[Peace-discuss] Emergency contraception

[Chas. 'Mark' Bee]

C. G. Estabrook wrote:

>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
>

  Our phenomenon doesn't have a working brain until  24 weeks.  
Subtracting a month for our (OK, my) reassurance makes it 20.  
Basically, any "person with rightsism" before that is an abstraction 
based on emotion.  That's about all there is to that continuity 
business, no faith or human-made distinctions required.  Ain't 
neuroscience grand?  ;)

  Peace out.  -cmb


>
>
>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
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>  
>