Hobby Lobby Triumphs over its minion workers
- Thread starter Archbob
- Start date
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Cancer cells are human life, too, but nobody's demanding a stop to chemotherapy. And innocence is neither measurable nor uniquely human, so it's just unhelpful. There's no rigour to this, is what I'm getting at, a lot of powerful-sounding words, but nothing that stands up to scrutiny.
Cancer cells will not naturally develop into a human being. An embryo will, barring natural loss through miscarriage, etc. And I specified innocent because I am one of those barbaric people who have no problem with the death penalty for people that willfully chose to forfeit their right to life by committing such horrific crimes that forfeiture is warranted. I am not sure what willful act an embryo could perform that would warrant that, therefore I just assumed all embryos are innocents.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
An embryo will not naturally develop into a human being. Take an embryo, slap it down on a workbench, and you'll very soon have a dead embryo. Bringing an embryo to term is an active and deliberate process on the part of the mother.
You'. But as I said, innocence is not a measurable characteristic either directly or indirectly, so this cannot be established empirically, and it's not a uniquely human characteristic, so given that we're content with the killing of equally-innocent animals, plant-life and micro-organisms, it's something we've already decided not to take very seriosuly.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Does it matter? We're talking about the categories of this debate, and the example helps to establish those categories. Whether or not it is actually likely to occur isn't important.
The point is, there is nothing inevitable about the development of an embryo into a baby. We know this, because if we remove the embryo from a certain set of conditions, it will not develop. Keep it inside the womn, if it's any better, but imagine that the mother does not eat or drink for the course of her pregnancy: that is not an embryo that will come to term. Pregnancy is something that women do, actively, not something that happens to them, so it makes no sense to talk about this as an inevitable process.
When we look at an embryo and picture a baby, we're hypothesising, engaging in act of mental construction. The "baby" is no more or less real than Frodo Baggins, only more plausible. And nobody cried "murder" when a fictional character dies, so why here, if the humanity of the embryo is a characteristic not embryo itself, but of a hypothetical future version of that embryo?
The point is, there is nothing inevitable about the development of an embryo into a baby. We know this, because if we remove the embryo from a certain set of conditions, it will not develop. Keep it inside the womn, if it's any better, but imagine that the mother does not eat or drink for the course of her pregnancy: that is not an embryo that will come to term. Pregnancy is something that women do, actively, not something that happens to them, so it makes no sense to talk about this as an inevitable process.
When we look at an embryo and picture a baby, we're hypothesising, engaging in act of mental construction. The "baby" is no more or less real than Frodo Baggins, only more plausible. And nobody cried "murder" when a fictional character dies, so why here, if the humanity of the embryo is a characteristic not embryo itself, but of a hypothetical future version of that embryo?
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
I thought you opposed capital punishement. My bad.
I ave always found it interesting that the party that supposedly defends human rights, denies that a fetus has any rights. Calling the preborn a child or a person has issues, but a blanket denial of any legal or moral interest seems excessive.
J
If corporations can be equated with persons and money equated with speech, anything is possible.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Corporations have always been persons. That's why you can sue one. I dont get the objection.
I assume the second is failed sarcasm. Please enlighten me if not.
J
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Come on Traitorfish, you're a good enough materialist to know there's nothing in this argument unique to an embryo.
Corporations are designed so that you cannot sue the actual person who owns it. The Framing era looked dimly on corporations and surely would not consider them as "people" in "We the people".
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
KMRblue1027
Deity
That they're an artificial construct that is designed to protect people from their own actions, thus not at all a legal person in any way.
We are talking about birth control here, not abortions. This issue has nothing to do with the protection of life and you damn well know it. This is about the religious nut jobs trying to subvert the rule of law and create a society where their ridiculous beliefs have more authority than the laws that govern this nation.
It's people like you that make me seriously reconsider my decision years ago to stop being a militant atheist.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Breaking this down.
1) Artificial construct - obviously (and redundantly) true
2) Designed to protect people - not really
3) From their own actions - way off base now
Thus
4) Not at all a legal person - completely backward
You started well.
Corporations are designed to allow a (sometimes large) number of people to enter a joint venture. This is a good thing. Some projects are beyond the scope of non-corporate business.
No. He was right. This is expressly about abortions, not about general birth control.
J
Did you not read the article I posted immediately above his post? It states the Supreme Court has already expanded the definition of their ruling to include general birth control as well.
Similar threads
