XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.christian.religion, alt.christ   
   et.christianlife   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,   
   alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.buddhism, alt.religiontaoism, alt.current-affairs.muslim   
   From: bd@phyl.con   
      
   On 7/25/2018 7:09 PM, Dutch wrote:   
   > On 7/25/2018 2:35 PM, Bud Dickman wrote:   
   >> On 7/25/2018 1:27 PM, Attila wrote:   
   >>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:20:10 -0700, Bud Dickman  in   
   >>> alt.atheism with message-id  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 7/24/2018 12:10 AM, Attila wrote:   
   >>>>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 19:41:56 -0400, #BeamMeUpScotty   
   >>>>>  in alt.atheism with message-id   
   >>>>> <9xP4D.453288$br4.63128@fx34.iad> wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On 7/21/2018 7:47 AM, David Hartung wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> you   
   >>>>>>>> have presented no reasoned argument that the "human life" and   
   >>>>>>>> "person-hood" are two different things.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> A person is an individual human that has environmental experiences.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> That has been born alive.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Wrong.   
   >>>   
   >>> Not according to the applicable laws,   
   >>   
   >> This isn't about the law.  Personhood is first and foremost a moral   
   >> dimension.   
   >>   
   >> However, the Harvard journal article that is at the heart of this   
   >> thread does a very good job of explaining that in the mid 19th   
   >> century, when the 14th amendment was written, the *legal* sense of   
   >> "person" absolutely extended to living not-yet-born human beings.   
   >>   
   >> You, of course, are flip-flopping back and forth between "human being"   
   >> and "person".  While people might argue about when personhood is   
   >> established, there can be no dispute that a pregnant woman is carrying   
   >> a living human being inside her womb.   
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Someone on a deserted island is still a person without any other   
   >>>>>> persons   
   >>>>>> around. A person hooked to a Dialysis machine to keep them alive is a   
   >>>>>> person NOT a parasite and NOT a part of the machine, they are an   
   >>>>>> individual person.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> All have been born alive.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That isn't what made them persons.   
   >>>   
   >>> They do not qualify under the law before this occurs.   
   >>   
   >> The law isn't what establishes a moral person.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> As is a human life inside a uterus where Alcohol fetal syndrome can   
   >>>>>> change the person by way of our interaction.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> But while the species is human it is not a yet a human being.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It is.   
   >>>   
   >>> No, it isn't.   
   >>   
   >> Absolutely it is.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> There are other things that also make that human life a unique   
   >>>>>> "person"   
   >>>>> >from conception.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Until it has survived live birth it is not yet a person   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That's false. Birth is merely a change of venue.   
   >>>   
   >>> If there is no live birth no person ever existed.   
   >>   
   >> False.  The developing baby is a person.   
   >   
   > This quibbling over definitions of words is not useful.   
      
   Unfortunately, it is central to the issue.  The fool 'attila' says that   
   abortion is legal because the fetus isn't a "legal" person.  First of   
   all, the paper "Protecting Prenatal Persons:  Does The Fourteenth   
   Amendment Prohibit Abortion?" makes a very powerful case that the   
   Supreme Court got the personhood issue completely wrong in Roe v. Wade.   
   One paper may not make the definitive case, but he cites many other   
   scholars who say the same thing.  [The following site doesn't contain   
   the paper itself, but has buttons to download it:   
   https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2970761]   
      
   But secondly, the anti-abortion position is predicated on the position   
   that legal personhood *must* be based on moral personhood.  Whether you   
   view moral personhood as stemming from a "creator", or whether you view   
   it secularly (see "A Secular Case Against Abortion",   
   https://infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/roth1.html),   
   it is at the very core of the debate.  If you could "prove", once and   
   for all, that unborn human beings are not persons in any sense, then the   
   case against abortion collapses entirely.  The quibbling comes entirely   
   from the pro-abortion mob.  They need sophistry and sleight-of-hand to   
   try to get the definition they need in order to get the policy goal they   
   want.  This is Michael Cerkowski-style sophistry.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)