Roe v Wade Overturned?

[commonsense]

My belief is that a human being’s rights, when in conflict with a potential human’s rights, have primacy.

Have at it, if you will.

It's an artificial category, this "potential human being." What we don't know is at what point a "potential human being" as you call her, is a real human being.

Fortunately for the anti-abortion people, they don't have to know. They're not going to kill anybody, even "potentially."

But the pro-abortionists"? Even they have to admit that potentially they're killing a human being. So it's on them to show that they're not, and to show it in such a way that no reasonable person can doubt they've got it right. Moreover, they know darn well that the "potential human being" they're killing would, within the 9 months, BE a full "human being" in every possible sense. In fact, that's the payoff they want -- to kill an entity that otherwise would be 100% possessed of the rights and reality of a human child, rather than to bring it to term and adopt her out. That's what they actively WANT. There would be no reason to kill anything if it did not prevent that eventuality.

So the need to explain themselves as not being murderers rests 100% on the shoulders of the pro-abortionists. The anti-abortion folks could, and should, sit back and wait for them to prove that case.

But they cannot, and they know they cannot...not just because the nature of the child is concealed from us in the womb, but because the whole "value" of abortion, it's whole reason for being is, in fact, the ending of the life of a human being.

You’ve hit on the crux of it all. Just when does a union of sperm and egg become a human or person.

For the anti-abortion side, the life of a person or human begins at the time the cells are joined. Since this conjoining doesn’t resemble a human, the onus of proof falls on this side to show how, despite appearance, this is a human person. If the anti-abortion people can do that, the other side must admit to killing a human.

For the pro-abortion side, life begins when the product of conception is separated from its placental support system or when it exits the birth canal and breathes on its own. There is no doubt that sperm and egg together is a living organism, but the controversy stems from whether this is a human person or not.

Humans kill all sorts of things that are not human. The crux of the matter is the humanness, not the killing. This begs the question, what determines a human being? This is a question for both sides, in no particular order. For if one side says the other side’s definition is wrong, it accomplishes nothing.

Perhaps what determines a person is not a matter of chronology, but a matter of other characteristics such as whether a fetus can think or move. Since there’s no way to observe thoughts, humanness can only be judged by behavior. For example, a fetus can kick, but it can’t do so without a solid placental attachment to the uterine wall. Maybe the criteria for personhood that the pro side would put forward is completely independent agency.

As for me, I cannot speak for all those who believe that a human isn’t a human until it is borne from the womb. For me, independent agency is not sufficient. I would say there needs to be sentient independent agency. But that raises the debate over whether animals are sentient. Setting that question aside, I would hazard that a human must be an independent sentient agent who possesses the biologic elements of a human of one gender or the other. But even that may be just too simplistic.

Beside all of the above, the majority opinion of women should be the deciding factor. Else there’s legislation without representation.

[Immanuel Can]

My belief is that a human being’s rights, when in conflict with a potential human’s rights, have primacy.

Have at it, if you will.

It's an artificial category, this "potential human being." What we don't know is at what point a "potential human being" as you call her, is a real human being.

Fortunately for the anti-abortion people, they don't have to know. They're not going to kill anybody, even "potentially."

But the pro-abortionists"? Even they have to admit that potentially they're killing a human being. So it's on them to show that they're not, and to show it in such a way that no reasonable person can doubt they've got it right. Moreover, they know darn well that the "potential human being" they're killing would, within the 9 months, BE a full "human being" in every possible sense. In fact, that's the payoff they want -- to kill an entity that otherwise would be 100% possessed of the rights and reality of a human child, rather than to bring it to term and adopt her out. That's what they actively WANT. There would be no reason to kill anything if it did not prevent that eventuality.

So the need to explain themselves as not being murderers rests 100% on the shoulders of the pro-abortionists. The anti-abortion folks could, and should, sit back and wait for them to prove that case.

But they cannot, and they know they cannot...not just because the nature of the child is concealed from us in the womb, but because the whole "value" of abortion, it's whole reason for being is, in fact, the ending of the life of a human being.

You’ve hit on the crux of it all. Just when does a union of sperm and egg become a human or person.

The anti-abortion side doesn't have to know that answer. The pro-abortion side has to be able to say it with absolute certainty.

For the anti-abortion side, the life of a person or human begins at the time the cells are joined. Since this conjoining doesn’t resemble a human, the onus of proof falls on this side to show how, despite appearance, this is a human person.

No, they don't have to show this. They're not planning on killing anyone, so there's a 0% chance they will be doing this great evil. One never has any burden to prove that not-killing your children is okay. It's bound to be just fine.

For the pro-abortion side, life begins when the product of conception is separated from its placental support system or when it exits the birth canal and breathes on its own.

That's hopeless, as a theory.

For one thing, it has two different claims: "placental support" and "exit" theories. So that's obviously not right. It's one or the other, not both...or more properly, it's neither. The problem for the pro-abortionist is proving that a child who was in every possible the way the same ten seconds before any given point was "not a person," and suddenly "is a person" ten seconds later. And it doesn't matter which point we pick, post conception...one month, six months, nine months, post birth...the problem remains the same:

Prove that what you just killed was "not a person," when what you insisted had to be left alive is only ten seconds older.

Humans kill all sorts of things that are not human. The crux of the matter is the humanness, not the killing.

The usage here isn't quite precise.

There is no doubt that a fetus, and even a zygote, is at every stage "human," meaning, "not chimp," or "not a fish," or "not a cat." It's definitely human. No question. The question is, "At what point does this developing human entity qualify for legal status as a 'person.'

A "person," in philosophical terms, is defined as "an entity bearing rights." And there's a lot of debate as to what qualifies an entity as a "person." Why is it more acceptable to swat a mosquito than to torture a dog, for example...is it that there's some quality of "personhood" that more attaches to mammals than insects? Or is that mere sentiment, on our part? Is it a false analogy, based on nothing more than our superficial perception that dogs "look more like us" than do mosquitoes? And that debate goes on.

What is not under debate (or shouldn't be) is that murdering a "person" is wrong. And of all the entities we know that are "most like us," none comes anywhere near so close to us as a human fetus. If any entity other than an adult human being owns rights, then the developing child is it.

So the pro-abortion side really has the entire burden to show that we're wrong: that in spite of an in-utero child having DNA that is entirely human, it's own blood system, respiration, volition, awareness, and so on, and in spite of it being absolutely certain to end up being a human being if we don't stop it, the child still does not count as a "person" in any relevant sense at all.

And if the pro-ab side cannot do that, then the only moral thing is never to butcher one.

Perhaps what determines a person is not a matter of chronology, but a matter of other characteristics such as whether a fetus can think or move. Since there’s no way to observe thoughts, humanness can only be judged by behavior.

There are tons of ways to observe. Nowadays, we can even insert an illuminated camera into the uterus, and examine the baby as it moves and acts. We already know all about infant respiration and so forth in utero, and every woman who has ever had a baby can tell you that her relationship with the child began long before that child exited the womb.

So it's just not honest to say, "we can't observe." The truth is, we've observed lots; but we refuse to consider what we observe, because we want to keep butchering our children.

As for me, I cannot speak for all those who believe that a human isn’t a human until it is borne from the womb.

I can. They're lying, ignoring the truth, and being horribly wicked.

They're in bad conscience. They know exactly what they're doing; and it's the very thing they want to do. They are keeping another human being from living, by lynching her in utero. That is the act they are defending, and know they are defending.

Beside all of the above, the majority opinion of women should be the deciding factor.

Sorry, but that's utterly untrue. What "majority opinion" decides is not even related to the truth. At one time, every single person on the planet believed it was flat. It didn't make it so.

Whether a baby is a baby is not something that changes with opinion polls. And I see absolutely no reason at all why half of the human race, who contribute half of the DNA to the baby, should be barred from having any opinion about it, either way. That's an absurdity, a Feminist slogan without substance. Women have no special right to determine the future of the human species as a whole, nor any say at all as to whether or not a baby is a person. Men can have a say, and their say is no less than any woman's...and no more, since men's opinions do not make a baby a person or non-person either.

[commonsense]

You make some good points but “being absolutely certain” to become a human being is hyperbole that overlooks still births and miscarriages, or do you count dead fetuses as human beings?

[Immanuel Can]

You make some good points but “being absolutely certain” to become a human being is hyperbole...

No, not if we are going to go about tearing that entity limb from limb and flushing her into a sink or selling her body parts. If that's a "person" in the relevant sense, then that's an abomination.

So the abortionist owes us to show us he's absolutely sure...and we can be, too...that he is not guilty of something like that.

[commonsense]

You make some good points but “being absolutely certain” to become a human being is hyperbole...

No, not if we are going to go about tearing that entity limb from limb and flushing her into a sink or selling her body parts. If that's a "person" in the relevant sense, then that's an abomination.

So the abortionist owes us to show us he's absolutely sure...and we can be, too...that he is not guilty of something like that.

…in other words, has to prove she’s innocent of a crime.

[Immanuel Can]

You make some good points but “being absolutely certain” to become a human being is hyperbole...

No, not if we are going to go about tearing that entity limb from limb and flushing her into a sink or selling her body parts. If that's a "person" in the relevant sense, then that's an abomination.

So the abortionist owes us to show us he's absolutely sure...and we can be, too...that he is not guilty of something like that.

…in other words, has to prove she’s innocent of a crime.

If you're going to brutally slaughter something, then you'd best show that that "something" is not a human being. It's that simple.

Think of it this way.

One day, I was at an archery field. Across the field was an old outhouse.

I'm a good shot. So I put about five arrows through that old shed....before I realized what I had potentially done.

Then I thought about what I was doing. Too late.

Believe me, I ran across that field with my heart pounding, threw open that door, and saw a toilet. Above it, coming through the walls, were half a dozen arrow shafts and holes thereof. There is no doubt in my mind: if anyone had been sitting there, I would have killed them. The arrows would have been right through their head and torso.

True story. And nobody died that day. But I was totally negligent. And if somebody had died, I'd have been the one charged with criminal negligence, at the very least, for not clearing my target. And if I had had even the slightest suspicion that a person was actually in there, then the charge would not be mere negligence, but outright murder.

An anti-abortionist is the voice at my elbow, saying, "Do not shoot arrows through that outhouse unless you know there's no person in there." The abortionist is the person pumping arrows through that outhouse, and saying, "If I didn't know there was anybody there, I'm not a bad person."

That's the point.

[commonsense]

The point is that pro-abortion people believe there is absolutely no one in the outhouse.

A human fetus doesn’t look much like a human and doesn’t act much like a human. It is less than human. It is non-human.

If there is a view to the contrary, I have yet to be convinced to believe that view.

[Immanuel Can]

The point is that pro-abortion people believe there is absolutely no one in the outhouse.

Right. And IF THEY CAN PROVE IT, then they can act with impunity. No problem. They can do anything with "it" they please.

But they have to prove it. Nobody else has anything to prove. Nobody else is "firing arrows." They are.

A human fetus doesn’t look much like a human and doesn’t act much like a human. It is less than human. It is non-human.

Well, that would be a very dangerous conclusions, drawn from from very little. The outhouse doesn't look like an occupant. It doesn't act like an occupant. But it sure as heck might have one.

On that account, if I think a black or asian or hispanic person doesn't "look" or "act" in a certain way, he's not human. If a person is disabled or paralyzed or in a coma, she's not human. But biologically, (by DNA and other indicators, such as respiration, hearbeat, etc.) we know that all are, just as we are in no doubt at all that a fetus is a human fetus...and more, one destined to become a human being if not killed. So if I were ever to imagine they were not human, it would be on me to show -- and to show beyond any reasonable doubt -- that I know I'm right.

I don't think I could do it. What do you think?

[henry quirk]

What do you think?

I think, if I were young and startin' a family, there's damned few here I'd trust (if I had to be away for an extended time) to watch over my wife or the child she carries or has given birth to.

Seems to me, if push came to shove, most here would sell off my wife and eat my kid (or vice versa).

[commonsense]

IF THEY CAN PROVE IT, then they can act with impunity. No problem. They can do anything with "it" they please.

But they have to prove it. Nobody else has anything to prove. Nobody else is "firing arrows." They are.

I don't think I could do it. What do you think?

I don’t think I can either.

But you seem to be asking for someone to prove the negative. I don’t think that can be done, logically.

But if you prove to me, logically, that the negative claim needs to be proved, you will draw me in closer to adopting your position.

[Immanuel Can]

IF THEY CAN PROVE IT, then they can act with impunity. No problem. They can do anything with "it" they please.

But they have to prove it. Nobody else has anything to prove. Nobody else is "firing arrows." They are.

I don't think I could do it. What do you think?

I don’t think I can either.

But you seem to be asking for someone to prove the negative. I don’t think that can be done, logically.

No, not a negative. A positive.

All I'm asking is that they show that the entity they are killing is ANYTHING ELSE but a human being and a person. They can show it to be a dog, a fish or a robot...and whatever they show it to be, I'll grant them the right to kill that entity. They can choose their species, if they like: I give them the world to pick from.

That's an awfully easy burden of proof: all I'm saying to them is, just show what the "thing" in question IS. Show you know. Show you know you're doing something morally tenable. Show you're sure, and I should be sure too. How much more fair can I be?

But you're right: they still cannot. The reason is simpler than all that: they know darn well a child in utero is both a human being and a person. So it's really, really hard for them to find any way of implying she isn't. They aren't sure WHEN she becomes a person, but they're not actually in any doubt about her humanity or at least her eventual status as a full person in every sense that word can hold.

In fact, that's what they want: to prevent a person. And why? Because a person deserves to be loved, provided for, treated with respect, nurtured, and so on...a person has rights and deserves certain kinds of treatment, and even though they created her out of their own sexual choices, they don't want to have to do any of that. They know they would be obligated to, if the child came to term.

So they'd rather murder her than love her. That's where they're at.

[commonsense]

IF THEY CAN PROVE IT, then they can act with impunity. No problem. They can do anything with "it" they please.

But they have to prove it. Nobody else has anything to prove. Nobody else is "firing arrows." They are.

I don't think I could do it. What do you think?

I don’t think I can either.

But you seem to be asking for someone to prove the negative. I don’t think that can be done, logically.

No, not a negative. A positive.

All I'm asking is that they show that the entity they are killing is ANYTHING ELSE but a human being and a person. They can show it to be a dog, a fish or a robot...and whatever they show it to be, I'll grant them the right to kill that entity. They can choose their species, if they like: I give them the world to pick from.

That's an awfully easy burden of proof: all I'm saying to them is, just show what the "thing" in question IS. Show you know. Show you know you're doing something morally tenable. Show you're sure, and I should be sure too. How much more fair can I be?

But you're right: they still cannot. The reason is simpler than all that: they know darn well a child in utero is both a human being and a person. So it's really, really hard for them to find any way of implying she isn't. They aren't sure WHEN she becomes a person, but they're not actually in any doubt about her humanity or at least her eventual status as a full person in every sense that word can hold.

In fact, that's what they want: to prevent a person. And why? Because a person deserves to be loved, provided for, treated with respect, nurtured, and so on...a person has rights and deserves certain kinds of treatment, and even though they created her out of their own sexual choices, they don't want to have to do any of that. They know they would be obligated to, if the child came to term.

So they'd rather murder her than love her. That's where they're at.

OK, I’m going to stipulate that no one could prove what a fetus is. That means that no one could show that a fetus is anything else nor that a fetus is a person or anything other than a fetus. So I’m going to stipulate, by unsupported belief, that a fetus is a human being.

Now the question to be resolved is whether a fetal human being is equal to an adult female human being, or ethically more than or less than an adult female.

A community may be judged according to who its heroes are and/or by how it treats its weakest members. Let’s say that a fetus is a member of the community and the weakest member at that. Then the weaker of any two persons should be held in higher regard than the stronger of the two. It would be hypocritical then that the poor are not treated better than the rich, or at least better than they are.

In other words, if a fetus is a human person, then what’s to be worked out is a hierarchy of kinds of humans. Can you do that?

[Immanuel Can]

OK, I’m going to stipulate that no one could prove what a fetus is.

Well, so far, all the evidence we have points to the fact that a fetus is a person. DNA is evidence. The inevitable emergence of a full "person" after nine moths is evidence. The fetal brainwaves, heartbeat, independent circulatory system, volition and the unique identity of each baby...all are evidence of at least the inevitability that a person will emerge from the entity in question.

If indicative evidence is weighed, then the preponderance is surely on the side of the anti-abortionsists. But it's true that absolute evidence may presently be beyond us. It depends on what one is willing to reccognize as "evidence."

That means that no one could show that a fetus is anything else nor that a fetus is a person or anything other than a fetus. So I’m going to stipulate, by unsupported belief, that a fetus is a human being.

Okay.

Now the question to be resolved is whether a fetal human being is equal to an adult female human being, or ethically more than or less than an adult female.

No, we don't set people's rights against each other, as if my right to free speech eliminates yours. If we stipulate that the child is a person, then he/she is a person in every sense that counts for anyone. Adult females don't get more votes on who deserves to live than do newborns. That's what "personhood" implies.

A community may be judged according to who its heroes are and/or by how it treats its weakest members.

A reasonable axiom.

Let’s say that a fetus is a member of the community and the weakest member at that. Then the weaker of any two persons should be held in higher regard than the stronger of the two. It would be hypocritical then that the poor are not treated better than the rich, or at least better than they are.

Let's just say that everybody is entitled to a fair shake. It would be as wrong to play favourites toward the poor by hating the rich as it would be to favour the rich at the expense of the poor. Both are cases of unjust judgment, I would suggest.

In other words, if a fetus is a human person, then what’s to be worked out is a hierarchy of kinds of humans. Can you do that?

I'm arguing we cannot.

"Life" is surely the primary right every "person" is deserving of. The rich deserve it, just as much as the poor do. Not more, not less, and not hierarchically. God has made us all, the poor and rich alike. They're all "persons."

Beyond that, there are other rights, of course. But the right to murder another "person" (as you stipulated, above) for one's sexual convenience...I don't know any principle on which we can advocate that.

[commonsense]

OK, I’m going to stipulate that no one could prove what a fetus is.

Well, so far, all the evidence we have points to the fact that a fetus is a person. DNA is evidence. The inevitable emergence of a full "person" after nine moths is evidence. The fetal brainwaves, heartbeat, independent circulatory system, volition and the unique identity of each baby...all are evidence of at least the inevitability that a person will emerge from the entity in question.

If indicative evidence is weighed, then the preponderance is surely on the side of the anti-abortionsists. But it's true that absolute evidence may presently be beyond us. It depends on what one is willing to reccognize as "evidence."

That means that no one could show that a fetus is anything else nor that a fetus is a person or anything other than a fetus. So I’m going to stipulate, by unsupported belief, that a fetus is a human being.

Okay.

Now the question to be resolved is whether a fetal human being is equal to an adult female human being, or ethically more than or less than an adult female.

No, we don't set people's rights against each other, as if my right to free speech eliminates yours. If we stipulate that the child is a person, then he/she is a person in every sense that counts for anyone. Adult females don't get more votes on who deserves to live than do newborns. That's what "personhood" implies.

A community may be judged according to who its heroes are and/or by how it treats its weakest members.

A reasonable axiom.

Let’s say that a fetus is a member of the community and the weakest member at that. Then the weaker of any two persons should be held in higher regard than the stronger of the two. It would be hypocritical then that the poor are not treated better than the rich, or at least better than they are.

Let's just say that everybody is entitled to a fair shake. It would be as wrong to play favourites toward the poor by hating the rich as it would be to favour the rich at the expense of the poor. Both are cases of unjust judgment, I would suggest.

In other words, if a fetus is a human person, then what’s to be worked out is a hierarchy of kinds of humans. Can you do that?

I'm arguing we cannot.

"Life" is surely the primary right every "person" is deserving of. The rich deserve it, just as much as the poor do. Not more, not less, and not hierarchically. God has made us all, the poor and rich alike. They're all "persons."

Beyond that, there are other rights, of course. But the right to murder another "person" (as you stipulated, above) for one's sexual convenience...I don't know any principle on which we can advocate that.

Likewise the fetus does not have the right to harm a woman.

[Immanuel Can]

Likewise the fetus does not have the right to harm a woman.

Well, that would only pertain to cases in which the life of the fetus and the life of the woman are not medically compatible. Those are vanishingly less than 1% of the real-world cases. And in such a case, where it's one life or the other, there's nothing more to be said than that a horrendous decision must be made. Somebody's going to die, whatever you do.