But legally the legislatures HAVE to try to define the term "human being" to set out the elements of the crime of murder. Many of them have chosen to define the term more broadly than the constitutional term "person". That's their prerogative as long as they don't run afoul of the constitution.

I am not suggesting that they (legislatures) do not have to try. I was speaking in a different context.

Another thing for everyone interested in this topic to consider, is that the original pro-abortion argument, which is mainly defended by bioethicists, was shot down by those very bioethicists, who proposed that claiming that the "fetus is not a human being" is untenable in light of modern science, and thus the bioeticists turned the pro-abortion argument to" the fetus not a human person." Note the implications of such rationalization by American Bioethicist Andrew Johnson, and keep in mind, courts of law often employ the rationalizations of bioethicists:

But the next turn in Johnson's essay is truly frightening. He argues that abortion-rights defenders should draw a "distinction between the moral status of a human being as such and the moral status of a person as such."

In cold prose, Johnson acknowledges that the "vast majority of human beings are persons," but he defines a "person" as one who demonstrates "the qualities generally thought to be characteristic of persons: intelligence, autonomy, self-awareness, emotion, future-regarding intentions, and moral responsibility, among others."

Using his definition of the human person--a definition that centers on the achievement of certain psychological and relational capacities--Johnson argues that there are nonhuman persons and human non-persons. Animals, such as dolphins and chimpanzees, who could demonstrate the criteria he cites, could, he argues, be recognized as persons. Unborn human beings--and those too young to have developed his list of criteria--would be recognized as human beings, but not as persons.

"Mere membership in the species Homo sapiens, no more accords moral standing to human beings than mere membership in Culex pipiens accords moral standing to common house mosquitoes," Johnson boldly asserts. "The fundamental difference in the moral standing of these two species lies not in their taxonomic classifications but in their possession or lack of possession of characteristics conferring personhood, characteristics such as intelligence, emotionality, and self-awareness, which human beings typically possess and mosquitoes never do."

Johnson acknowledges that his argument is not "uncontroversial." Yet, he sees his personhood-centered argument as the way forward for the abortion-rights movement.

Johnson's proposal must be taken seriously, for it is hauntingly similar--if not identical--to arguments put forth by the Nazi doctors and the genocidal Third Reich. Consider these sentences: "The denial of fetal personhood incidentally is not a denial that a healthy, late-term fetus has developed a number of mental capacities, among them a degree of perception, memory, and susceptibility to pleasure and pain, capacities that pro-lifers are fond of pointing out. What pro-lifers fail to notice, however, is that these capacities don't elevate the moral status of the fetus above that of a typical farm animal, which is clearly not a person. Indeed, on account of their greater intelligence, mature farm animals resemble persons more than fetuses do."

Johnson's proposals echo those of Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University, a fact Johnson readily acknowledges. Singer, who infamously argues that the killing of babies and young children should not be considered murder in all circumstances, is the modern godfather of this species of argument.

Clearly, the very fact that these arguments are seriously proposed indicates that the Culture of Death is, if anything, growing in assertiveness.

"Culture of Death"??????????????? You'll just believe anything, won't you?

I don't know who this "Andrew Johnson" is or if he even exists, but he certainly doesn't speak for the US Supreme Court.

....is the pro-abortion movement?! I've never heard of anyone advocating for women to have abortions. I've only ever heard of people advocating for women's rights to have the option of choosing to have an abortion.

You don't have to support someone's choice to have an abortion; you do have to support their right to make the choice.



Please refrain from any use of the "f" word, the admins have censored it and do not appreciate using abbreviations to skirt around the censored list

Actually, Mr. Informed On Only One Side of the Issue, why do you not make an attempt at doing some of the research into bioethics, and see who the courts in the U.S. look to for guidance on these issues throughout the 1970's - present. They look to the likes of Peter Singer, who chairs Philosophy at Princeton, and Daniel Callahan and various other bioethicists, such as the one spoken of in the clip here.

If you really want to put your money where your mouth is, read the book by attorney Wesley J. Smith, "Culture of Death - The Assault on Medical Ethics in America." And yes, he does know firsthand, because he is the advocate of the very people and their family members deemed "non-human persons" by the very medical communities whose guidance came from the various court decisions influenced by Andrew Johnson, Peter Singer and the likes of them. Abortion was one factor, but once man, the courts, academia and science begins to tinker with applying relative values to human life at any stage, they open the doors to creating hierarchies of human worth, and that is precisely what is happening in American Medicine right now.

And that is why the term "Culture of Death" is quite pertinent.

Research Margaret Sanger, or better yet, read her actual writings, who outright advocated abortion as birth control and other forms of birth control. She targeted black communities in particular, and her family created and owns Planned Parenthood, one of the main players in the multi-billion dollar abortion industry.

The medical establishment in Nazi Germany advocated many of her principles; Hitler marched them right down people's throats.

So yes, there is a pro-abortion movement with undercurrents in the pro-choice movement, although the lack of research and knowledge of it leads many, like yourself, to be incredulous about it.

Actually, a lot of boyfriends advocate for abortions. Additionally I've seen situations where women (generally non-mothers themselves) advocate for their young, single, unexpectedly pregnant friend to have an abortion.

Why do you have to support their right to make the choice? We restrict choice all the time. I can't smoke pot, marry my sister, or punch Pale in the nose. If the activity in question is deemed wrong or potentially harmful, we restrict the choice to engage in that activity.

You misread my post. Of course I think I'm right - just as you think you're right. I'm not claiming any more or less of a grasp of objective reality than you are. I recognize that this is a complex and deep issue and I respect your right to hold a different view than mine.

But my post was responding to your comments that the inconsistency claimed by the pro-life side is just something that's made up for the sake of argument. What I said was not just the part you quoted - I said:



Perhaps I should have been clearer and said, "so the inconsistency is real if you believe that a fetus holds a special status equal to or approaching that of a person." But I think it was pretty evident from my quote even without that.

Either way, it's silly for you to attack my view and pretend that you're not claiming your own view as objective reality. If you thought you were wrong, you'd change views. So either you think you're right or you're not sure. Your posts don't look like they're coming from someone who's not sure.

Nonsense. A person is a person under the constitution, entitled to rights to life, liberty and property under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. There are no hierarchies. You think that fetuses should be considered persons, so that undoubtedly colors your views. If you want that to be the case you should work to amend the constitution.

In my opinion "Culture of Death" conspiracy theories belong in the tinfoil hat category along with "9/11 was a US government plot" conspiracy theories.

Really dude, you are utterly out of touch with the reality that has permeated academia the courts and medical ethics this past 35-40 years. Hierarchies of human worth is not a hypothesis, it is an observed fact that has taken place in the medical establishment. Being a lawyer does not mean you have the knowledge of these developments in medical ethics, and they have happened, which is why lawsuit after lawsuit has come out attacking the "Quality of Life Ethic" that has tried to replace the "sanctity of life ethic and the Hippocratic Oath."

But I will tell you what, since you think it is nonsense, and are obviously unwilling to to do the same research I have and see the various court cases and decisions that have arisen out of the effect bioethics and the "human person vs. human non-person" platform has had in creating hierarchies of human worth, including but not limited to the unborn, you have cemented your reputation as one who is in denial of reality and is too cowardly to face very painful truths.

Of course, I will not do what you call "research" into this any more than I will spend my time on the 9/11 conspiracy theories. You can do your childish name calling all you want, I don't have much respect for that. If you think there are US "cases and decisions" that support "nonperson" status for persons born alive WHAT ARE THEY??????

Here are some "conspiracy theories" on the "Culture of Death":

1. "Many humans lack properties of personhood or are less than full persons, they are thereby rendered equal or inferior in moral standing to some nonhumans. If this conclusion is defensible, we will need to rethink our traditional view that these unlucky humans cannot be treated in the ways we treat relevantly similar nonhumans."
written by Tom L. Beauchamp "The Failure of Theories of Personhood," Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 9, no. 4 (December 1999) pp. 318-320
Tom L. Beauchamp, Georgetown University Professor of Bioethics and author of the book Principals of Biomedical Ethics

2. "Consider the organism that suffers damage to its brain so that it is no longer conscious and can no longer engage in responsive voluntary movement. At some later stage, it loses the capacity to breathe on its own so that its respiration must be supported artificially. At a later stage, its capacity to regulate hormonal levels stops. Somewhere during this time period, its auditory pathways stop functioning. Finally its heart stops beating. Is it really meaningful to suppose that the organism dies at some specific point in the process?...Is it not more reasonable to say that the organism was fully alive before the chain of events began, is fully dead by the end of the chain of events, and is neither during the process?"
by Baruch Brody, Director of the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas "How Much of the Brain Must Be Dead" in The Definition of Death:Contemporary Controversies, p. 79
FOR YOUR INFORMATION, THE "ORGANISM" REFERRED TO IS A HUMAN BEING

3." Most people's sense of that [death-caused] tragedy, if it were rendered as a graph relating the degree of tragedy to the age at which death occurs, would slope upward from birth to some point in late childhood or early adolescense, then follow a flat line until at least very early middle age, and then slope down again toward extreme old age...[b][/b]{Thus] the death of an adolescent girl is worse than the death of an infant girl because the adolescent's death frustrates the investments she and others have made in her life." YEAH, BUT THERE ARE NO HIERARCHIES OF HUMAN WORTH, RIGHT
by Ronald Dworkin, Life's Dominion: An Argument about Abortion, Euthanasia and Individual Freedom (New York Vintage Books, 1993, p.87
Ronald Dworkin is Professor of Law and Bioethics who influenced the decision in James H. Armstrong, MD v. The State of Montana 1999 rendered by the Montana Supreme Court

These are just a few examples of what is taught and accepted at medical schools nationwide, but there is no culture of death. It is all fabricated, right. God help us with uninformed views like yours.

So, the Pope's thinking is within that of the 'tinfoil hat' crowd....get a grip Yoss!

Culture of Death:

"A term coined by John Paul II. It is used in contemporary political discourse in many countries, including the United States and Poland, to describe supportive positions on certain subjects, such as abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, poverty and capital punishment which adherents of opposing positions deem to be inconsistent with their concept of a "culture of life". Some commentators would add to that list homosexuality, contraception and other phenomena perceived to attack marriage and the family."

As to whether or not a "Culture of Death" is being pursued:

The Clinton's supported The Freedom of Choice Act, guaranteeing abortion rights to women, regardless of the Supreme Court's possible reconsideration of Roe vs. Wade, and overriding existing state regulations and provisions. The Freedom of Choice Act would take abortion out of the hands of the Supreme Court, the state legislatures that have traditionally regulated it, or any other agency that would regulate or restrict it.

The Clinton administration vigorously supported this legislation but wasn't able to get it through Congress. But those in power have not given up. Clinton's culture of death is still working to get this bill passed.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) introduced it again on April 6, 2006.

The bill promoted by Democrats and which Clinton supported, permitted no limits on the killing of unborn babies. None! If passed, it will remove all restrictions on abortion in all fifty sates, during all nine months of pregnancy, for any or no reason at all. Terminating a little life because she is a girl instead of a boy would be entirely legal in all 50 states.

Existing laws permitted by the Supreme Court in the Casey decision (1992) allowing waiting periods designed to ensure parental notification before abortions are performed on underage girls would be nullified.

A fully viable infant could be fair game even in the eighth or ninth month of pregnancy. Abortions would be legal in any circumstance if "the health of the mother" warranted. Since "health" was not defined, it is reasonable to assume the provision includes "psychological health" as a justification. Thus, a baby could be killed up to the moment of birth for any reason - or for no reason at all.

And now, Clinton wants us to elect his wife as POTUS - if that happens, she will push the "Freedom of Choice Act" once again - the death culture will achieve a huge win, but a lot of people will die because of it. Therefore, there are more than a few things at stake in 2008.

Denying that some of us are vigorously pursuing a Culture of Death is nonsense.

You can find all the quotes from books that you want stating people's opinions, but YOU said there were "cases and decisions". I repeat:

Just a note, these "opinions" are accepted as conventional medical ethics in medical colleges, and therefore are utilized in court cases and practiced regularly in hospitals around the nation. If they are taught conventionally in academia and practiced regularly in the medical profession, then it has permeated culture, thus a Culture of Death.
I have barely pierced the surface.

Here are some of them, the first of which I did include in the prior post:

1. Ronald Dworkin is Professor of Law and Bioethics who influenced the decision in James H. Armstrong, MD v. The State of Montana 1999 rendered by the Montana Supreme Court.

2. Barber v. Superior Court, 147 Cal App. 3d 1006 (1983) - An appeals court refused to sustain an indictment of doctors who had withdrawn food and fluids from an unconscious patient, citing bioethics literature as having helped the court in its reasoning.

3. Conservatorship of Drabic, 200 Cal App. 3d 185 (1988) - An appeals court overrules a trial judge's refusal to permit the dehydration of a man in a state of PVS at the family's request. In fact, the court rules that families can order doctors to pull feeding tubes from people in PVS without asking a supervising court's permission.

These are just a few of them. I am not providing any further, since, if you are sincere, you can do the research yourself. You can read up on Joseph Fletcher, Peter Singer, Daniel Callahan, Tom Beauchamp, and those who have appeared before judges to oppose them, such as Dr. Leon Cass and Attorney Wesley J. Smith.

Oh, and by the way, these were the words from one of my prior posts: "various court cases and decisions that have arisen out of the effect bioethics and the "human person vs. human non-person" platform has had in creating hierarchies of human worth

The reason I emphasize this, is because I am pointing out that the courts are influnced by the paradigm in bioethics, which has resulted in hierarchies of human worth. One result of that, is that "human non-persons" as the bioethicists like to define them, would be lower on the value system than a "human person."

By the way, if you think any of this is new, you can also read series of essays written in 1920 by doctors Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche in pre-Nazi Germany titled "Annihilating Life Unworthy of Life." Some of the wording is almost identical to some bioethical texts in the United States, and once again, these bioethicists are utilized to provide guidance in court cases. Culture of Death.

Sorry, poor turn of phrase. I didn't mean for it to come across that abrasively.

I understand why you say we restrict choice "all the time," but for the most part I think we value freedom of choice highly in this country; and there are plenty of perfectly acceptable choices that can be deemed "wrong or potentially harmful." I don't know many people who would advocate smoking, drinking or eating fast food, but they can still support the right for individuals to make their own decisions.

-X-, further to your point that a Culture of Death is being pursued, much of my concern has to do with the basis with which bioethicists defend that culture. By changing the argument for abortion from definining "human being," which they knew was no longer a defensible argument in science, and thus the courts, to "human person," and applying subjective criteria to define "person," not only were they defending abortion as the killing of a non-person, but many other people in various states of life could be defined as "human non-persons." The slippery slope was very bad, as it has resulted in cases of genetic experimentation on people deemed less than worthy of the protections of a person, the denial of food and water to people in PVS, discrimination against people with disabilities (Look up the organization NOT DEAD YET, which has filed various cases against the medical establishment and locked horns with bioethicists due to discrimnation against people with disabilities)

It is so obvious a Culture of Death paradigm that permeates us, but there are plenty of people fighting it.

That's interesting to know. I've never encountered a situation like that. I would hope that those people ultimately have enough respect to support their (girl)friends' right to make a private, personal choice - regardless of what decision she makes.

Cases involving the withdrawal of life support by the family of someone terminally ill have nothing to do with "personhood", particularly when they are carrying out the person's express wishes.

If you want to believe in a "culture of death" whether it is for religious reasons or any other reasons that's entirely up to you. I just don't see anything to support it.

The point is, for the one of the 3 cases cited, that the precedent had already been set in prior rulings that a human beng in a PVS is not accorded the same value as someone not in a PVS, thus they are not fully persons. This allowed for the restriction on food and water, which had never been considered a form of specialized treatment prior to bioethicists winning over the medical establishment, and thus the courts, in buying into the administration of food and drink as extraordinary healthcare. They were always considered simple essentials for sustaining health and well-being.

As for seeing nothing to support a culture of death, I already quoted for you essays and other literature of professors of bioethics that are used now in mainstream medical colleges, universities and hospitals all over the nation. If that does not show support of a culture of death, then you might as well promulgate that a circle has no radius or the 2+2=7.

You mean that she encouraged women to have unprotected sex and use abortion as birth control in the event of pregnancy after the fact? Or that she persuaded pregnant women who didn't want an abortion to have one?

From what I found briefly online, biographical summaries emphasize her efforts to promote contraception for women to avoid unwanted pregnancies (in which case the decision to abort would not be necessary). This quote I think clearly shows her to be pro-CHOICE:

"No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother."

Just for laughs, let's try this thought:

Accept for the moment that a woman's body is her own property.
Accept for the moment that a fetus is a person.

So, if there is an unwanted person on someone's property, do they have the right to have him/her removed?

TMOS,

It's difficult for me to take your over-adrenalized rant against "HIERARCHIES OF HUMAN WORTH" seriously.

You've posted support for capital punishment, which clearly values the lives of law-abiding citizens more highly than those that prey on them.

You've posted in favor of the application of deadly force; which values your life and that of your family more highly than that of your attacker.

We won't even go into your feeling on radical Islamists.

The fact is, governments and citizens establish hierachies of human worth all the time. Who gets health care, who doesn't, who receives humanitarian aid and who doesn't are all examples. If you look at the genocide in Sudan, and America's relative inaction, you may not understand *why* a Sudanese life is worth less than that of an American, but you can see that it is.

And in a recent BOL thread, some posters clearly valued a sack of a Texas man's property more highly than the lives of the people who stole it.