http://www.profswitzer.com/blog/2009/07/life-and-death/ Economics, Politics, Entertainment and Life in Academia Thu, 09 Sep 2010 03:12:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://www.profswitzer.com/blog/2009/07/life-and-death/comment-page-1/#comment-3018 ProfSwitzer Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:39:54 +0000 http://www.profswitzer.com/blog/?p=853#comment-3018 I'm well aware of your view on this, Benjamin, and it's pointless to debate you on it despite the fact that many in this country would differ with you on your belief that fetuses are not human beings. I'm not going to entertain that on this blog -- take it to your own blog if you want to. The purpose of the post is about consistency in the law -- for example, if someone kills a pregnant woman, they can be charged for two murders, but that woman can have an abortion and it's just fine. I'm not saying she shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion (don't misread my intent in this post, which I think you may be doing). This is not a post about abortion one way or the other. It is a post about inconsistencies that occur when you have competing legal principles. I’m well aware of your view on this, Benjamin, and it’s pointless to debate you on it despite the fact that many in this country would differ with you on your belief that fetuses are not human beings. I’m not going to entertain that on this blog — take it to your own blog if you want to. The purpose of the post is about consistency in the law — for example, if someone kills a pregnant woman, they can be charged for two murders, but that woman can have an abortion and it’s just fine. I’m not saying she shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion (don’t misread my intent in this post, which I think you may be doing). This is not a post about abortion one way or the other. It is a post about inconsistencies that occur when you have competing legal principles.

]]> http://www.profswitzer.com/blog/2009/07/life-and-death/comment-page-1/#comment-3015 Benjamin Seghers Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:18:37 +0000 http://www.profswitzer.com/blog/?p=853#comment-3015 Interesting discussion, but I find it pretty moot. I really do not think anyone doubts that fetuses are living. They're alive, just as you and I are alive, just as a crawling insect is alive, or just as a growing tree is alive. Many things are living; but just by virtue of being alive does not automatically grant something a right. We can think of many things that are alive but do not have rights. So when we begin to talk about human rights, we're specifically dealing with rights that apply to <i>human beings</i>. A zygote, an embryo, or even a fetus is not a human being. Surely they are potential human beings, but they are not human beings. A woman therefore has an absolute right to abortion. Interesting discussion, but I find it pretty moot. I really do not think anyone doubts that fetuses are living. They’re alive, just as you and I are alive, just as a crawling insect is alive, or just as a growing tree is alive. Many things are living; but just by virtue of being alive does not automatically grant something a right. We can think of many things that are alive but do not have rights. So when we begin to talk about human rights, we’re specifically dealing with rights that apply to human beings. A zygote, an embryo, or even a fetus is not a human being. Surely they are potential human beings, but they are not human beings. A woman therefore has an absolute right to abortion.

]]>