re: Prior to Roe v Wade being overturned I had no idea that abortions were that common.

quote:

---

quote:

---

In your hypothetical, the rights would already have vested before the coma.

---

No, not according to what you said. You said you didn't ascribe rights to an organism without the brain function of an earthworm.

---

No, I did not. Reread the post. I SAID that rights should not VEST in an organism with the brain function of an earthworm. No offense to you personally, but this is a problem with these discussions. No one reads the actual words that were posted, but instead every one jumps to the words that they expect to see.

quote:

---

quote:

---

No rational person would argue with the maxim that an embryo (certainly a fetus) constitutes biological "life."

---

Shall I start posting definitions from medical sources? Because a "fetus" is clearly defined as a human being in a certain stage of pre-adulthood development, just like an infant or an adolescent is.

---

AGAIN, "read." I said that no reasonable person would argue with the (correct) statement that an embryo or fetus is biologically-alive. You (again) are arguing with something that I DID NOT SAY. It is a recurring motif, but not just for you in fairness.

quote:

---

when properly phrased (thanks for that and I agree that you are correct that it is a right to not be killed rather than a right to life.)

---

You would be surprised at the number of posters who do not understand the distinction between a positive right and a negative right.

quote:

---

You implied that an unborn human hasn't been vested with rights yet, but we are vested with rights at different ages. We don't get the right to vote until 18, for example.

---

I don't think I "implied" it. I think I was pretty explicit. The right to drive might vest at 16, the right to vote at 18, the right to buy alcohol at 21, the right to run for the House at 25, for the Senate at 30 and for the Presidency at 35. The idea that different rights vest at different times (after conception) is hardly revolutionary.

quote:

---

So despite your insistence that this is not the case, it really does come down to when you think human beings should be vested with the most fundamental right possible.

---

I didn't "insist" what you claim. I said EXACTLY the opposite. YES, the question is EXATLY "When should the negative right in question vest?"

You clearly think that this right should vest earlier than I do. Maybe your reasons are religious. Maybe they are biological. Maybe they are just a visceral reaction. But here is the thing. You will not see me shrieking that you have some inherent desire to "oppress women" or anything of the sort, because I am capable of accepting that a person acting in good faith might reach different conclusions than I have reached.

So, what are my conclusions? First, the drafters of teh Constitution did not help us out by telling us when rights should vest. Thus, it is NOT a national/Constitutional issue, and it seems to me that each State has the right to make that determination for itself, as a representation of the policies of that State.

There IS NO "objective" answer to the question of when rights should vest. Because philosophies on the matter vary so widely, all we can do is find a point at which enough people can accept the result.

My PERSONAL, philosophical analysis is that rights need not vest in an organism that lacks the cognitive capacity to understand that it HAS rights or to exercise them. YES, I understand academically that the ultimate extension of that premise would indeed withhold that right from (for example) infants and the mentally retarded. Viscerally, I cannot accept that extension. I do not pretend that this visceral reaction is logical, but it MEANS that the point at which I can "accept" the vesting of rights (as discussed above) IS earlier than pure logic would dictate, and I have ZERO problem with that notion. I am human, not a computer.

The VERY earliest at which an embryo can be argued to have anything even RESEMBLING "higher brain function" is at about 25 weeks gestation. In an abundance of caution, I think that the "cutoff" should be before that date. As such, I think that something like 20 weeks is entirely reasonable, but I am entirely comfortable with 16 weeks or perhaps even 12 weeks.

I am NOT comfortable with "6 weeks" or "heartbeat," because those cutoffs occur before many women have any clue that they are pregnant. I see a certain "balancing" of the rights of a pregnant woman against the (developing) rights of the developing embryo/fetus, and a cutoff which completely precludes any realistic opportunity to exercise her own rights (especially as against something with the cognitive capacity of an earthworm) strikes me as inherently problematic.

quote:

---

No offense to you personally, but this is a problem with these discussions.

---

I think the REAL problem is, since you are using an alter, you want desperately to use the word "sapience", but cannot because it would be an admission that you are who we all know you are....

quote:

---

That poster continues to insist that I defer to philosophy in determining when life exists.

---

You are a well known liar, Hank.

quote:

---

Problem is, I'm at work. So I can only take so much time with TDs and I end up skimming. You're right, sloppy on my part, but I don't have an alternative until I get home.

As such, I shall retiree from this discussion until such time as I can be more careful.

You have my sincere apologies for my errors here.

---

Unlike a few gadflies, you seem to be engaging in a good faith discussion of an interesting issue. I look forward to your next post.

FWIW, neither of us is going to change the mind of the other on the substantive issue, because we each have a different lifetime of philosophical bases for our positions. My only real goal, TBH, is to get SOME PEOPLE to understand that the "other side" is just as rational as they are, and acting in the same good faith that they are. Maybe we can remove some of the personal vitriol from our small corner of the political discussion. (See the next few posts)

quote:

---

You are a well known liar, Hank.

---

Yep.

He clings to the robes of the law, and has no personal morality.

Sociopaths arent able to feel normal, like you and I feel. Hanks a very confused fella.

quote:

---

Hanks a very confused fella.

---

He's surrounded by too much Estrogen...

No men (including him) in the house...

So you want to use a cognitive test for the vesting of rights? That seems contrary to most law which favors more bright line objective tests. Indeed, the fact that cognitive tests defease rights of seniors is a controversial subject

I also don’t think many of the things as you described as vesting are actual situations for the vesting of rights. Instead, many ( eg driving) are minimal qualifications for applying for licensure

Regardless of how you describe to structure it, life is a right granted by the constitution. It’s unconditional. There is no vesting. Thus it’s why jurists have to focus on that question rather than “cognition” (or in your words “sapience”). Moreover, persons using that term are discussing in good faith inside a closed system of discourse

You are just demanding that people use your vocabulary and your decision rubrics on their problem. Then insulting them when they don’t play by your rules

Indeed, your logic progression would create a bigger nightmare because if you vest rights based on some cognition test, then there would have to be due process to defease. Thus, the whole life of the mother would be out of whack as an exception because the fetus would need a GAL to act for it in a medical procedure to save the life of the mother unless you don’t vest until extremely late, then you get the abortion of a delivered baby

quote:

---

He's surrounded by too much Estrogen...

---

I'm pretty sure hes got more of that running thru him than he does testosterone.

Look at the issues he hides behind and what he supports. That ditz believes legal means moral.

quote:

---

That ditz believes legal means moral.

---

Well, for a Narcissist like him, they ARE the same...

quote:

---

So you want to use a cognitive test for the vesting of rights? That seems contrary to most law which favors more bright line objective tests.

---

The law favors "objective tests" for purposes of enforcement, but PICKING the "cutoff" is very seldom objective. For example, most "speeding" laws started as "unsafe for the conditions" laws, but that proved to be too difficult to enforce and (arguably) unconstitutionally vague. So we got "35mph" or "70mph." 70mp is not inherently "better" than 69 or 71. It was simply a number in the right range that was selected for ease of enforcement.

quote:

---

life is a right granted by the constitution. It’s unconditional. There is no vesting.

---

See, this is the problem. You are simply accepting this premise as a "given," rather than actually examining it. The Constitution does NOT tell us when a right (such as the negative right not to be killed) would vest. You just jump to assuming that it does so at a point that you is acceptable to your preconceptions (perhaps "automatically and instantaneously at conception"), and argue that any other potential answer is inherently "wrong."

By contrast, I readily-acknowledge that there is no objective standard to determine whether my (philosophical) answer is inherently "right" or that yours is inherently "wrong." We are looking at the same problem with different tools and different standards. By analogy, you are measuring velocity, while I am measuring mass. In the end, the best we can hope to achieve as a society is finding an "answer" that makes everyone somewhat unhappy but that enough of us are willing to nonetheless accept.