1
   

Are unborn humans more deserving of legal personhood than corporations?

 
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 04:08 am
@Deckard,
Deckard;126677 wrote:
Keep in mind the OP isn't about whether or not children who are already born are persons, which is beyond dispute, but whether or not the unborn or persons. Nice try at misdirection but really, I have to give you the big FAIL! on that one.
Its not misdirecting to point out your blinkered vision. If you want a definition of a an unborn foetus and its ability to be a living human consult a medical book. Science is pushing back that notion every year buts thats not what you require , is it? A new born baby is not a person, does that conclude it has no rights? If you have ever had a child, the person emerges with time, its not born a person , its born human with the ability to become a person.
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 04:18 am
@xris,
xris;126686 wrote:
Its not misdirecting to point out your blinkered vision. If you want a definition of a an unborn foetus and its ability to be a living human consult a medical book. Science is pushing back that notion every year buts thats not what you require , is it? A new born baby is not a person, does that conclude it has no rights? If you have ever had a child, the person emerges with time, its not born a person , its born human with the ability to become a person.


Children, once they are born, are considered persons under the law. Unborn children are not. We are talking about the Law. If you think it's okay to kill babies under a certain age you should make a new post.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 04:55 am
@Deckard,
Deckard;126688 wrote:
Children, once they are born, are considered persons under the law. Unborn children are not. We are talking about the Law. If you think it's okay to kill babies under a certain age you should make a new post.
We are not talking about law, you are demanding an unformed foetus be considered as a legal person. A person is not a person when it is unborn human baby. A baby is not a unformed foetus. Your thread heading explains your intention.
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 05:22 am
@xris,
xris;126694 wrote:
We are not talking about law, you are demanding an unformed foetus be considered as a legal person. A person is not a person when it is unborn human baby. A baby is not a unformed foetus. Your thread heading explains your intention.


But a fetus is an unformed baby but seriously what is your problem? I have "demanded" nothing. The post clearly and merely asks a question: Are unborn humans more deserving of legal personhood than corporations? I ask a question. What is your answer? Is it no? Okay then, you believe corporations are more deserving of legal personhood than unborn children. Or perhaps you believe neither is deserving of legal personhood. That's fine too. I can respect your answer if you ever you give one. Thanks for playing.
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 05:41 am
@Deckard,
Deckard;126048 wrote:
My answer is: Yes, unborn humans are more deserving of legal personhood than corporations. Anyone with me? If so, try to spread this meme around.
This is your opinion, you dont want a debate you want to preach, you want like minded persons to applaud. Its only when your motives are questioned do you revert to the defensive debater.
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 07:08 am
@Deckard,
A unborn baby should have all the rights of any member of society, late term abortion is just murder of the innocents. They pull out a living viable baby in a most horrific way.Their little heads are crushed and the baby mutilated in order to extract a living baby out of the birth channel. it makes my stomach churn.

Kill the rapist not the innocent little baby
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 07:13 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;126710 wrote:
A unborn baby should have all the rights of any member of society, late term abortion is just murder of the innocents. They pull out a living viable baby in a most horrific way.Their little heads are crushed and the baby mutilated in order to extract a living baby out of the birth channel. it makes my stomach churn.

Kill the rapist not the innocent little baby
His not asking about foetus abortion Alan, read the first few posts of this thread.
0 Replies
 
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 05:54 pm
@xris,
xris;126702 wrote:
This is your opinion, you dont want a debate you want to preach, you want like minded persons to applaud. Its only when your motives are questioned do you revert to the defensive debater.

This is one of those issues where there is little common ground. Both sides think the other is being absurd. I consider the fetus to be a human being. You do not. If I had my druthers I would define a fetus as a human being and legally as a natural person. You are content with the current legal definition. This is more a matter of definition than a matter of logic.

I consider the fetus to be a human being and as such should be treated as a natural person by the Law. I also consider pink to be a shade of red. This is less controversial but I have argued about this definition as well.

At this point I'm not sure what else there is to say except that you are the defensive one and you are the preachy one and furthermore I am rubber you are glue whatever you say about me bounces off me and sticks to you.

I think we can at least both agree that a corporation isn't a human being and thus not a natural person and thus should not be protected by the 14th amendment; so maybe there is a little bit of common ground there. Hey that's something at least.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 03:50 am
@Deckard,
I am not for all abortions and in my opinion, if life could be maintained by that child independently of its mother, then it should be protected. The argument for earlier abortions is extremely controversial....... but a zygote.... as you propose giving legal protection to is totally ludicrous.
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 04:49 am
@xris,
xris;127000 wrote:
I am not for all abortions and in my opinion, if life could be maintained by that child independently of its mother, then it should be protected. The argument for earlier abortions is extremely controversial....... but a zygote.... as you propose giving legal protection to is totally ludicrous.


It just seems like the DNA is decided at the moment of the zygote. The strands have separated and recombined. That is a unique human being written in that code. Nature has done her work and all the rest is Nurture. True, before that point there is some random/fated sperm cell and some random/fated egg cell but I hold that the decisive moment is conception. Human from that point on even if later on the brain turns out to be less than adequate to support life, even if later on the heart refuses to beat. It is a geometric point: Conception. That is the point back to which I trace the ray of my existence, not the spark of consciousness, not the moment of my viability outside the womb and not the moment that I drew my first breath.

But yes there is still the question of whether or not the mother has the right to end that life since it is still inside of her and wholly dependent on her. She is responsible for that life. That awesome responsibility must be be fully recognized. Nine months that life grows inside her. That is a profound thing that as a man I cannot truly understand. With responsibility comes rights and with rights comes responsibility. Perhaps the rights of the unborn child, human or not, person or not, should be limited by the mother's mercy. This framing of the current law would make much more sense to me.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 05:42 am
@Deckard,
Deckard;127017 wrote:
It just seems like the DNA is decided at the moment of the zygote. The strands have separated and recombined. That is a unique human being written in that code. Nature has done her work and all the rest is Nurture. True, before that point there is some random/fated sperm cell and some random/fated egg cell but I hold that the decisive moment is conception. Human from that point on even if later on the brain turns out to be less than adequate to support life, even if later on the heart refuses to beat. It is a geometric point: Conception. That is the point back to which I trace the ray of my existence, not the spark of consciousness, not the moment of my viability outside the womb and not the moment that I drew my first breath.

But yes there is still the question of whether or not the mother has the right to end that life since it is still inside of her and wholly dependent on her. She is responsible for that life. That awesome responsibility must be be fully recognized. Nine months that life grows inside her. That is a profound thing that as a man I cannot truly understand. With responsibility comes rights and with rights comes responsibility. Perhaps the rights of the unborn child, human or not, person or not, should be limited by the mother's mercy. This framing of the current law would make much more sense to me.
Im not of the opinion its the mothers rights completely, she must have certain rights but not at the expense of the law. I can understand the emotions that drive these opinions but life has to be pragmatic and the lines of acceptability have to be drawn. When you take it to extremes, contraception or even masturbation are included in these ethical debates. I think your views are dangerous, in that it defines criminality when there is none. I believe the common definition of sustainable life is correct , to delve into this view and maintain it, could do more harm to the living than any potential life that concerns you.

Whose more callous the RC church who by their determined dogma condemn thousands of children to become orphans or the termination of a foetus because of brain damage.
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 03:05 am
@xris,
xris;127019 wrote:
Im not of the opinion its the mothers rights completely, she must have certain rights but not at the expense of the law. I can understand the emotions that drive these opinions but life has to be pragmatic and the lines of acceptability have to be drawn. When you take it to extremes, contraception or even masturbation are included in these ethical debates. I think your views are dangerous, in that it defines criminality when there is none. I believe the common definition of sustainable life is correct , to delve into this view and maintain it, could do more harm to the living than any potential life that concerns you.

Whose more callous the RC church who by their determined dogma condemn thousands of children to become orphans or the termination of a foetus because of brain damage.


While I agree with you that a woman has total right over what happens in her own body, I have seen a documentary about woman who were raped and decided to keep the baby nevertheless.

In this show were their now adult children, brought into the word due to their mother being raped, wept with gratitude and thankfulness for "the gift of life" that their courageous mothers gave them, thus allowing them to exist. These wonderful woman came to love these children without/few reservations
0 Replies
 
Minimal
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 09:04 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;126121 wrote:
Persons have certain rights in the law. One month old children have certain rights in the law. Therefore, one month old children are persons.


Interesting syllogistic argument, and I agree wholeheartedly from an ethical perspective (that is at a societal level). Law needs to reflect pragmatic boundaries and implement legislation that allows for the individuals in the society to hold their own liberties - this includes alternative views of what constitutes personhood. In this regard, the system must reflect a pro-choice status and set a limit to the point a genetically human entity can be terminated.

The argument that personhood is defined by conscious capacity is a strong argument, and pragmatically viable - but in some instances, it is possible to have areas of law that reflect the idea that separation between two organisms is what counts as a person; take for instance manslaughter cases. Endowment of rights is purely a value judgement, arbitrary but pragmatic in having a functional society.

However, morally this is a different story. Our personal conception (no pun was intended) of personhood has to coincide with law to be legal. You are entitled to think conception is when a personhood is present, and that natural viability is enough grounds to grant moral reasoning that that is a life that is protected by your morals - ethicality seeks to remain pragmatic and set an absolute line of when they consider aforementioned entity legally a person.

In a perfect society, we would have people who loving come together, are careful about how and who they have sexual intercourse with and take responsibility for their actions. There would also be no rape and incestuous unions, nor birth defect and economical strife to second guess what is our own seed. Abortion is a sad reality and is perpetuated by both ignorance, brutality and, in most cases, irresponsibility. Law recognises this lack of idealised conditions and seeks to set parameters that are functional. I disagree with a lot of legal statutes at a personal level and we are all entitled to alternative opinion and moral reasoning.

I think my main point is that we need to recognise the distinctive separation between the two subsets of code of behaviour:

  • Ethics (ethicality) is concerned with society and is created by legislative bodies and is enforceable by a court system.
  • Morals (morality) is concerned with an individual and is created by the individual. Such a code of behaviour is enforced by that individual. Please note, for your moral code to be legal it must fall within the parameters of the above - ethics. To some degree, ethicality arbitrates morality and sets the "bare minimum" moral views.

There is also an extension to your above argument of that legally defined persons have responsibilities and these responsibilities are relative - they are not absolute, despite the law masquerading such. A murderer (that is someone who has committed an unlawful killing) can be exempt of complete responsibility because of mental impairment and therefore be assigned to a rehabilitation program. Personhood endows one both rights and responsibilities but they are of course relative to the capacities of the individual. The defining capacity is seen as ultimately self-perception and sensorium by law in most instances. Arbitrary but can be defended - but most things are.

This is of course only with regards to the biological side of "personhood" and the distinction between ethics and morality.

- Minimal.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/20/2019 at 04:18:03