[Peace-discuss] Emergency contraception

[C. G. Estabrook]

It's precisely the "continuity of the phenomenon in between" that leads
reasonable people to conclude that that phenomenon is a person with
rights. The Supreme Court once propounded a "human-made, practical
distinction" that an African could not be a subject of rights.  I'm sure
you would agree that they were wrong to do so.  --CGE


On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Morton K.Brussel wrote:

> 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
> >
> 
>