A fetus is both distinct from and complexly part of it’s mother–biologically you could describe either aspect, but the latter analysis is more useful medically. In an ownership society, you could say a woman owns both her uterus and the occupancy thereof, and the sugars and proteins in her bloodstream.

A fetus is both distinct from and complexly part of it’s mother–biologically you could describe either aspect, but the latter analysis is more useful medically. In an ownership society, you could say a woman owns both her uterus and the occupancy thereof, and the sugars and proteins in her bloodstream.

A fetus isn’t “part” of a women, elementary biology and IVF demonstrate that it is quite clearly a distinct human being. A fetus is not owned by a mother either – it has already been settled that human beings should not own each other.

Why does homo sapiens sapiens have original “rights” which other hominids, primates, and animals did not or do not have?

I never said they didn’t, but I don’t think the existence of human natural rights necessarily implies that possibly-sentient animals have rights of their own.

I admitted a newborn has no more “personhood” than a fetus. Yet, a newborn is in a different location with respect too society, which contributes to the development of its members. By giving birth, a mother gives over some control over an infant that recently was part of her body and within her personal domain. An infant has a one-shot chance at success, so society censures and sanctions bad parenting as it participates in the “social gestation” of a person. What I’m saying is that personhood is empirical and very aspective.

Some societies permitted infanticide or its moral equivalent in situations where death did not seem needless or “cruel,” but ours does not, probably because our bonds of community are fragile.

But Ben, you didn’t answer my question. Why does homo sapiens sapiens have original “rights” which other hominids, primates, and animals did not or do not have? With some reason, we likely would place a surviving example of homo habilis in a zoo and an example of homo erectus in an assylum. But both are US, but not persons as we understand ourselves.

Again, this is the approach of utilitarian philosophy versus natural law. Under your approach, laws simply reflect an arbitrary human value system. Under natural law, the rights exist as univeral natural rights (or original rights) that existed before any laws were written, and continue to exist even when laws do not protect them. Suppression of natural rights justify Revolution, according to Jefferson.

And I don’t think the right to life is separable from liberty and the persuit of happiness, so I don’t see “rights” as being relevnat to a fetus.

With regard to fetal life, a fetus has no more or less interest in life, liberty, and happiness than an infant. Or as you have pointed out, the “personhood” of a fetus and newborn are the same, so I can’t see why rights are relevant to one and not the other. Since an embryo or fetus is unquestionably an actual live human being, the issue as to whether or not he or she has a right to that life is very important – particularly in the abortion debate where there are competing rights.

How does assigning “rights” to humn life at all stages solve real problems about life’s value? What “rights” did other species of hominids possess? What about primates and other animals?

I’m more interested in the many aspects of personhood that can be observed than in a particular definition of inherent rights. And I don’t think the right to life is separable from liberty and the persuit of happiness, so I don’t see “rights” as being relevnat to a fetus.

This is a logical consquence of any utilitarian philosophy that does not value human life for the sole reason that it is human. Personally, I feel that it defies common sense – children, unborn and born, are not precious solely because of their present capabilities, but because of what they will become. For that reason, I find no logical way to distinguish the fundamental nature of a pre-conscious fetus, a pre-consicous newborn, and a very immature child. Since rights are tied to one’s fundamental nature, I find it illogical to apply a different set of rights to different stages of human life.

Also, saying “newborns aren’t people” forces one to take the position that abortion, and even infanticide, are morally acceptable – or at least, no more unacceptable than killing a dog, which you suggest is more of a person than a newborn. But if you thing that killing a newborn is worse that killing a dog, then you must be deriving legal protection from something other than “personhood” – if so, then what?

As to abortion being birth control: I’m unclear if this really is true, given it is a pretty rough form and other much more easier means are available. But, the fact remains: SD knows their move will fail. Even if it does not, women will be able to go out of the state to get abortions. Such is the reality in Latin America, though illegal abortions factor in more.

The basic questions remain then and now. The basic facts do as well. Nothing fundamental “changed” as to conception. As to weeks or months after, this is more debatable. But as to conception, they overplayed their hand. Just one of many, as some accounts suggest re the flawed report behind the law etc.

When artificial wombs are a reality, Roe would truly have to be rethought

The arrival of articfial wombs won’t change the fundamental nature of unborn life, so I don’t see why we shouldn’t have that discussion today. I would also argue that IVF pretty much serves the same function as an artifical womb for the purposes of this discussion, again demonstrating that a fetus has complete biological independence from its genetic parents.

The ‘life from conception’ regime here is a nice symbolic move that will do little or nothing to help the unborn. If they actually wanted to do so, there are any number of other means in place that have been shown to actually prevent unwarranted pregnancies or help those bring them to term.

The sad fact of the matter is that post-Roe, there was an explosion of both abortions and conceptions – that is, abortion became a form of birth control. This is further demonstrated by any poll that asks why women get abortions, and the high number of repeat abortions. I don’t think that the problem is that there are not enough crisis pregnancy centers or adoption agencies, there are plenty of each.

Location, location, location. A 9-month fetus is within the private sphere of its mother’s body, is her body, and lives indivisibly under her dominion. A 1-day old baby is present in society and a member thereof, touchable, and non-surgically seperable.

The newborn has joined the human club, though it won’t become a person for many months. Your pet dog has more personhood. Nevertheless, we imediately start treating the baby as if it was a person, and even believe it to be so, which is part of the evolutionary trick of human development of the premature brain.

You are right that the 1-day-old baby is no more of a person than the fetus, developmentally. Neither are persons. But we begin regarding the newborn as such at birth, and that regard is an ingredient of eventual personhood. Under patriarchy, the newborn lived under the exclusive dominion of the father, who could order exposure under certain circumstances soon after birth.

As to the alternative hoped for, countries in Latin America that do have such a status have quite a few illegal abortions. The ‘life from conception’ regime here is a nice symbolic move that will do little or nothing to help the unborn. If they actually wanted to do so, there are any number of other means in place that have been shown to actually prevent unwarranted pregnancies or help those bring them to term.

Some argue it doesn’t protect all (e.g., homosexuals) or deprives them of key rights like basic economic security. Slavery was recognized by the Constitution. So, again, if you look at the Constitution not all rights, even those of fundamental importance, are secured.

As to developments. I’m unclear how in vitro fertilization changes the calculus any. We knew about fertilization when Roe was involved. This just concerns locale. The fertilized egg is not viable without implantation. In fact, the process in practice requires disposal of many eggs. It actually works against the pro-life argument to some extent!

When artificial wombs are a reality, Roe would truly have to be rethought. Currently viability changed only a relatively insignificant amount, a vast majority of abortions occuring long before viability.

As to the separate reply, sorry, the claims respecting the health of the mother have been found overblown and if anything would only limit the number of abortions to cases where it would be more dangerous. Informed consent was allowed under Roe. I said conception. Is pain existing then? Partial birth is also non-responsive to conception!

As to comparisons to Dred Scott, the dissents there pointed out how blacks actually had various rights. I’m unaware of the same being the case with one week embroyos.

From Oyez on Roe:
The Court held that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

I made no mention of abortion or my stance on it, only the laws concerning it. There is only the law, and that is what we are here to discuss. There are no ‘pro-choice’ or ‘pro-life’ laws.

It’s a pretty idiotic interpretation of the Constitution to ignore the 3/5s Compromise, the 13th Amendment and the 15th simply because the 14th is phrased in general language. When addressing the slavery issue, the Founders and future Congress clearly intended to protect former or potential slaves. Why a term “African-American,” which did not exist until the 80s, would be present in the text of the Constitution is really beside the point. The Constitution does not mention “Native Americans” either, but it clearly refers to Indian Tribes.