person could be punished to the full extent of the law. Such a person would not be executed, unless they posed a threat to your life. Therefore, the argument of using your body against your will is powerful to evoke sympathy for the pregnant woman, but fails to justify abortion of the pregnancy, unless the mother's life is at imminent risk.

And just why is it that somehow it's okay to discriminate against the cockroach but not against the human? Because you are a human? This sounds more and more like you are avoiding discrimination based on how similar life-forms are to you and the percieved consequences for discrimination.

I agree. Lifeforms which are similar to me (of the same species, or at least the same genus) ought to not be killed by me or members of my species, because they are of my kind and are generally capable of all of the things I'm capable of. I also agree that persons of any species are similar to me and ought to all have rights as well. Persons rights cannot supercede human rights, because life is more important than I.Q. While I want to protect persons, I also want to protect fetuses, infants, the mentally handicapped, and coma victims.

Provide arguments, not assertations.

All humans ought to have the right to life because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights insists that all members of the human family have the right to life, and the law is what grants rights. The human fetus is a member of the human family because it is a member of the set of all things which are of the genus homo.

I was RIGHT! Wow, I knew that you were into discriminating against other life forms because they aren't like you, but I never expected an open admission!

Jinto: *is amazed*

And by applying the criteria of personhood you don't?? You also discrimnate against other lifeforms because they are not like you. We are alike.

So, you take a strict darwinian view of life, based on "survival of the fittest?" You don't believe that humans should have the right to life in the laws of some other sentient species, or presumably that some other sentient species should have a right to life in ours... In what way is this NOT a "might makes right" philosophy? <sarcasm>I'm supposed to be the fascist here damnit.</sarcasm>

Nice try, but I never argued that. This is a false dilemma. You cannot assume the conclusion that nothing nonhuman ought to have the right to life based on my argument that all humans ought to have the right to life.

Taking care of your own kind... you know, that was used as the justification for a LOT of racism back in the 20's: in fact discrimination was seen as a good thing precisely because it prevented niggers (sic) from taking jobs away from the white kind.

And protecting women's right to choose by eliminating their unborn babies' right to life is not taking care of your own kind? Your attempts at turning my arguments around are not rational.

Actually, the drake equation suggests that there are currently some 50 extraterrestrial intelligences in the galaxy at this time. Linkage.

So exactly what species are there that have persons besides human beings? Unless you can tell me, you have an empty premise. Assuming that there were, though, there is not reason to assume that they as persons could not be granted the right to life in our laws. You are appealing to a false dilemma.

Of course it would take exception to the statement that "rights apply to the human species only, not persons." You're basically saying that should we ever meet any of these people, it's okay to treat them as property. And you're damn right we'd amend the UDHR (assuming that the UN ever gains actual legal power) to remove its specificity (is that a word?) to humans. We should do that before they ever get here. It's the only moral thing to do. But... (the rest of this sentence would contain a personal attack if I actually completed it.)

I agree. We ought to make a law that ensures all persons have the right to life. There is no logical reason to make a law that takes rights away from non-person humans, especially those who will become persons given time and proper care. You think that by applying rights to people only and implying that nonperson humans rights can be revoked, that you can define "person" to only include the powerful majority of humans. This is my comparison to fascism. All people should have rights, because people are like me and shouldn't be killed. All humans should have rights, because humans are like me, and have the ability to become persons and shouldn't be killed before they get the chance. All humans have the ability to be persons. All humans should have the right to life. All persons should have the right to life. If we find a nonhuman person, he/she/it ought to have the right to life. If we find a non-person human, he/she/it ought to have the right to life.

Hard does not mean impossible. And I can already think of a way to redefine the word human to discriminate against anyone who is infertile. Human: species homo sapiens. A species consists of related organisms capable of interbreeding. Since infertile persons, particularly those who are infertile because of a genetic deficiency, are incapable of interbreeding with humans, they cannot be considered human. Therefore, infertile people have no right to life. Corroboration: since the right to life is based on the instinct to propogate the species, and because infertile couples are incapable of doing this, then the species has no interest has no interest in preserving their rights, since they will not serve to propogate it.

Ridiculous! A generality is implied in the definition. A group of organisms *generally* capable of interbreeding. Because an organism is infertile does not mean that it no longer is a member of any species. All animals are of some species, whether they are fertile or not. One can identify a species whether it is fertile or not.

Damn, don't you just hate semantics? The worst part about this scenario is that it could actually happen, given that those who harp on the species/subspecies designations rather than personhood tend to be right-wing across the board, and therefore would consider not having children or otherwise becoming a part of a nuclear family to be unnatural. Believe me, you're safer with person. At least the definition of that word seems to expand over time, rather than contract.

Do you see what you're saying? In law, definitions are not supposed to "expand" they're supposed to be clear and concise and not subject to individual interpretation. "Some think it has the right to life. I don't, but then I don't know when exactly a thing gets the right to life. I know it is when it is a person, but I don't know when we become persons. Given time, it is likely that this thing will become a person, but it might or might not be a person right now. It might have the right to life and it might not, so let's kill it before we find out that it definitely is a person." This is pompous and criminally negligent. If liberal means that everything is subjective to whatever the powerful majority wants regardless of non vocal minorities, then I'm sure you can understand my comparisson to fascism.

If a baby was born in a coma it would get thrown out with all the other stillbirths, no questions asked. Your scenario is practically impossible.

So we can ignore it? Are you saying then that since it is unlikely that a baby can be born in a coma and live 30 years, that you don't have to answer the question of whether or not the thing which looks like a human and functions like a human, but doesn't think or act like human, is a human? What would you call it? A mass of cells? That would certainly help your conscience to allow you to destroy it.

You have about as much chance of finding a fetus that qualifies as a person as Patrick Kelly has of finding a four-year old that can consent to sexual intercourse. Recall earlier this post: my criterion for personhood are higher than simple self-awareness: even the fish on your dinner table displays that, or at least he did until he ran into that fisherman. The life-form must also be able to apply reason to that awareness.

You also have about as much chance of finding an early infant that qualifies as a person. If the right to life applies to persons only and not all humans, then I can kill my neighbor's infant without facing homicide charges, correct?

As for the difference between before and after birth: the point is not that it has suddenly become a person, because it hasn't. The point is that its survival no longer depends on leeching off of someone else's body with or without their consent. The point is that it's now possible to transfer it to someone else without it dying. The point is that this criterion serves to give everyone who is a person their rights while avoiding forcing people to unwillingly use their bodies as incubators for a non-sentient life-form. That's the bloody point.

False. If I am a person and the born infant is not, then I have the right to kill it without facing homicide charges. If I kill a woman's baby, I cannot be a murderer. Killing an infant should bring the same punishment as killing a dog. Maybe less, since dogs are more aware and closer to "persons" than infants are. If women have the right, so do men.

Do you actually have a point, or are you just here to call be a fucking nazi? News flash: the state has no right to conscript women into use as incubators for life-forms which aren't sentient anyway.

Very true. No woman should be forced to get pregnant. All women should be charged with homicide for killing a human being. Consider this: What if I live out in the middle of nowhere and I find a baby on my front porch in winter. Say I really don't want to take care of a baby. Can I leave it on my porch and go to bed without facing criminal charges? Does the state have the right to force me to use my house against my will to support a baby? No. Does the state have the right to prevent me from willingly allowing a baby to die on my property? Yes. The baby on my property with my knowledge is my responsibility until the baby leaves my property. If it dies, and it can be proven that I could have prevented the death, I am responsible. How are women any different? Granted there is a time difference, but this begs the question: how long is too long? Suppose there is a blizzard and the authorities can't arrive until next week. Should the state force me to support the baby until then? If my house is full of baby food and diapers, can I deny them to this child just because it is inconvenient for me? The woman isn't bound to her fetus anymore than I would be bound to the baby, at least not in the sense of legal resposibility for its life. After a set ammount of time, the baby would leave my property and no longer be my responsibility in the same way as in the case of pregnancy. Length of time is irrelevant. If I have the means to support a baby for nine months, and the only alternative it to let it die, it is wrong for me to let it die. "Letting it die" ammounts to knowingly killing it, which amounts to murder.

Should a woman then have to endure pregnancy if she doesn't want to? She should if I should have to endure a screaming baby for a set ammount of time if I don't want to.

And while we're at it, let's just murder bonobo chimpanzees en masse because they don't share enough of our DNA.

Complex question. You know this a straw man and utter nonsense.

And what unconscious human beings are killed by abortion?

If by human being you mean member of Hominidae and genus homo, then the fetus. If by human being you mean person, then you must define person. If you define person to exclude unborn humans, then no person is killed under your definition. The Supreme court used a similar line of reasoning in their Dred Scot decision.

And do you really think that life at the expense of everything else is reasonable? Wait, of course you do, how silly of me.

By definition, no other rights can apply without the right to life. I assume you are aware of the law of non contradiction? You must know that without the right to life, no other rights can logically apply. Therefore, the right to life is more imortant than any other right of any other person.

Sentience, roughly as defined eralier this post, is indeed the philosophical deviding line. But you're focused on convenience too much: a convenient fetus whose mother wanted it and perhaps conceived it deliberately would have just as little right to life. It would be her choice that keeps it alive.

Ah, very good. So then her rights as a person to keep the fetus is what makes it murder for me to kill it? Say a woman and her husband are painting a nursery and assembling a crib in anticipation of their new arrival and she goes into labor. If I tackle her and kill her nine month old fetus while she's on her way to the hospital, should I be charged with assault only? Don't my rights as a person supercede the fetuses right to life? If I've never been in trouble before, shouldn't I get off with a slap on the wrist? What exactly is the fetus other than personal property? All I did was assault her and destroy a personal possession. Since I'm a person, I logically ought to be more important in the law's eyes than her possession, no matter how much she's emotionally invested, correct? I should face equal charges if I tackled a woman carrying a vase. I should compensate the woman for financial damages and face whatever sentence a minor assault would bring, by your argument. Is this a fair assumption?

Except to be a human being, they would have to fall under the currently accepted definition of person, so there can be no human beings that do not fall under the accepted definition of a person.

Unless "human being" is any member of the family Hominidae and genus homo and "person" is defined as any human who is not property. Or any human who can function independently. If you're merely declaring human being=person then you're proving nothing.

I don't see any similarity to fascism. But let's clarify something: I'm talking about what happens when the guy is IN THE PROCESS of raping you daughter. Frankly, if I had a daughter, and she was in a situation where her choices were put a fucking knife in his fucking throat, or be raped, she should damn well do the former. This is different from seeing the guy who raped my daughter yesterday, and killing him in revenge. The difference being: one is killing to stop a crime from being committed, the other is killing in retaliation for a crime. While I do advocate the former (which was the scenario I presented to you), I do not advocate the latter, because it still doesn't stop her from being raped yesterday, so it's killing for nothing.

But basically your response is: don't fight back, just let the guy rape you. What's next, having the punishment for raping your daughter be that he gets to marry her? I'm sorry to compare you to yahweh, but your lack of empathy is just unbelieveable.

Straw man. I never made that response. You sure seem to want to put me into a box. I think you know where you want me to go so that you can refute me. That's fine, but don't claim I'm already there and then refute the argument you want me to use.

Returning violence for violence may be selfish, but I don't know that it is necessarily immoral and I never claimed that I would not do this. I even said that if I was prevented from leaving a society that I didn't want to be in, I'd try to physically force my way out. Returning death for non-lethal violence is immoral. Where do you draw the line? If rape constitutes execution to stop the crime, what about bar fights? If I get punched in the face, can I kill my attacker if I don't feel my life is in danger? This is cowardice. Ending a life because you are afraid of pain. You have a very low opinion of human life in general and a very high opinion of your own comfort and personal worth. You are just as much of a human as anyone else, you know.

long winded fool

I'm glad you mentioned these. They're the root of my argument, though if you reread my posts, all of them were addressed.

Therefore, all members of said species ought to have the right to life, if nothing else, whether they are all persons at any given time or not.

LWF, will you tell me why it is that you don't consider blacks to be people? After all, you have repeatedly used the argument that if we restrict rights to actual people that that makes it okay to discriminate against blacks, so the only conclusion I can reach is that you don't consider blacks to be people. Why are you so racist?

A black man is not fully a person beause black men constitue only three-fifths of a person according to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott vs Sanford. Didn't you know that? This shows that the definition of person is highly subjective and chageable so as to provide rights to those the majority think deserves rights and deny rights to those whom the majority finds inconvenient to grant rights. This is the legal precedent for Roe vs Wade. Blacks may be human, but they are not people, at least not all the way. Fetuses may be human, but they are not people. This is why rights ought to apply to humans and not persons. Your qualification of what constitutes a person may be different from someone else's. There is no reason to deny a human the right to life. Applying rights to all humans prevents Supreme Court rulings such as Dred Scott vs Sanford and Roe vs Wade. If you would rather the Dred Scott ruling and/or Roe vs Wade ruling to stand, you probably fall under the definition of person in both cases and would rather do with those humans who do not fall under said definition as you please. Applying rights to species is the only way to prevent discrimination by using a subjective and nebulous word such as "person" or "being."

Okay, let me explain this to you: the reasons are independent of the law. If there was no law in effect, these reasons would ALL still apply. The fact is that the law is in addition to, not part of, these reasons.

And not one of those reasons applies to a fetus

Or an infant. Or a coma victim. You've shot yourself in the foot. You have contradicting arguments. Your own appeal to "personhood" as being self-aware and capable of reason cannot logically exclude all unborn life forms while including all born life forms. Person then becomes only a "born" life form, and not any life form capable of reason. Therefore, any life forms which are not "born" (and not just 'concieved,' or 'created,' but actually go through the human birth process of exiting the womb) can never be persons, correct? Your own argument against fetuses refutes your argument for non-human persons, if "born" is the deciding line. If E.T. is not "born," he cannot be a person since all persons are born and therefore has no intrinsic right to life.

And the sperm can develop into a life that can function independently. All it has to do is find an egg, just as all a zygote has to do is find a uterus. If you're going to make highly conditional requirements for the possibility of attaining independence, then what's one more added to it? The sperm is an indivvidual cell of species homo sapiens, just as a zygote is an individual cell of species homo sapiens. You've already conceded the irrational posittion that every zygote is sacred, again, what's one more conditional requirement?

I've addressed and refuted this! You claimed that my refutation was a fallacy, but you failed to explain how. Examine the logic of these statements and see if they constitute a fallacy:

All humans are of human origin.
Not all things of human origin are humans.

All humans have the right to life

Therefore, do you think it is logical to conclude that all things of human origin have the right to life?

Do you see that all living parts of a human are not humans, but are human? Do you see that all living humans are human and humans? I don't think you really need this obvious redundancy to understand the difference between a living one-celled organism of human origin which makes a part of a member of the human speices and a living one-celled organism which is a member of the human species. Any biologist can tell the difference between a human and a part of a human. A human cannot make up a part of another human, such that the other human would not be a human without it. This is a basic logical axiom, without which fallacies of category would prevent any intellectual progress. The fetus must logically be considered not part of the mother and a seperate human being. The sperm and egg must logically be considered parts of humans and not humans.

Jinto

I did no such thing. In fact, my statemet was precisely that just because the parts of the whole have a certain property, that this does not mean that the whole has that property. This was advanced in response to your argument that because the cells in a fetus were seperate organisms, that the fetus is also a seperate organism. I don't have a clue what you're talking about here.

If the organs are IN MY BODY, then yes, I DO have the right to remove a human being who is using them for survival, just as I have the right to stop any other assault on my person. What part of this is not clear to you?

No, I think that all persons ought to have rights, regardless of species. I said nothing about giving this species or that species rights, because I do not discriminate on the basis of species. What I do do, however, is apply the same criterion that I use for determining personhood equally to ALL species. Including humans.

By the way, I notice your "well, we've never encountered a nonhuman person, so that possibility is irrelevant." Sometimes I wonder if one or more species of people has been sitting here complaining all along and we simply haven't noticed precisely because of that attitude. More to the point, however, I dislike this attitude because it asserts that it is okay to have a moral system that is known not to work in a certain situation because that situation has not yet been encountered. For instance, it asserts that in 1800 it would be okay for me to refuse to employ any blacks in the profession of doctor, regardless of their qualifications, because in 1800 there were no blacks with sufficent qualifications to be a doctor. Clearly, now that the once hypothetical situation of educated black people is now a reality, we can see the injustice of that policy. But because in 1800 that WAS a hypothetical situation, according to you that policy would have been just. You would have said "You cannot claim that allowing only whites as doctors is discrimination against qualified people, because there are no qualified black doctors. You can only argue that allowing only qualified people as doctors is dicrimination against whites." Clearly, there is a problem with your reasoning.

Excuse me? DONATED organs are the rightful property of the recipient. Basic contract law. Now tell me where in the hell contract law says that the mother's uterus is the property of the fetus. You can't force a person to "give you back" anything that you have freely given them. If you hand me a gift, at the moment I accept it it becomes MINE. But the mother's body is not the fetus's, and the fetus has no right to it. Duh.

That's why I give babies the benefit of the doubt. Fetuses, however, I can say with certainty are not sentient. That's why I do not give them the benefit of the doubt: there is no doubt for them to recieve the benefit of.

Actually, a person intentionally using my body against my will, who is unable to be removed without killing him, will still be removed. There is a difference between killing as a punishment, and killing as a means to stop an assault, that you still can't seem to grasp.

Okay: you admit that your sole criteria for protecting life is on the basis of how similar that life is to you, and yet, just last post you were criticizing my philosophy because it only protected life similar to myself. Since by your own admission your philosophy suffers from a similar weakness, I'd say that this is an admission of hypocrisy.

So, if the UDHR didn't exist, it would be your position that only people have rights?

Oh, and bonobo chimpanzees are also a part of the human family. Why aren't you whining about their rights?

Finally, the UDHR also states that all humans are BORN free and equal. This is no small statement: a fetus hasn't been born, so therefore, by the same authority, it isn't free and equal yet.

No, I am also amenable to having computer-based sentiences qualify as persons. There is FAR less similarity between me and a computer than there is between me and a fetus. In fact, a computer isn't even a life-form. But in about two decades, $1000 worth of computing power is going to exceed the capacity of the human brain. By that time, we are going to see multiple computer-based personalities that are every bit as complex and adaptable as humans. And, there are going to be humans who, not regarding these computer intelligences as people on the grounds that they are not even alive, try to exploit them as a new slave race - sentient but with no right to self-determination. I will freely join the small fraction of humans that sees this as wrong, and demands for this new race of people to be treated as such. Scenarios such as those proposed in the ST:TNG episode "The Measure of a Man" aren't as far off as many people would have you believe. And it is in large part by contemplating those scenarios that I have decided on my definition of personhood.

No, I can assue that based on your rationale for giving humans right to life: "because they are human." Nonhuman persons are just that: non-human. Therefore, your rationale doesn't give them the right to life. It's as simple as that.

Of COURSE it's not taking care of my own kind. I'm a MAN, you idiot.

In 1800: Exactly what qualified doctors are there except for white people? Unless you can tell me, you have an empty premise.

In other words, I was correct in concluding that you would not give nonhuman persons the rigth to life. Thank you.

My rationale for giving people rights and not giving nonpeople rights is because nonpersons are not capable of moral responsibilty, and therefore cannot be integrated into society. Simply put, it is the most parsimonious moral system that works. I have one qualification, you have two, and no justification for the second.

As for the "well, can't we just redefine person? It didn't contain black people in the past." This is precisely why "person" is such a strong definition. If you look at the range of who has been considered "people" over the years, that has steadily increased. Whereas, the definition of "human" has been steadily shrinking. It used to contain all members of the human family, now it only contains members of the human genus, and I'll bet money on the proposition that if we ever found another living species of genus homo, that it would immediately drop to being only of the same species. If you extrapolate from the historical trend, you will see that "person" will only be redefined to make it more inclusive, not less. You can't say the same about human.

It is a fact when members of one group of organisms become incapable of interbreeding with another that the two become considered as different species. If the failure to breed arose from a genetic variation, then you could easily make that taxonomic distinction. Actually, considering that seperate species sometimes are capable of interbreeding (think mules), you could also have people try to claim that seperate races are actually seperate species, in spite of their capability to interbreed (the Wold Church of the Creator has tried to advance this argument). There are many many ways in which people could be defined as nonhumans, and that's assuming that there actually isn't a speciation event within the current taxonomic classification. When you factor in the possibility of space travel and genetic engineering both isolating a group of the species and deliberately introducing changes in their genetics, you may actually get a different species. And then what do you do? Deny them rights because technically they are no longer humans, perhaps make them the property of the corporations that designed the genetic engineering process in the first place? Please.

Of course, when presented with scenarios like this, you see the error in your logic, so you say "well let's give rights to people and humans." This is a serious lapse of parsimony, and still begs the question "well what's so special about humans that they get rights even when they aren't persons?"

So you disagree with the fourteenth amendment, which expanded the definition of citizen to all persons born or naturalized in the United States. Good to know.

Nope, I still don't understand it. Maybe it's because it's based on a strawman?

Okay, I'll bite. If a baby was born unconscious, and never attained consciousness, but just sat there for thirty years, then I would not consider it a person. And neither would anyone else, hence why I find it unlikely that they would bother sustaining its life for thirty years.

Not if the law uses birth as a convenient marker in absence of an easy way to tell exactly when a life-form becomes sentient. This is hardly unprecedented: every age limit that we currently have exists because it's more convenient than determining things on a case-by-case basis. Realistically, you'd still be facing homicide charges.

Now, if you rephrase the question of "could I kill my neighbor's newborn infant without being morally culpable for murder?" then the answer is yes. Of course, if you're heartless enough to kill your neighbor's infant then it's difficult to see why you'd care about such things, especially given the fact that it wouldn't make you any less incarcerated, but some people are wierd that way.

You could argue that, but considering the fact that we've had a long history of declaring "all persons born... are citizens thereof" "All human beings are born free and equal...," and otherwise endowing humans with rights at birth (which seems to be a reasonable tradition), I don't think that you'd make much progress with that approach. The courts use age limits and events not because it is fair but because it is practical. Now, if you've got a practical way to quickly determine the sentience of a life form so that such practices become unnessecary, then I'm open to suggestions.

Nice.

Frankly, I wouldn't compel you to take care of a screaming baby for any amount of time if the authorities were unable or unwilling to take it off your hands. I too, am consistent.

Whatever.

Actually, their rationale was that Dred Scott didn't have the right to bring suit because he wasn't a citizen of the United States, not because he wasn't a person.

Hey, after living in a human world for as long as I can remember, I am well aware of the full depravity of humanity. You're right in saying that I hold a low opinion of human life. In fact, without the rights of liberty and persuit of happiness, I'm utterly convined that life is worthless. If I did not have these rights, and I was convinced that it would be impossible to gain these rights, I would go ahead and kill myself, at least denying my captors the right to benefit from my captivity. I value life solely because of its content, and I can't understand in the slightest the assertations of you or anyone else who asserts that the right to life is "fundamental." WHAT'S SO SPECIAL ABOUT BEING ALIVE?

Actually, the right to life can be logically derived from the right to liberty, but not vice-versa. That would suggest that liberty is a more fundamental right than life.

As I said in response to dk, that is the legal judgement I would render. Although I hardly think that a premeditated assault should recieve a "slap on the wrist," first offender status or no.

You demonstrate your ignorance of history. The three-fifths compromise was decided by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and the decision was that slaves would be counted as three-fifths for purposes of deciding congressional seats. It did not say that slaves were not persons or were three-fifths of a person. Here's the actual text, as it appears in the constitution:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Notice that it says nothing about slaves being only three-fifths of a person, or about their rights, but only that congressional seats shal be appointed in proportion to the whole number of free persons and indentured servants, plus three fifths of all other persons (slaves). This is important, because it shows that slaves were considered to be people, otherwise they couldn't possibly have been inclueded in "all other persons." Now, would you like to change your premise for asserting that "person" is too malleable, or just remove the assertation altogether?

No, Dred Scott was based on citizenship, not personhood, and was not responsible for the three-fifths compromise. Before you spout stuff off from right-wing websites, I would recommend that you actually read the text of the decision, to make sure that you're not spouting nonsense.

There is no reason to deny a chair the right to life either. The question of whether there is reason to deny right to life isn't reasonable, the reasonable question is "is there a reason to grant right to life?"

Nope, it wouldn't prevent it, what overruled it was the thirteenth amendment. Before then, people were not considered as having a "right" to avoid slavery. They were still people though.

Perhaps you should go back in time and tell Thomas Jefferson to write "We the humans of the United States..."

Of course they don't apply: that was a list of reasons why killing people I disagree with is not practical. You will notice that I have never disagreed with an infant, or with a person in a coma.

I've made this very clear: I'm using birth for the legal definition, not the moral definition. Why use birth for the legal definition? Again, because it is a simple solution which ensures that the rights of all people involved are maximized. Now, if you have a simple way to determine sentience, then that blows the practicality argument for using birth out of the water and we can use that method instead. I'm perfectly fine with that. Unfortunately, no such method exists, and so birth as the legal marker exists as a compromise.

Oh, and I sure as hell don't include all born life forms. I eat fish, not caviar. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it bears mentioning.

If E.T. is gestating from my body a la "aliens," then I want an abortion.

And I'm fairly sure that the aliens would not consider the unborn members of their species as having the right to life either. Unless they lay eggs. Then they probably would do that, because the eggs can be given to someone else if the mother doesn't want them. Of course, they probably would consider it okay to abort an unlaid egg.

Or are you foolish enough to believe that the human birth process is the only process which qualifies as "birth"? It's not clear from your argument.

No. That's why I don't grant a zygote the right to life.

I understand the distinction, I just don't understand why you're making the distinction. According to you, an unfertilized egg is not a human, but a fertilized egg is a human. Now, in in vitro fertilization, it is common practice to fertilize more eggs than the woman wants babies, in order to ensure that there are enough healthy candidates for implantation into the uterus. This practice, of creating more zygotes than strictly nessecary, is in fact common across nearly all fertility techniques. According to you then, every fertility doctor is a mass murderer. Worse, he deliberately creates humans that he will kill just a few days later. Clearly, this view is absurd, and yet you hold it. Why?

Actually, they seem to have more trouble with it than you do. You see, there is considerable debate among biologists on the ethics of stem cell research on the grounds that they can't agree whether these stem cells constitute humans. Funny that.

Good, that eliminates... nothing, because there is no single part that I could remove from you that would make you not a human.

No, actually it's not. If your axiom is "A can't be part of any A, such that without A it would not be A," then I would like to introduce you to the set of all sets which contain themselves.

I love mathematics.

Um... why?

So, for those of you who just skipped right to the end, here's the cliff's notes version of this post:

LWF doesn't understand the principle that which body the organs are a part of determines who has the right to those organs.

LWF doesn't understand why hypothetical situations are valid tests of morality.

LWF doesn't understand that you can support different legal and moral boundaries.

LWF admits that his criteria is based on how similar things are to him (and then defends this self-evident discrimination with tu quoque)

I show that in fact, his tu quoque is false. (Not that it would be any less of a fallacy if it wasn't)

LWF displays a serious lapse in parsimony in order to avoid the "discrimination against nonhumans" charge

LWF advances an argument from frozen babies. That was his best argument on the page. Too bad he didn't realize that I'm too much against hypocrisy to compel him to do something that I wouldn't do myself.

LWF goes off again about "nothing is more important than right to life." Uh, yeah, and without liberty, just why is life valuable again?

LWF demonstrates his ignorance of history. Three-fifths compromise being a part of the Dred Scott decision, indeed. Is Kent Hovind making history books now?

Again, LWF can't distinguish between proposed legal and moral boundaries.

LWF tries to tell me aliens can't be born.

LWF tells me that biologists agree with his illogical definition of human 100%. Perhaps he has been living in a church-induced vaccum for the past five years?

LWF appears to be aptly named, indeed.

LostGirl

Well, I hesitate to dip my toe into this raging torrent again, but I'm going to brave it!

As far as this "killing the rapist" dilemma goes, I see it like this.
The rapist, requiring the use of one of my organs for an apparently urgent biological imperative, is in the act of using my organs without my permission.
The fetus, requiring the use of many of my organs for an undeniably necessary biological reason, is in the act of using my organs without my permission.
So, the situations aren't identical. The former is a violent act that takes comparatively little time as the latter. However, it isn't so peaceable either. The physical effects of both can be quite detrimental, as are the psychological aftereffects in both cases.

So, the question is, is it permissable to kill the rapist in order to stop the rape that's occuring? If I get my outstretched hands on a gun, can I blow his brains off?
Personally, I think I can. And I would.
Is it permissable to kill a fetus in order to stop the co-option of my body which will come to affect every aspect of my life, if I do so long before the fetus has any chance of surviving with out me?
Personally, I think I can, and I would.

So, there you go. Feel free to disagree, or to prove me wrong, I won't mind. I'm still going to kill the man who's raping me, and I'll still have that abortion if I have to. To borrow John's sig, Cheers!


Secondly, I'd like to compare the personhood/human being status of a fetus as an individual organism or example of a unique homo sapiens, to a hypothetical idea. I get the impression this sort of thing is encouraged by some people in this thread.
What if, after death, your body was raided and a portion of living cells, living tissue was removed before they totally died. The rest of your body, most certainly your brain, is left to rot in a coffin somewhere whilst the living tissue is stored in a self-contained apparatus which provides them with everything they need to continue living at the level of cellular (ie, organelle) function. These cells could be maintained in this living state indefinitely. They would comprise a totally unique specimen of homo sapiens genome, with the potential to one day be cloned into an embryonic stem cell and one day become you again. It would be more of an individual organism than a fetus.
Is this something you would want for yourself? What would the rights of this self-contained "bottle" of you, as opposed to a fetus?
Ah, Sheri S. Tepper, who is an author who recently published a book called the Visitor, is the originator of this bottling idea. Credit where it's due.

long winded fool

I think we've both lost the context of each other's arguments. We've expanded so far that now all we're doing quibbling over irrelevant rhetoric. While I think I understand how a person could come to your conclusions, I get the feeling that you are inundated with liberal dogma and moral relativism and are not thinking critically. Obviously, if you don't place value on human life then you ought to be pro-choice as well as many other things. If you can honestly devalue life to the point of discriminating against helpless infants in the crib because they aren't aware enough of morality, then you can defend your philosophy.

Just so we're clear, here is my summation of the pro-choice philosophy that has been defended here:

Jinto feels that all babies, born or not, are not morally necessary to protect if they present an unavoidable inconvenience.

Jinto thinks that an abandoned baby morally can be killed if he is the only one who can possibly take care of it.

Jinto feels that liberty and pursuit of happiness is more important than life, showing that he is unaware of the logical contradiction this presents.

Jinto thinks that infants carry similar value to dogs from a moral standpoint, if not a legal one.

Jinto thinks that the legal killing of humans by the majority based on age/I.Q./current location is not fascism.

Jinto thinks that his right to comfort ought to outweigh someone else's right to life.

Jinto thinks that allowing minority A to kill minority B while disallowing the majority to kill minority B is compatible with equal rights.

Jinto fails to see or admit that there can be a logical difference between a part of a thing and the thing itself.

Jinto argues that an animal's species only applies if it is currently capable of breeding, and that this is why we shouldn't base the right to life on species.

Jinto thinks that if independent human life forms have rights, and since sperm can develop into an independent human life form, sperm ought to have rights, failing to realize that sperm is not an independent human life form.

Jinto thinks that all black people have always been considered persons.

Jinto thinks that bonobo chimpanzees are part of the human family.

Jinto doesn't understand how "All humans are born free and equal" cannot logically be read to exclude the unborn from freedom or equality.

Jinto doesn't understand how "All members of the human family" cannot logically be read to include chimpanzees, since all members of the human family is all members of the family Hominidae and genus homo and chimpanzees are not genus homo, nor were they family Hominidae when the UDHR was drafted.

Jinto argues that the word "person" when applied to a human can only refer humans he can relate to morally.

Jinto doesn't understand that the law legalizing abortion is in conflict with the laws protecting human rights.

And last of all... Jinto must use "person" in place of "human" in the phrase "Equal and inalienable human rights," proving that his argument, along with legal abortion, directly contradicts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all other laws which refer to inalienable human rights.