Is a body inside your body...your body?

Nov 2018
4,225
2,215
Inner Space
If you know what an organism is, you know it is absurd to conflate it with an organ.

It is genetically distinguishable immediately. It is an organism with its own organs very early on. It is completely dependent for years after it is born.
So you think that a collection of cells that cannot exist on their own has more autonomy than a donor kidney that can exist for hours or days on its own or function within a body literally minutes after transplanted... once again you have exposed your faulty reasoning.
I assume you have a legal background, perhaps you are a paralegal or lawyer or like to think of yourself as a expert on law. However, you should be more careful with your transitions to medicine and biology as you are not arguing them rationally.

On the issue of precedent, the actions of lower courts or judges do not validate an unreasonable change in opinion of established SCOTUS decisions.
SCOTUS decisions have fundamental ramifications and should not be cavalier and impulsive. So, once again, where is the science or argument to overturn Roe? You keep coming back to a "different interpreter have different interpretations" argument. That is shallow and certainly in conflict with the concept of a Supreme Court. Perhaps you think Brown or Marbury was wrongly decided and should just be changed "just because". Bias alone is not a good reason for changing a SCOTUS decision.
 
May 2019
116
8
US
After the Civil War, the 13th Amendment (1865) and 14th Amendment (1868) to the Constitution effectively overturned the Dred Scott decision of 1857.
Very good point. New laws are indeed an important aspect of new interpretation. Even so, judges set and reset precedent all the time, at all levels of the judiciary. The most common essential element in overturning precedence is the interpreter. That's how "separate but equal" was once acceptable and then wasn't.
 
May 2019
116
8
US
But in the case of Scott, at least one Constitutional Amendment effectively overturned it. Why can't the the "RTL" movement just have their reps in Congress submit an Amendment for passage? It's far more honest than these lousy bills passed in Red states which jam up the federal courts and cost millions of dollars in legal fees.
It is possible that 38 states could be primarily pro-life. That's what would be needed for ratification. If that happened, California and other very pro-choice states would be forced to comply. If, on the other hand, Roe was overturned due to states making their own laws, Pro-choice states would not necessarily be affected at all. Which would you really prefer?
 
Dec 2018
1,705
978
Unionville Indiana
It is possible that 38 states could be primarily pro-life. That's what would be needed for ratification. If that happened, California and other very pro-choice states would be forced to comply. If, on the other hand, Roe was overturned due to states making their own laws, Pro-choice states would not necessarily be affected at all. Which would you really prefer?
38 states? I doubt it, but let 'em try the old fashioned way. (20 states maybe)

Views about abortion by state - Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics

So I prefer the Amendment route.
 
May 2019
116
8
US
So you think that a collection of cells that cannot exist on their own[/QUOTE
"So what you're saying is" haha. Cut it out. Just respond to what I actually say.

has more autonomy than a donor kidney that can exist for hours or days on its own or function within a body literally minutes after transplanted...
I said nothing about the autonomy of kidneys. I said that they are organs, not organisms. You shouldn't conflate the two lest you appear scientifically uninformed.

once again you have exposed your faulty reasoning.
That wierd autonomy bit was your own faulty reasoning attributed to me. Again, that's a straw man.
Seriously consider taking what I say and making from it the best argument you can against your own case. You will then be equipped to counter my actual position.

I assume you have a legal background, perhaps you are a paralegal or lawyer or like to think of yourself as a expert on law. However, you should be more careful with your transitions to medicine and biology as you are not arguing them rationally.
We are all random people on the internet here. If you wish to counter my legal arguments, you need not be a lawyer. To counter my biological arguments, you need not be a doctor. What is necessary is that you counter my actual arguments, which are all far more reasonable than your straw-man re-interpretations of them. It is perfectly reasonable to avoid conflating organs with organisms.

On the issue of precedent, the actions of lower courts or judges do not validate an unreasonable change in opinion of established SCOTUS decisions.
Correct. SCOTUS precedent functions as the law of the land. However, lower court judges create and change precedent all the time in cases that never reach the SCOTUS, making my point about precedent as such. SCOTUS can overturn SCOTUS just as easily as lower courts overturn other lower courts.

SCOTUS decisions have fundamental ramifications and should not be cavalier and impulsive.
No one is arguing for the cavalier or impulsive. All courts, low and high have far reaching affects when they set precedent. That is not an argument for anyone to refrain from doing it. The only valid argument against setting or overturning precedent at any level must rest on the judicial reasoning itself.

So, once again, where is the science or argument to overturn Roe?
I will, once again, refer you to the legal argument I presented in my initial response to this question. You have yet to address it.

You keep coming back to a "different interpreter have different interpretations" argument.
Please refrain from applying actual quotes to supposed positions. I have maintained, from the beginning, that different interpretations are all that is needed to overturn precedent (sometimes in light of new laws). I then provided a perfectly reasonable interpretation based on the current laws at hand. That is the interpretation you keep asking for and keep avoiding responding to.



That is shallow and certainly in conflict with the concept of a Supreme Court. Perhaps you think Brown or Marbury was wrongly decided and should just be changed "just because". Bias alone is not a good reason for changing a SCOTUS decision.
 
Nov 2018
4,225
2,215
Inner Space
Seneca,
words have implications and meanings. If you do not understand the implications of your own words, you do not understand what you have expressed.
 
Feb 2007
5,558
3,120
USA
I'm comfortable with your non-response for lack of time. Particularly with regards to the Constitutional matter, which is pretty clear at this point. It's also best for you to avoid that legal persons position that you bungled. And hey, if you find the time, be sure to look up peer reviewed studies that define your health. You wanna make sure you have one. Depending on what you read, or fail to find, maybe you can forgo doctors for their fallacious authority. Take care.
What I stated earlier is the following.:

"Actually, in a legal sense, I am considered a "person," particularly since the US and state constitutions imply/provide the condition(s) by which I am considered to be as such. And laws concerning murder typically refer to "persons" who are covered by said laws. So, there is no real need, in a legal sense, to refer to what science has to say on the matter regarding if I am alive or not...assuming I wasn't dead before I would be murdered, of course. (And, of course, it is far easier for scientists to be able to objectively discern the living from the dead, when compared with them trying to objectively discern human germ cells from human fertilized eggs.) But, as pointed out in the decision of RvW, the unborn are not clearly defined nor implied as being "persons" in the US Constitution, regardless of whatever science might have to say about when “life” or "individual human life" begins."

And, cited from the Roe versus Wade SC decision...:

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54 [410 U.S. 113, 158]

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. 55 This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. McGarvey v. Magee-Womens Hospital, 340 F. Supp. 751 (WD Pa. 1972); Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 31 N. Y. 2d 194, 286 N. E. 2d 887 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-434; Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730. Cf. Cheaney v. State, ___ Ind., at ___, 285 N. E. 2d, at 270; Montana v. Rogers, 278 F.2d 68, 72 (CA7 1960), aff'd sub nom. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 3d 619, 470 P.2d 617 (1970); State v. Dickinson, 28 [410 U.S. 113, 159] Ohio St. 2d 65, 275 N. E. 2d 599 (1971). Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.

This conclusion, however, does not of itself fully answer the contentions raised by Texas, and we pass on to other considerations.


https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html
So, how exactly did I "bungle" that "legal persons position," as you claim, regarding what I stated earlier?

And, of course, you can be an armchair US Supreme Court all that you wish to be. And, you can try to argue before the US Supreme Court your legal opinion on these matters. But, the fact is, you aren't the US Supreme Court itself. So, you-as well as others here-are merely guessing. This said, of course your and others legal opinions on these matters do make for an interesting conversation, nevertheless.
 
Nov 2017
2,161
993
.
Not about you. My comments are about your explanations.
You said "you" or "your" 17 times in only 6 sentences, in that reply; I have them highlighted in bold:

You have demonstrated only that you have an arbitrary and fixed opinion that you are determined to hold regardless of the science or any statement or reasoning to the contrary. I know you think you have responded to all my statements with incontrovertible arguments and evidence. However, you have only demonstrated your ignorance of biology, your fixation with your own bias, and, frankly silly, reasoning.


I am not going to define every medical term, educate you about viability, or explain the process of gestation when you have fabricated your own definitions.

Furthermore, if you are unwilling to understand the process that takes a cell into a functioning human infant and insist upon equating a single cell with a person, then you have shut out all possibility of learning. Rather than nonsense arguments, you should just state that you are impervious to any discussion and are determined to believe what you believe. Science is not about belief and does not depend upon belief.
The only exception is the last sentence & although I might normally take issue with the notion that science is not about belief and does not depend upon belief (i.e., science is about observing & documenting nature & outcomes of experiments, drawing conclusions about those observations, generalizing a theory based on repeatedly making related observations, and making predictions about the outcomes of events based on past observations, conclusions, or theories drawn from them - and, one might argue that there may be at least some degree of belief involved), in this case, or for the sake of argument, (for now, at least) I'll concur with you.

Overall, though, you continue to make it way too much about me and your projections about me. I get that once in a while there has to be the "it seems like you're saying that" or the "if I understand you correctly" sort of content, but something like that should only go so far and only play a role up to a point.

[Character count limit per post is 10,000, so I had to split my reply posts into 2 segments.]
 
Nov 2017
2,161
993
.
In the rest of your response, there are only 2 sentences where you're not referencing me (with "you" or "your") & I have also highlighted them in bold:

False analogies, avoidance of the topic, and mis-characterization of science and medicine have become the regular tools of anti-choice, "pro-life" crowd. I expected more reason from you rather than rationalizations for silly ideas and incorrect analogies. I regret that you are unable to deal fairly with discussion and your own ideas.


You have not even been able to deal with the situation most obviously analogous to pregnancy-- a transplanted organ.

By your arguments, "society" should control the care of this bit of alien tissue within a person. By your thinking, the transplant recipient (analogous to a pregnant woman) does not have any rights over that bodily tissue if he/she decides with medical consultation that it must be removed or changed. You seem to think that a single human cell is equivalent to the entire human organism, yet you do not explain the logic of that opinion and fail to follow the reasonable implications of that thinking.


I came to my understanding of pregnancy through education in biology and recognition of the autonomy of women over their own bodies. A libertarian, as you assert to be, would typically see that autonomy argument as persuasive. You however, do not. That is inconsistent. You should be able to understand how you came to a position on abortion in a clear fashion if it really was a thought out decision. You are not.
In the first sentence where you're not saying "you" or "your", you're not referencing me explicitly, but you're still engaging in making assertions about some "crowd", as you put it. In the second sentence where you're not saying "you" or "your", you are referencing yourself (BTW, should I address you as Dr. Biff?). As interesting as you may be, what your audience needs in this thread isn't an autobiography, resume, or CV; your audience needs something from you that helps address the topic & in this case what you learned from what you've studied. You complain about me supposedly not explaining myself well enough, yet here you are apparently doing what you complained about, yourself.

Also, what you're engaging in is appeal to authority - X is true because I took a course about it; it would be more useful to make an argument or explain something with some reasoning: X is true and here's why: [fill in the "blank"].

But there's another problem; you don't have to be an expert who studied all kinds of details about something & learned a bunch of terminology on the subject. What people need is enough to make an informed decision. We can't all have a PhD in everything; even a PhD in biology isn't an expert in all aspects of biology. This is the political discussion section of the forum, not a science or biology section.

Also, a question regarding whether or not a body inside your body is your body is more than just a biology issue. In fact there's a context to this question that isn't biology. With the word "own" being involved (in the OP title), it's a political/legal issue (as in ownership, property, and the rights that are involved); biology as a branch of knowledge doesn't deal with things like politics, law, or government.

The issue is connected to voters, who and what they vote on, and those voters aren't necessarily experts on what they're indirectly voting on, yet through a delegation process of sorts we have managed to attain - for example - the successful creation of a roadways & bridges infrastructure, yet not every voter had to be a civil engineer.

It's up the the experts to inform either the voters directly, or indirectly via the representatives they elected; I've spent plenty of time studying the issue and going over arguments from both sides, for both the biological and political aspects of the issue.

Regarding being a libertarian, the reason I say that is because one of the libertarian principles is essentially this: no victim, no crime. With an abortion procedure that kills the unborn child at any stage of development (zygote, fetus, etc.), there are grounds for asserting that there's a victim. I don't care what stage of development the victim is in, or how much they weigh, or that they look like a frog, or pig, or monkey, or fish, or how ugly they are, or that they're left handed or right handed, or fat, or thin, or tall, or short, or what their ethnicity or skin color is, etc.

If the single cell you're referring to is the zygote produced as a result of the union of a human egg and human sperm, then yes, I do think that's a human, and it's obvious to me; the truth of what it is cannot be changed by semantics or playing games with labels, only what can be observed and reasoned can be used to lead us to a conclusion about whether a zygote, or embryo, or fetus, or someone - after they're born - is killed by the actions of someone else, is or isn't a human victim.

I could pretend like I'm such an expert in law & biology by arguing that 10 year old boys & girls aren't living organisms, because they're not old enough to reproduce since they haven't hit puberty yet, and in order for something to be a living organism it has to be able to reproduce, but I don't. That's the same sort of sophistry that some engage in, except it's not about 10 year olds being living organisms, it's about zygotes and fetuses from human beings not being human beings themselves (or something to that effect).

An abortion procedure isn't the same as an organ transplant; if it were, then a defective zygote or fetus would be replaced with a healthy zygote or fetus. If an organ transplant were somewhat like an abortion procedure, then people would be getting organs like their heart, both lungs, liver, and both kidneys removed without replacing them or doing anything about the fact that they no longer have them. Have you ever heard of someone going to a doctor's office to have their entire brain removed? Maybe these things do happen, but I'm too ignorant to know about them because I'm not a biology expert.

When it comes to my position on abortion, I've basically come to the following conclusions:

* It doesn't help to charge a pregnant woman who has an abortion/miscarriage with a crime, but that doesn't mean there's no victim & that there's no one who can be charged with a crime.

Take, for example, a pregnant woman killed in a car accident by a drunk driver. When one at least takes into consideration the time & effort that the pregnant woman, her family, her friends, the doctors and other healthcare providers, and other aspects of the community invested or devoted to the pregnancy by providing her with baby clothes, strollers, cribs, "baby on board" signs to suction cup to the rear glass of her vehicle, healthcare guidance, etc., then one can recognize that there were 2 victims (either way, an autopsy can prove that) and that the drunk driver committed 2 counts of manslaughter.

If you're such an expert on biology, tell me, does biology claim that there are 2 victims, only 1 victim, or something else?

* We consume food & if a pregnant woman happens to consume food that then results in the termination of her pregnancy, then that shouldn't be a crime. That's a miscarriage (as opposed to an abortion procedure), and miscarriages shouldn't be categorized as crimes regardless of whether it was due to an illness, the pregnant woman's body ejecting the contents of the womb as a result of internal complications, what she ate, drank, or consumed, etc.

This is also based on libertarianism, the notion that anyone should be able to eat or drink whatever they want to, and shouldn't need permission from the state to do things that are necessary for basic survival.

* There is no problem with an abortion procedure, with the exception of one thing, which is the tearing the fetus up into pieces.

An abortion procedure seems to involve an extra, unnecessary, and hazardous step. What if an abortion procedure were simply carried out without tearing up the fetus? It would be one less step to deal with & that cuts down on the amount of time spent on the process; it would also be safer, since there isn't the risk of leaving behind baby pieces that'll fester & could kill a woman after having an abortion. Am I wrong? Is there something I'm missing? If tearing up the fetus is only being done for political reasons, because the abortionist has to jump through legal loopholes, then let's fix whatever it is about the legal system so that the end result is that the abortionist no longer has to tear up the fetus. I can't imagine why there would be a biological reason that makes it impossible to terminate a pregnancy without this step of tearing up the fetus, but since apparently you're the biology expert who knows everything that's involved here, maybe you can explain why it's "biologically" or "medically" needed - if this is the case.
 

Similar Discussions