[W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

[mrjurrs]

"a member of the species homo sapiens"

I'm pretty sure the local morgue has a number of these as well...and your point is?

 

[Angel]

"a member of the species homo sapiens"

I'm pretty sure the local morgue has a number of these as well...and your point is?

My point was -- the thread is seven months old -- that in the case covered by the statute, the life inside the woman is recognized as "a members of homo sapiens, a child, a human being; whereas in the case of abortion that same life inside the woman is not so recognized.

 

[Angel]

~~~~~~
So, you're telling us that your life had no meaning until you were born.

A profound question. Well, first off, I'm not telling you that. Second, though I have to give this more thought, I would say that all life has meaning before specific births occur.
What's your take on your own conundrum?

 

[year2late]

A profound question. Well, first off, I'm not telling you that. Second, though I have to give this more thought, I would say that all life has meaning before specific births occur.
What's your take on your own conundrum?

Specific births?

How subjective.

 

[weaver2]

Are you not seeing that you're making my point. If someone kills a pregnant woman, he's committed a double homicide. If that same woman had had an abortion before she was murdered, the law does not view it as homicide.

The title of the thread is Abortion Semantics. Anti-abortion advocates in 2004 codifying "unborn baby" and "human being" as acceptable terminology for zygote, embryo and fetus. Since then they have insisted, dishonestly but effectively that a human being is being killed in abortion. Technically that is not true. Emotionally they have made it stick especially with anti-abortion people.

Words have meaning and making "unborn baby" and "human being" into US Code was a slick move. It allows every tin pot philosopher, conservative Christian and male chauvinist to lay a guilt trip on a woman faced with making a life changing, reproductive decision for herself and her family by calling a one inch non-sentient embryo or a 2 inch non-sentient fetus that has no emotions, no feelings, no sensory functions, no conscious state of being, no legal, biblical or social standing a human being or in more maudlin terms a tiny helpless unborn baby.

No honest or genuine philosophical or moral law is broken in aborting before the 20th week, a pregnancy has ended, a potential has been stopped . There is nothing, moral or immoral, for which the woman who aborts must take responsibility. Her responsibility is to her family and to herself not to the propaganda of the religious conservatives and the anti-abortion movement. But because of semantics a woman can be accused of murder.

 

[southwest88]

The issue @ hand

My point was -- the thread is seven months old -- that in the case covered by the statute, the life inside the woman is recognized as "a members of homo sapiens, a child, a human being; whereas in the case of abortion that same life inside the woman is not so recognized.

TMK, no one argues that the fetus will develop into anything other than a human being, if everything proceeds correctly. That's not the argument.

Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court holding on abortion, holds that in British & US common law, Judaism & Christianity, that the fetus is not a person (in the legal sense) until it's born - or @ least viable. There are precedents listed in the holding, you can track those down & consult them, if you like.

 

[southwest88]

The law turns on precise meanings of words

Are you not seeing that you're making my point. If someone kills a pregnant woman, he's committed a double homicide. If that same woman had had an abortion before she was murdered, the law does not view it as homicide.

No, in the first case, the charges the accused will face depend upon which state the alleged crime took place in - not all the states have feticide laws.

In the second case, you need to stipulate that the abortion was legal under Roe v. Wade. In that circumstance, the legal system will ignore the abortion.

 

[Angel]

Specific births?

How subjective.

You've been given the word on this "subjective" refrain of yours, and every time you mention it now I am reminded of the poor form you showed in not acknowledging that post.

 

[Angel]

The title of the thread is Abortion Semantics. Anti-abortion advocates in 2004 codifying "unborn baby" and "human being" as acceptable terminology for zygote, embryo and fetus. Since then they have insisted, dishonestly but effectively that a human being is being killed in abortion. Technically that is not true. Emotionally they have made it stick especially with anti-abortion people.

Words have meaning and making "unborn baby" and "human being" into US Code was a slick move. It allows every tin pot philosopher, conservative Christian and male chauvinist to lay a guilt trip on a woman faced with making a life changing, reproductive decision for herself and her family by calling a one inch non-sentient embryo or a 2 inch non-sentient fetus that has no emotions, no feelings, no sensory functions, no conscious state of being, no legal, biblical or social standing a human being or in more maudlin terms a tiny helpless unborn baby.

No honest or genuine philosophical or moral law is broken in aborting before the 20th week, a pregnancy has ended, a potential has been stopped . There is nothing, moral or immoral, for which the woman who aborts must take responsibility. Her responsibility is to her family and to herself not to the propaganda of the religious conservatives and the anti-abortion movement. But because of semantics a woman can be accused of murder.

Let's see where to begin. The aim of this thread of mine was to show that in serious matters of morality the law, as one of Dickens' characters famously says, "is a ass" (and that's correctly quoted by the way); and here you come along, seven months later, and in attempting to champion the pro-abortion cause, drive home the point of my thread, that "the law is a ass!" I should thank you.

So law is driven into self-contradiction by way of political pressure from two opposing sides of the abortion issue, and in defense of law you only have criticism for the side you oppose, bitter abusive words for the anti-abortion camp. Partisan politics is not subtle.

My thread was a reaction and answer to the pro-abortion camp, which takes law for its moral compass. "The law is a ass."

You are correct in one respect, however. This is about semantics. But you fail to recognize the importance of semantics, the profound connection between srmantivs and ontology (existing things), and again merely start firing from the hip at the side you oppose. Partisan politics is not subtle.

You claim that it is "dishonest" to assert that a human being is killed in abortion. On what basis do you make this claim? On the basis of law? On the basis of your politics? Semantics? Tell us.

 

[Angel]

Re: The issue @ hand

TMK, no one argues that the fetus will develop into anything other than a human being, if everything proceeds correctly. That's not the argument.

Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court holding on abortion, holds that in British & US common law, Judaism & Christianity, that the fetus is not a person (in the legal sense) until it's born - or @ least viable. There are precedents listed in the holding, you can track those down & consult them, if you like.

"Personhood," whether as a legal or religious notion, has no place in my argument. My argument is based in and on biology.

 

[Angel]

Re: The law turns on precise meanings of words

No, in the first case, the charges the accused will face depend upon which state the alleged crime took place in - not all the states have feticide laws.

In the second case, you need to stipulate that the abortion was legal under Roe v. Wade. In that circumstance, the legal system will ignore the abortion.

I trust you are correct in the first case. It does not temper my criticism of the vagaries of the law.
In the second case, I not only so stipulate, but I submit the stipulation as half my criticism of the vagaries of the law.

 

[weaver2]

Let's see where to begin. The aim of this thread of mine was to show that in serious matters of morality the law, as one of Dickens' characters famously says, "is a ass" (and that's correctly quoted by the way); and here you come along, seven months later, and in attempting to champion the pro-abortion cause, drive home the point of my thread, that "the law is a ass!" I should thank you.

So law is driven into self-contradiction by way of political pressure from two opposing sides of the abortion issue, and in defense of law you only have criticism for the side you oppose, bitter abusive words for the anti-abortion camp. Partisan politics is not subtle.

My thread was a reaction and answer to the pro-abortion camp, which takes law for its moral compass. "The law is a ass."

You are correct in one respect, however. This is about semantics. But you fail to recognize the importance of semantics, the profound connection between srmantivs and ontology (existing things), and again merely start firing from the hip at the side you oppose. Partisan politics is not subtle.

You claim that it is "dishonest" to assert that a human being is killed in abortion. On what basis do you make this claim? On the basis of law? On the basis of your politics? Semantics? Tell us.

Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children". I haven't read the thread. I have no idea what was discussed. I was responding to the title only.

 

[southwest88]

Re: The issue @ hand

Originally Posted by southwest88
TMK, no one argues that the fetus will develop into anything other than a human being, if everything proceeds correctly. That's not the argument.

Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court holding on abortion, holds that in British & US common law, Judaism & Christianity, that the fetus is not a person (in the legal sense) until it's born - or @ least viable. There are precedents listed in the holding, you can track those down & consult them, if you like.

"Personhood," whether as a legal or religious notion, has no place in my argument. My argument is based in and on biology.

The topic is abortion, presumably in the US? Then you don't have any choice about dealing with Roe v. Wade - that's the controlling law on US abortion.

Biology was one of the areas that the Supreme Court considered in its deliberations on Roe. You can read about the history of the case - it's too long & involved to quote here.

 

[Obscurity]

Re: The issue @ hand

Originally Posted by southwest88
TMK, no one argues that the fetus will develop into anything other than a human being, if everything proceeds correctly. That's not the argument.

Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court holding on abortion, holds that in British & US common law, Judaism & Christianity, that the fetus is not a person (in the legal sense) until it's born - or @ least viable. There are precedents listed in the holding, you can track those down & consult them, if you like.



The topic is abortion, presumably in the US? Then you don't have any choice about dealing with Roe v. Wade - that's the controlling law on US abortion.

Biology was one of the areas that the Supreme Court considered in its deliberations on Roe. You can read about the history of the case - it's too long & involved to quote here.

To be clear, Roe V. Wade isn't "law," it was a SCOTUS Ruling that expanding amended constitutional rights.

One indeed can (and in my own opinion, correctly) that Roe v. Wade did more harm then good, since social change at the time dictated abortion would simply become legal everywhere anyway. Frankly, I believe every state would have made abortion legal, period, throughout the land, because at that time, the massive evangelical and catholic abomination that is the forced birth movement of today didn't exist.

All Roe did was tell them "We don't care about your argument, or your position, shut up, 9 unelected clowns are making the ruling above congress, the president, and the people."

The forced birth people - while I think they are wrong - are correct in having been dismissed by the SCOTUS. They never really had a chance to impact policy at the state and local level, as was intended.

Now, personally, I believe all women should have the right to abort - and I think without Roe they still would have that right. But, upending Roe now will not help anything, because the zealots are empowered now and will never stop.

 

[southwest88]

Re: The issue @ hand

To be clear, Roe V. Wade isn't "law," it was a SCOTUS Ruling that expanding amended constitutional rights.

One indeed can (and in my own opinion, correctly) that Roe v. Wade did more harm then good, since social change at the time dictated abortion would simply become legal everywhere anyway. Frankly, I believe every state would have made abortion legal, period, throughout the land, because at that time, the massive evangelical and catholic abomination that is the forced birth movement of today didn't exist.

All Roe did was tell them "We don't care about your argument, or your position, shut up, 9 unelected clowns are making the ruling above congress, the president, and the people."

…

The states could have legislated on abortion - that is, addressed the procedure directly, if they had wanted to.

"In the United States, in 1821, Connecticut passed the first state statute criminalizing abortion. Every state had abortion legislation by 1900.[14] In the United States, abortion was sometimes considered a common law crime,[15] though Justice Blackmun would conclude that the criminalization of abortion did not have "roots in the English common-law tradition."[16] Rather than arresting the women having the abortions, legal officials were more likely to interrogate these women to obtain evidence against the abortion provider in order to close down that provider's business.[17][18]"

(My emphasis - more @ Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia)

The majority of states apparently simply criminalized abortion. It took massive efforts on the part of advocates for birth control, & for putting decision making on children & family into the hands of the women & couples directly involved - & decades - to change societal attitudes sufficiently to allow the free circulation of birth control information & devices to interested adults.

9 unelected clowns - Is that standard Libertarian rhetoric? The Supreme Court was established by the same Constitution that drives the rest of government in the US.

 

[Angel]

Re: The issue @ hand

Originally Posted by southwest88
TMK, no one argues that the fetus will develop into anything other than a human being, if everything proceeds correctly. That's not the argument.

Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court holding on abortion, holds that in British & US common law, Judaism & Christianity, that the fetus is not a person (in the legal sense) until it's born - or @ least viable. There are precedents listed in the holding, you can track those down & consult them, if you like.



The topic is abortion, presumably in the US? Then you don't have any choice about dealing with Roe v. Wade - that's the controlling law on US abortion.

Biology was one of the areas that the Supreme Court considered in its deliberations on Roe. You can read about the history of the case - it's too long & involved to quote here.

The topic is "abortion semantics," number one.
Number two, whatever the topic, reply posts remain responses to specific points, and mine was a response to your point about legal and religious jargon. I'll repeat it, lest there be any misunderstanding on this score: my abortion argument -- unlike the Supreme Court's and that of the religious theologians consulted by the Supreme Court -- has no need of, and has nothing to do with, the concept of "personhood."

 

[southwest88]

Re: The issue @ hand

The topic is "abortion semantics," number one.
Number two, whatever the topic, reply posts remain responses to specific points, and mine was a response to your point about legal and religious jargon. I'll repeat it, lest there be any misunderstanding on this score: my abortion argument -- unlike the Supreme Court's and that of the religious theologians consulted by the Supreme Court -- has no need of, and has nothing to do with, the concept of "personhood."

jargon is meant to convey precise meaning in a compact & concise way. It may serve as a barrier to understanding, for beginners & non-legal or -religious practitioners, for instance, but that's not the main intent.


Ah, so you want to join the scholastic theologians who argued - learnedly, & in good Latin, no doubt - about how many angels could dance on the point of a needle. All good fun, for those so inclined - & nearly perfectly irrelevant to a discussion of abortion in the US in real time.

It's much like a critique of pure reason - breathtaking, I'm sure - but few people can follow the argument & learn the necessary vocabulary & phrases. It's a daunting prospect, & How does it illuminate the discussion of abortion in the here & now?

 

[year2late]

Re: The issue @ hand

jargon is meant to convey precise meaning in a compact & concise way. It may serve as a barrier to understanding, for beginners & non-legal or -religious practitioners, for instance, but that's not the main intent.


Ah, so you want to join the scholastic theologians who argued - learnedly, & in good Latin, no doubt - about how many angels could dance on the point of a needle. All good fun, for those so inclined - & nearly perfectly irrelevant to a discussion of abortion in the US in real time.

It's much like a critique of pure reason - breathtaking, I'm sure - but few people can follow the argument & learn the necessary vocabulary & phrases. It's a daunting prospect, & How does it illuminate the discussion of abortion in the here & now?

When I think of "children" I think of a born individual.

If you approached a pregnant woman alone and asked her "how old is your child" she would look at you like you are crazy. If you asked her "how far along are you" she would know what you are talking about.

 

[Angel]

Re: The issue @ hand

jargon is meant to convey precise meaning in a compact & concise way. It may serve as a barrier to understanding, for beginners & non-legal or -religious practitioners, for instance, but that's not the main intent.


Ah, so you want to join the scholastic theologians who argued - learnedly, & in good Latin, no doubt - about how many angels could dance on the point of a needle. All good fun, for those so inclined - & nearly perfectly irrelevant to a discussion of abortion in the US in real time.

It's much like a critique of pure reason - breathtaking, I'm sure - but few people can follow the argument & learn the necessary vocabulary & phrases. It's a daunting prospect, & How does it illuminate the discussion of abortion in the here & now?

Elegant post.
The question this elegant post of yours raises is the question of context. In what context is "the discussion of abortion in the here & now" to be "illuminated"? The legal? The religious? Or the philosophical?

I'm plumping for the philosophical. You appear sanguine about the legal-religious context. So our question, yours and mine, should we wish to discuss the matter together, is how to develop a fruitful discussion given our different choices of context?

Moreover, I'm not in the least interested in refuting the argument in the legal context. I'm not opposed to legal abortion; in fact I'm for it. I'm solely interested in the moral question.

So how do you suggest we proceed?

 

[weaver2]

Re: The issue @ hand

The title is Abortion Semantics: Unborn Children. After clearing away the name calling in your opening post,
you say you are going discuss

the nature and nomenclature of the human being in the womb
confusion at law
cultural confusion
federal law defines that critter in mommy's belly:
18 U.S. Code 01841. Protection of unborn children
(d) As used in this section, the term "unborn child" means a "child in utero," and the term "child in utero" or "child who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall...be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

"Personhood," whether as a legal or religious notion, has no place in my argument. My argument is based in and on biology.

it is "dishonest" to assert that a human being is killed in abortion. On what basis do you make this claim?

How words like "personhood" and "killing" are used by the anti-abortion movement does have a place in a discussion about abortion semantics. It may be bitter but it is not abusive to point our how the law and culture have been changed by this calculated manipulation of words.

 

[Obscurity]

Re: The issue @ hand

The states could have legislated on abortion - that is, addressed the procedure directly, if they had wanted to.

"In the United States, in 1821, Connecticut passed the first state statute criminalizing abortion. Every state had abortion legislation by 1900.[14] In the United States, abortion was sometimes considered a common law crime,[15] though Justice Blackmun would conclude that the criminalization of abortion did not have "roots in the English common-law tradition."[16] Rather than arresting the women having the abortions, legal officials were more likely to interrogate these women to obtain evidence against the abortion provider in order to close down that provider's business.[17][18]"

(My emphasis - more @ Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia)

The majority of states apparently simply criminalized abortion. It took massive efforts on the part of advocates for birth control, & for putting decision making on children & family into the hands of the women & couples directly involved - & decades - to change societal attitudes sufficiently to allow the free circulation of birth control information & devices to interested adults.

9 unelected clowns - Is that standard Libertarian rhetoric? The Supreme Court was established by the same Constitution that drives the rest of government in the US.

I'm a Jefferson acolyte and see that the court has become entirely dictatorial as well as absolutely authoritarian and despotic. There is no oversight of the SCOTUS. SCOTUS can and indeed does rule arbitrarily based on political lean. they have become king makers, and decide if congress, the president, and we the people, are legislating in accordance with their individual interpretation of the document.

They are tyrants.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Are you not seeing that you're making my point. If someone kills a pregnant woman, he's committed a double homicide. If that same woman had had an abortion before she was murdered, the law does not view it as homicide.

Just like if you kill my dog against my wishes, it's a crime but I can have vet euthanise her for any reason I want.

 

[southwest88]

Re: The issue @ hand

Elegant post.
The question this elegant post of yours raises is the question of context. In what context is "the discussion of abortion in the here & now" to be "illuminated"? The legal? The religious? Or the philosophical?

I'm plumping for the philosophical. You appear sanguine about the legal-religious context. So our question, yours and mine, should we wish to discuss the matter together, is how to develop a fruitful discussion given our different choices of context?

Moreover, I'm not in the least interested in refuting the argument in the legal context. I'm not opposed to legal abortion; in fact I'm for it. I'm solely interested in the moral question.

So how do you suggest we proceed?

I don't think it's possible to discuss abortion in the current US without addressing Roe v. Wade & its antecedents. I think you've sidelined yourself here, as far as having much impact on the ongoing debates in re.

 

[Lursa]

Re: The issue @ hand

To be clear, Roe V. Wade isn't "law," it was a SCOTUS Ruling that expanding amended constitutional rights.

One indeed can (and in my own opinion, correctly) that Roe v. Wade did more harm then good, since social change at the time dictated abortion would simply become legal everywhere anyway. Frankly, I believe every state would have made abortion legal, period, throughout the land, because at that time, the massive evangelical and catholic abomination that is the forced birth movement of today didn't exist.

All Roe did was tell them "We don't care about your argument, or your position, shut up, 9 unelected clowns are making the ruling above congress, the president, and the people."

The forced birth people - while I think they are wrong - are correct in having been dismissed by the SCOTUS. They never really had a chance to impact policy at the state and local level, as was intended.

Now, personally, I believe all women should have the right to abort - and I think without Roe they still would have that right. But, upending Roe now will not help anything, because the zealots are empowered now and will never stop.

That's what they did when it came to civil rights for blacks too...blacks were freed in the 1860s yet were still fighting for equality and equal rights in various states 100 yrs later. Sure "social change'' was occurring...but very slowly. How long should people have to wait to be able to exercise their rights equally?

How long should women have/have had to wait to be entitled to owning our own bodily sovereignty and self-determination? To due process and privacy for our reproductive/familial/medical choices?

Men already had this...how much longer should we have had to wait...and then still very possibly been denied in some states (denied *Constitutional* rights)? Also, I really dont share your optimism about some states making elective abortion legal "eventually."

 

[southwest88]

Some side observations

I'm a Jefferson acolyte and see that the court has become entirely dictatorial as well as absolutely authoritarian and despotic. There is no oversight of the SCOTUS. SCOTUS can and indeed does rule arbitrarily based on political lean. they have become king makers, and decide if congress, the president, and we the people, are legislating in accordance with their individual interpretation of the document.

They are tyrants.

Jefferson acolyte - There's a phrase that hardly trips off the tongue. Jefferson was brilliant, one of the leading lights of his generation. But you'll note that the original U. of VA (as designed) had no chapel whatsoever - that was tacked on later, for appearance's sake, I assume. Jefferson believed the future of the US would be a sturdy yeomanry, with no central bank, few manufactures (I think), more or less a tidied-up version of parliamentary UK of his time. He worried about slavery, in the long term in the US. He was, in essence, a gentleman farmer - but a paragon of the type.

The President nominates Supreme Court candidates, & the Senate advises & consents. So the judiciary is not totally free to rule, even if it were inclined to do so. & the legislature retains the power of the purse. In the long term, the judiciary would not be able to function without some accommodation with the legislature (nor the executive, as noted above).