[Peace-discuss] Emergency contraception

[Morton K.Brussel]

I've argued this before, but it clearly didn't take (I made the analogy 
to the physics difference between an "insulator" and a "conductor".). 
The "poles" are clear, despite the continuity of the phenomenon in 
between. Is this too abstruce? The Supreme Court has also discussed it. 
It's human-made, practical, distinction, not one derived from theology. 
  There are many different theologies. MKB

On Oct 15, 2004, at 10:34 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> Are you convinced (perhaps from faith) that it's not a person with 
> rights
> at three, six, or nine months? --CGE
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Morton K.Brussel wrote:
>
>>> "...how many people with
>>> rights are involved -- one, or two??
>>
>> Carl persists in using the word "people" (person) for a fertilized egg
>> perhaps not an hour old. The silliness of this is apparent to most, 
>> but
>> not to those who want to impose their peculiar (god given?) morality 
>> on
>> the non-silly.
>>
>> MKB
>>
>> On Oct 15, 2004, at 8:21 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>
>>> I don't own my own body, Bob -- I *am* my own body.  The capitalist
>>> metaphor seems to me out of place and even dangerous. (E.g., if I own
>>> my
>>> own body, am I open -- perhaps literally -- to eminent domain?)
>>>
>>> I'll join you in your declaration for Locke, the Enlightenment, and
>>> women
>>> -- I'm sure they'll all be delighted to have our support.  But, as 
>>> the
>>> tension in your own argument (between kidney and unwelcome guest)
>>> suggests, the fundamental question about abortion is, how many people
>>> with
>>> rights are involved -- one, or two?
>>>
>>> Best, Carl
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Bob Illyes wrote:
>>>
>>>> I want to second what Susan said, and add a few comments.
>>>>
>>>> About 300 years ago, John Locke wrote his second treatise on civil
>>>> government, an early and seminal development of the concept of human
>>>> rights, and one which lead to the rights presented in the 
>>>> Declaration
>>>> of Independence and the American Bill of Rights. Locke is sometimes
>>>> criticized for proposing "property-based" rights. But the 
>>>> fundamental
>>>> property he built rights on was the property in ones own body. Since
>>>> women have achieved full citizenship, they also legally own their 
>>>> own
>>>> bodies. It is no more legally correct to demand that a woman be
>>>> powerless to terminate a pregnancy than it is to demand that I be
>>>> forced to give a kidney to save the life of someone I do not wish to
>>>> give it to.
>>>>
>>>> Let's be clear here- we're arguing not about whether a fertilized 
>>>> ovum
>>>> is a person or not, but about whether a woman owns her own body. 
>>>> Only
>>>> if she doesn't can we properly argue about whether or not her body
>>>> should be occupied by an unwelcome guest. Even if there were 
>>>> consensus
>>>> that a fertilized ovum were a person, which there definitely is not,
>>>> that personhood would give the ovum no claim on another's body.
>>>>
>>>> I declare for Locke, for the Enlightenment, and for woman.
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>>> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>