personhood

Author: Greyparrot

Posts

Total: 75
Topic's author
#1
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,459
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I was skimming over a WF/Bones debate about abortion, and I was thinking about the question of personhood within a moral and legal framework.

My thoughts went to an old infamous Scotus case where a man was declared property and thus could not have personhood. (Dredd Scott)

If we do not confer personhood to a 9 month old fetus, does this mean it must then be considered property as well?
Topic's author
#2
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,459
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
This would have huge ramifications within the moral/legal framework if the SCOTUS were to declare a fetus as "property"
#3
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 372
Posts: 11,537
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, create false dichotomies which no one even believes in.

Topic's author
#4
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,459
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
It's a hypothetical/thought experiment.

You can ask your buddies for the definition of the word "if"
#5
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,288
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
I was skimming over a WF/Bones debate about abortion, and I was thinking about the question of personhood within a moral and legal framework.

My thoughts went to an old infamous Scotus case where a man was declared property and thus could not have personhood. (Dredd Scott)

If we do not confer personhood to a 9 month old fetus, does this mean it must then be considered property as well?
Not conferring personhood to a fetus is to deny the fetus any individual rights a person is given.
#6
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,206
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Fetus/baby is a temporary organism of the pregnant woman.

Is a mans gonads his ' property '? Of course, depending how legal system defines property.

Are any organs of any humans their personal ' property ',  of course they are, depending on legal definitions of property.

Others sticking their nose into pregnant womans fetus/baby business is ' virtual rape '. Keep virtual nose out, unless pregnant woman gives consent. Simple.

Virtual rape stems from religious patriarchal systems of thought, not from spiritually based 1st principles.

1} Do no harm to self or others, without their consent, except in cases of self defense,

2} All-for-one and one-for-all,

3} protect personal property and that begins with the  human organism { organs of the humans } and all of the atoms, molecules etc that compose the human organism,

4} Seek relevant truths, to relevant circumstances to the  individual and the ecological environment that sustains the ecological environment,

5} Seek regulatory systems --ex GAAI--  that are directed at,  and in support of all of the above.

190 independent sovereign nations, is dumb way forward for humanity.
#7
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,288
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Not conferring personhood to a fetus is to deny the fetus any individual rights a person is given.

— Personhood is an essential characteristic of the human species and is not a conditional state dependent upon circumstance, perception, cognition, or societal .
#8
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 372
Posts: 11,537
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
It's a hypothetical/thought experiment.
I wouldnt call this an experiment. You are just trying to create false dichotomy.

You can ask your buddies for the definition of the word "if"
Thats irrelevant to your intentions.

You anti abortion guys lose every argument I can think of. Your best hope to convince the audience is that audience has low IQ.
Topic's author
#9
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,459
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ebuc
Do you believe a fetus is property? 
#10
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,206
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
See post #6 OGP.  Im very clear there if you take time to read, understand and comprehend the concepts.
Topic's author
#11
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,459
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ebuc
It seemed like you said yes. 
Topic's author
#12
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,459
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
You seem angry.
#13
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,288
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Do you believe a fetus is property? 
Yes it belongs to the woman /mother who gave birth to it.
Topic's author
#14
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,459
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Shila
Thanks.
#15
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,288
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Thanks.
Greyparrot, Why are you still blocking me?
#16
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 372
Posts: 11,537
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
You seem angry.
I am always angry.
#17
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,533
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@Greyparrot
"If we do not confer personhood to a 9 month old fetus, does this mean it must then be considered property as well?"

Maybe.
Are there only two choices?
Free individual or physical property?

Though being fully grown human, does not stop others from considering one property, in all places.
. . .

If it's not a person, is it then a 'thing?
Are all 'things property?

Dogs, water, air, trees, land,
Government/Shared public trust property?
. . .

Personally I dislike a treating of humans and their parts as property.
As well as stem cell research, and fetus corpse research.
Topic's author
#18
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,459
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Lemming
Consider this question. Is there anything that is not legally a person that you cannot legally own?
Most people would cite things the government can own but a private citizen cannot.
If the government has possession of it, it would be considered government property.

So we are left with this question:
Is there anything the government cannot legally own that is not a person?
#19
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,533
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Nothing comes to my mind,
I think humans tend to practice ownership on anything they are around.

Though some people claim the Native Americans lacked land ownership,
Eh I say,
The concept of personal space is too fundamental for me to agree with such.
Even 'animals such as bears or hawks have territory.

#20
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,288
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Consider this question. Is there anything that is not legally a person that you cannot legally own?
Most people would cite things the government can own but a private citizen cannot.
If the government has possession of it, it would be considered government property. 

So we are left with this question:
Is there anything the government cannot legally own that is not a person?
Government cannot legally own private property, private holdings etc.
#21
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,802
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
This is correct. If a fetus is not a child in the womb deserving of protection, they will be treated as an extension of the woman’s body. Her body is her choice because her body is her property. By extension, the child would be as well. She may give birth to the child and raise them, or she may have them discarded if she does want to take care of a child.

That is the pro-choice viewpoint, and it is why dehumanizing a fetus is so important to their position.

I feel like this is obvious though.
#22
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,288
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Mharman
This is correct. If a fetus is not a child in the womb deserving of protection, they will be treated as an extension of the woman’s body. Her body is her choice because her body is her property. By extension, the child would be as well. She may give birth to the child and raise them, or she may have them discarded if she does want to take care of a child.

That is the pro-choice viewpoint, and it is why dehumanizing a fetus is so important to their position.

I feel like this is obvious though.
Pro choice is a violation of a woman’s right over her own body.
#23
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,802
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Shila
Pro-choice is the side that favors abortion.

Pro-life is against abortion.
#24
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 6,290
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Mharman
You can be pro choice and against abortion morally but think it should be legal
#25
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,288
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Mharman
Pro-choice is the side that favors abortion.

Pro-life is against abortion.
The Supreme Court in America rules abortion as illegal after 50 decades of women having the right to pro choice/abortions.
#26
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,802
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Shila
No, the court ruled that abortion rights are not protected by the constitution. This means that the states decide whether or not to ban abortion.

For example, Indiana has banned abortion. In California, abortion is legal.
#27
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,802
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@WyIted
Technically yes.

I’ve always considered that to be a weak position. 

Like seriously, who tf says “oh yeah I don’t think abortion is moral because it’s murder, but you can murder your child if you want”
#28
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,288
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Mharman
No, the court ruled that abortion rights are not protected by the constitution. This means that the states decide whether or not to ban abortion.

For example, Indiana has banned abortion. In California, abortion is legal.
To get to the men America will have to ban condoms.
#29
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,802
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Shila
There is a difference between preventing conception and killing an unborn baby after conception. If you can't tell the difference, you are not worth my time.
#30
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,206
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Mharman
Like seriously, who tf says “oh yeah I don’t think abortion is moral because it’s murder, but you can murder your child if you want”
1} The evangelical right has fought against birth control for thousands of years,

2} fertized egg is temporary organism of the pregnant woman, and the spermazoa is a gift from the man,

3} fertilized egg becomes more and more a fetus gradudally, and,

4} gradualy a fetus/baby more and more, however,

5} fetus/baby remains and temporary organism of the pregnant woman until the born-out baby has taken its first in-spirited breath of air, and its umbilical cord cut,

6} until the time, all others sticking their busy body nose into the pregnants womans bodily business without her consent is virtual rape. Get over it and such people need to keep their noses in their own business,

7} put there nose in business of actually preventing pregnancy, some thousands of years after doing the exact opposite.

Earthling Zoo fly, dont bother me, Zoo fly, dont bother me.....skip-toddle-loo my darling....