Pro-Choice Activist Killed by Christo-Fascist Radicals! by PirateCat

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Odd that you want to hand control over our lives - even BEFORE we're born - to The State, and yet you still somehow manage to consider yourself a Conservative.

The State has an interest in preserving life. Otherwise murder would not be illegal.

Your kneejerk response to the argument is stunning. Taking the position that the State has no interest in life is crazy. Our whole founding principal is that "Governments are instituted among Men" "to secure these rights" of which "Life" seems to be the first of many.

Your neighbor can't just kill you for no reason. Why not? Because the people of Ohio wanted to have a society where your neighbor could not kill you so they got together and formed a government for the express purpose of preserving your right to life...among other things none of which really matter if your neighbor can kill you for no reason.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 10:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You know when I'll be willing to outlaw abortion? When I can attach a rider to that bill that says that ALL babies not wanted MUST be adopted by pro-life families, and they can NEVER receive "welfare" or any kind of government assistance to raise those babies.

So your pro life. You clearly don't see this as a privacy issue. Your statement indicates that its an issue of who will care for the child and how much will it cost.

So your willing to kill babies if it saves you money...(Edited to add: This is a harsh statement about your views...but thats your fault for reducing matters of life and privacy to a simple economic argument. Do you also favor killing the elderly or disabled who can't pay for their medical treatments?)

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 10:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

The State has an interest in preserving life. Otherwise parking & speeding ticket revenues would be lower, not to mention the loss of taxes.

Fixed that for ya, H.

The "State" gives a rats ass about life, individually speaking. It's interest is in the institution, that fosters a good working environment for the Fortune 500...hmmmm, sounds a bit Communist, eh?

You need to watch Judge Dredd again.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 10:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

So your willing to kill babies if it saves you money...

The strawman cometh.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 10:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Can I add a rider that every father of an unwanted baby will have child support taken straight out of his wages before he gets paid? I mean, if "the State" is so interested in the fates of these babies, it shouldn't be too much of a burden for the state to take the money from the fathers to help care for them, right?

'Course, I'm thinkin' that if MEN were forced to be responsible for the children

Kinda happens already. Child support enforcement has come a long way in the last ten years. As a Prosecutor I tell you it has a way to go, but most folks are paying these days.

From an equal protection standpoint this is unfair. The mother gets all the power. The father has no choice in the matter. To be fair a father should either get an abortion veto reflecting his interest in the child, or an opt out period for support.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 10:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The mother gets all the power. The father has no choice in the matter.

Talk to the Intelligent Designer.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 10:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
From an equal protection standpoint this is unfair. The mother gets all the power. The father has no choice in the matter. To be fair a father should either get an abortion veto reflecting his interest in the child, or an opt out period for support.

Way I figure it, both men and women have an absolutely equal chance to prevent pregnancy by acting responsibly. Men, weirdly, do sometimes not take this chance and right as seriously as they should.

Once pregancy has happened, it falls to the person with the entirety of the biological burden to make a choice about the next 9 months of her life and undergo a risky procedure, be that birth or be that abortion.

If birth is chosen, the father should have rights again from the exact same moment that the child is physically independent from the mother (for real, not hypothetically, meaning birth). ETA: And I mean equal rights.

That's one of those cases where yes, it's sort of unfair, but only because it is, indeed, entirely unfair. I bet many women would like to share the burden along with the equal rights. Once that is medically possible, laws should be adjusted.

Until then, men need to take advantage of the only rights they can fairly have.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 11:00 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Only thing is . . . a collection of cells, formed in a uterus by the combining of a human sperm and a human egg WILL grow into a human being. No "might" about it, my friend."

"Studies have found that 30 to 50 percent of fertilized eggs are lost before a woman finds out she's pregnant ... (added to that) About 15 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage."

And then there are the ones that are born ...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 11:03 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Nothing seems to have changed here - still the usual fact-free opinions masquerading as discussion.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 11:20 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

The State has an interest in preserving life. Otherwise murder would not be illegal.

Even *before* it's "life" as we know it. You want to "preserve life"? Fine - suck that 1-hour-old blob of cells out of the womb and see how "alive" it is on its own. This isn't about "preserving" or "protecting" life - it's about controlling it. That's *supposed* to be something that you're against.

Quote:

Your kneejerk response to the argument is stunning. Taking the position that the State has no interest in life is crazy. Our whole founding principal is that "Governments are instituted among Men" "to secure these rights" of which "Life" seems to be the first of many.

Actually, I find YOUR knee-jerk reaction stunning. You're willing to throw out any and all provisions of privacy and the right to self-determination in your effort to control whether and when women are forced to become incubators.

Quote:

Your neighbor can't just kill you for no reason. Why not? Because the people of Ohio wanted to have a society where your neighbor could not kill you so they got together and formed a government for the express purpose of preserving your right to life...among other things none of which really matter if your neighbor can kill you for no reason.

Your neighbor isn't supposed to be able to torture you for no reason, either, but that apparently hasn't stopped it from happening with a frightening frequency, all while you not only endorse it, but actively cheerlead it and try to give it cutesy names like "Fisher-Price's My First Waterboard™".

So while you're real big on keeping government small, and keeping it out of our hair and out of our bedrooms, it turns out you're really NOT that big on any of those things - you'd rather have the government large and in charge, in the bedroom if not in the boardroom.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 12:53 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You know when I'll be willing to outlaw abortion? When I can attach a rider to that bill that says that ALL babies not wanted MUST be adopted by pro-life families, and they can NEVER receive "welfare" or any kind of government assistance to raise those babies.

So your pro life. You clearly don't see this as a privacy issue. Your statement indicates that its an issue of who will care for the child and how much will it cost.

Actually, I proposed that in a tongue-in-cheek put-your-money-where-your-big-fat-mouth-is kind of way - a kind of "poisoning the well" proposition that will force the hard right to either put up or shut up... I *am* pro-life. I'm also pro-choice. Those are not mutually exclusive positions.

You seem to be the kind of "pro life" person who is insistent on doing everything possible to save every fetus and every baby, right up until the moment they're actually born into this world, at which you want nothing more to do with them. You don't care what happens to them after they're born, or where they go or what they do, so long as it doesn't cost you any more money in taxes. So I guess the extent of your "caring" about life tends to revolve around money, wouldn't you say?

Quote:
So your willing to kill babies if it saves you money...(Edited to add: This is a harsh statement about your views...but thats your fault for reducing matters of life and privacy to a simple economic argument. Do you also favor killing the elderly or disabled who can't pay for their medical treatments?)

Actually, I'm more in favor of torturing them to see what they know, and THEN killing them if they can't pay for their medical treatments. (That's sarcasm. I'm sure you don't get it.)

What's YOUR solution for people who can't pay for their medical treatment? I *KNOW* it's not to let the government take care of it, right?

By the way, on the whole "killing babies if it saves you money" thing? That's actually something that MANY families have to deal with in one way or another. Most couples have to decide (a) IF they're going to have children, (b) WHEN they're going to have them, (c) HOW MANY they're going to have, (d) WHEN they're going to quit having them, and (e) HOW to do all that. A great many of those couples will have to choose between vasectomies, hysterectomies, birth control, the rhythm method, withdrawal, abstinence, etc. Any of those methods can be construed as "killing babies" if you really want to get right down into the Biblical muck of it. So I'm sure you have no issues with "killing babies if it saves you money" when it gets right down to it.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 1:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
the rhythm method

My Wife & I have successfully pre-emptively killed many potential peeps that way, numbering into the hundreds by now...

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 1:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Nothing seems to have changed here - still the usual fact-free opinions masquerading as discussion.

What thread have you been reading, I see a fact-filled and reasonably civil (as RWED goes) discussion going on here.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 1:56 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
By the way, on the whole "killing babies if it saves you money" thing? That's actually something that MANY families have to deal with in one way or another. Most couples have to decide (a) IF they're going to have children, (b) WHEN they're going to have them, (c) HOW MANY they're going to have, (d) WHEN they're going to quit having them, and (e) HOW to do all that. A great many of those couples will have to choose between vasectomies, hysterectomies, birth control, the rhythm method, withdrawal, abstinence, etc. Any of those methods can be construed as "killing babies" if you really want to get right down into the Biblical muck of it. So I'm sure you have no issues with "killing babies if it saves you money" when it gets right down to it.

Hmm, I would have to suggest that hypothetical life is not equivalent to real, existing life; and hypothetical personhood not equivalent to potential personhood.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 2:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

Hmm, I would have to suggest that hypothetical life is not equivalent to real, existing life; and hypothetical personhood not equivalent to potential personhood.

Typical linear thinking in a non-linear existence. It's a corporeal-consciousness thing.
Not judging, just sayin'.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 2:12 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Hmm, I would have to suggest that hypothetical life is not equivalent to real, existing life; and hypothetical personhood not equivalent to potential personhood.

And therefore, potential personhood is not equivalent to real personhood. Which is the balance I reach when I compare a blob of cells (which might one day become a person) to a real person: the mother.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 2:49 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
And therefore, potential personhood is not equivalent to real personhood.

That doesn't directly follow from what I said, but nonetheless, I agree.

Quote:
Which is the balance I reach when I compare a blob of cells (which might one day become a person) to a real person: the mother.

Don't compare a 'blob of cells' - you could be talking about a tumour: maybe talk about 'a unique human life with the potential for personhood'. Also bear in mind you are weighing the death of one, against only stress and inconvenience to the other.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 2:58 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Typical linear thinking in a non-linear existence. It's a corporeal-consciousness thing.
Not judging, just sayin'.

I'm speaking from the human perspective; hypothetical life is not equivalent to real, tangible existing life - that's just the way humans feel about things. If you remove yourself from the human perspective then nothing is immoral.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 3:19 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Don't compare a 'blob of cells' - you could be talking about a tumour

Yes, sometimes it IS a tumor. Or just a blob. Do we talk about the death of a tumor? Do we worry about the death of a placenta?

I had this discussion a long time ago with Finn. In his view, the fertilized egg is like a train at a train station, with a known destination in nine months. But it's not really like that. A fertilized egg is .... well, just a fertilized egg. Roughly 30-50% of the time something goes wrong at the very beginning. The chromosomes didn't pair up. Or the cell starts off on the wrong track, so to speak, and divides badly. At every stage of development, there is always the possibility that something will go horribly wrong. Unlike the idealized, perfect being which we imagine will be born, the reality is much more ambiguous.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 3:42 PM

I know you guys are trying to make a point but . . . . JEEZ! Enough with the pictures. Please?

But more to the point - and yes, this is emotion talking perhaps more than fact - those pictures, no matter how grotesque, still show a human fetus that were aborted naturally. No direct human interference was involved in a brain forming outside the skull or whatever else happened (and I don't care to revisit the pictures, thankyouverymuch). I don't see anything in those pictures that resembles a cow or a duck. Just humans. How is that not stating a fact? To me, there is a difference between life ending on it's own and life being ended by human hands that might - yes, I'll rephrase that portion of my former post - become a viable human fetus. But I stand by my statement that those cells are human in nature and therefore, unhindered and nature/God willing, will form humans. Those cells would NOT form any other animal. Why is it so wrong to say or think that?

I'll clarify my position by saying, of course, there are going to be times when, unfortunately, a regrettable decision will have to be made when, for whatever reason, a baby has to be terminated for the health of the mother. I can't put into words how I feel about that. You guys will probably blast me for that, but . . . there you go.

Overall, it's a very sad thing to think about IMHO and I'm sorry if I can't be as distant and cold about it as some of you seem to be. That's not an insult or a slam, so please don't take it that way. My nature doesn't allow me to sway too much on this subject.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 4:03 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Yes, sometimes it IS a tumor.

Sometimes it isn't. If it were only the lives of tumours and malformed babies that have been cut short this wouldn't be such an issue. You ought to weigh the most serious consequences of abortion (and it isn't a wild and freakish exception for an embryo to actually develop into a healthy newborn infant), when you make a moral argument for it.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 5:47 PM

JKIDDO

But now you're in a realm of what might be. not what is. Yes, it MIGHT become a perfect baby who will grow up to save the world. Or it MIGHT become a tumor.

People put a lot of expectations on this little blob of cells. They imagine all kinds of wonderful things... nobody imagines it will become a baby with two bodies and one head.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 6:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Also bear in mind you are weighing the death of one, against only stress and inconvenience to the other.

But you say that like the stress and inconvenience of the other person doesn't count.

Why shouldn't it count?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 1:13 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Also bear in mind you are weighing the death of one, against only stress and inconvenience to the other.

But you say that like the stress and inconvenience of the other person doesn't count.

Why shouldn't it count?

No, of course it counts. Just pointing out that in terms of rights, the foetus's rights are transgressed more.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 1:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
No, of course it counts. Just pointing out that in terms of rights, the foetus's rights are transgressed more.

Why would a blob of non-differentiated cells have any rights to be transgressed exactly?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 1:31 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by JKiddo:
But now you're in a realm of what might be. not what is. Yes, it MIGHT become a perfect baby who will grow up to save the world. Or it MIGHT become a tumor.

People put a lot of expectations on this little blob of cells. They imagine all kinds of wonderful things... nobody imagines it will become a baby with two bodies and one head.

If we were talking about just one abortion then we would be in the 'realm of what might be'. But since we are talking about many, many abortions (surely - or at least I am) we're in the realm of what definitely is. These are the consequences of abortion.

But I'm not disagreeing with you guys' argument of probability regarding the embryo. Does the very real chance of miscarriage/deformation diminish its weight in this moral calculation? I would have to say yes. Just like an injured person in a hospital who has only a 50% of surviving without brain damage or something. Such a life that already hangs in the balance is automatically worth less than an intact, equivalent one (if you had to choose).

Quote:
little blob of cells

So we're sticking with this definition then are we?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 1:38 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Why would a blob of non-differentiated cells...

Oh, no, we've adapted it.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 1:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Oh, no, we've adapted it.

It appears we don't have an answer to our question.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 1:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JKiddo:
But now you're in a realm of what might be. not what is. Yes, it MIGHT become a perfect baby who will grow up to save the world. Or it MIGHT become a tumor.

People put a lot of expectations on this little blob of cells. They imagine all kinds of wonderful things... nobody imagines it will become a baby with two bodies and one head.

But I don't THINK a "blob of cells" formed in a uterus by the combining of human sperm and a human egg becomes a tumor. Does it? And if so, I wouldn't think a "tumor" would cause a positive result on a pregnancy test and thus cause someone to seek an abortion.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 2:00 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Oh, no, we've adapted it.

It appears we don't have an answer to our question.

I'm sure I do. But if you termed your question in a more honest way I reckon you might get there yourself.

Edited to add:

Quote:
Why would a blob of non-differentiated cells have any rights to be transgressed exactly?

I wasn't trying to claim full human legal rights for the foetus - perhaps 'rights' was unfortunate wording. But is it wrong to talk about the 'right to life' of a living creature?

I wouldn't kill a bug for no reason - partly because of a little bit of squeamishness, but partly because I have respect for even such small life; go on your way little bug. Not trying to be moralistic about life, just pointing out there's something beautiful and miraculous about it, even on a small scale (though this feeling is probably proportional to how complex the life is).

To me a human foetus is worth much more than a bug even when it's only the same size, and able to function much less: I think this extra worth comes from potential. Me and Signy were talking about weighing things - I'm just trying to give everything its proper weight.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 2:02 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:

Yes, getting shot in church is ironic. Too many "christians" go to church to get forgiven of their sins, without first making the mandatory confession to being a sinner and promising to never do it again.

I suspect most "christians" go to church to meet business customers, WHICH IS PROBABLY WHAT THIS DOCTOR WAS DOING. You can find more whores in church than in any bar.

PN, I'm amazed you could write something I agree with. I think your description is profound and perfect.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 2:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I'm sure I do. But if you termed your question in a more honest way I reckon you might get there yourself.

My question was perfectly honest. If you were prepared to discuss this honestly maybe you'd see that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 2:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You're willing to throw out any and all provisions of privacy and the right to self-determination in your effort to control whether and when women are forced to become incubators.

I'm not throwing out the right to privacy. It still exists. The Court has always recognized that rights, even fundamental express rights like speech, can be limited by the Govt if there is a compelling govt interest and the intrusion is as limited as possible to protect that interest.

The State has an interest in preserving order, in safety, and in preventing panic. Thus while you cannot yell "fire" in a theater, you can yell fire outside a theater.

My argument acknowledges the right to privacy. I agree that while the Bill of Rights enumerates specific rights, it also creates a "penumbra" in which we find a variety of implied rights.

However, I feel that there are two competing interests with the mother's privacy rights. One is the child's right to life. If life begins at conception then the child has certain civil rights we must define and protect. That is the Christian argument and this argument was ultimately rejected by the Court in Roe.

Second, is the State's interest in life. If life begins at viability, then the child has civil rights which the State must protect (including the most basic right of being born). The State's interest trumps the privacy interest at the point of viability. This is the legal argument and the one adopted by the Court by Roe.

The two positions are not incompatable. If conception and viability occured at the same time, then both arguments would be valid.

Roe says the State can interfere at conception. If medical science pushes viability back to conception then the whole abortion debate will simple die a natural death (no pun intended).

As a Christian Lawyer I can understand and accept the legal reasoning of Roe AND the moral reasoning of the Pro Life position.

As for privacy, its still there waiting to reassert itself the minute the govt's interest is satisfied.

Should a woman who is pregnant be allowed to abort the baby because of its race (she does not want a baby that's half black, so I'm talking about a purely race based reason)? Should she be allowed to abort the baby because of its gender? Genetic predisposition? Etc. Are there any reasonable limits? What about mental capacity (of the mother), can an insane person make this decision, can the decision be forced on her (Octamom's next baby for example)? What about age, can a 12 year old make this decision without the parent (no other medical treatment can be performed without parental consent unless there is a danger to the child's life)? What about a 12 year old who WANTS the baby, can a parent force an abortion on their child who does not want it (we already know that medical treatments can be performed without the child's consent)?

Quote:

Your neighbor isn't supposed to be able to torture you for no reason, either, but that apparently hasn't stopped it from happening with a frightening frequency, all while you not only endorse it, but actively cheerlead it and try to give it cutesy names like "Fisher-Price's My First Waterboard™".

So while you're real big on keeping government small, and keeping it out of our hair and out of our bedrooms, it turns out you're really NOT that big on any of those things - you'd rather have the government large and in charge, in the bedroom if not in the boardroom.

I am in favor of removing the govt from the bedroom. Most abortions don't happen in the bedroom, so we can leave the govt outside.

Is your other argument that its ok to murder your neighbor because the govt has used aggressive interrogation at Gitmo?

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 2:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Why would a blob of non-differentiated cells have any rights to be transgressed exactly?

In most states causing the premature death of a fetus (aside from a legal abortion) is murder.

There are also laws regarding child endangering that have been extended to a fetus. For example, a woman doing crack while pregant...will lose her parental rights in a number of states.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 2:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
In most states causing the premature death of a fetus (aside from a legal abortion) is murder.

There are also laws regarding child endangering that have been extended to a fetus. For example, a woman doing crack while pregant...will lose her parental rights in a number of states.

It's my understanding that a number of backwards states ban alcohol from being sold on a Sunday. That's no argument for why Alcohol should not be banned on a Sunday, and it's certainly no argument for the why or wherefores of rights to buy alcohol on a Sunday.

I fail to see how stating the status quo, legal or not, constitutes an argument here, especially when abortion is legal and so arguing against it is arguing against the status quo.

Kpo's and your own argument seems to hinge on stating that the foetuses 'rights' are more infringed than the Mothers, yet your only argument as for why the foetus should have rights is just an assumption that it does with no seeming argument to back that assumption. Not to mention trying to portray anyone who doesn't share your assumptions as dishonest.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 3:01 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
My question was perfectly honest.

Hmm.

Quote:
If you were prepared to discuss this honestly...

I've edited my above post to actually respond to the question (or a slightly different version of it).

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 3:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I wasn't trying to claim full human legal rights for the foetus - perhaps 'rights' was unfortunate wording. But is it wrong to talk about the 'right to life' of a living creature?

No, but there's a leap being made that an early stage foetus is a 'living creature'. We can say it's alive, but in a very real sense it's nothing but a growth of mother, with no ability to remain alive away from the host.

Quote:

To me a human foetus is worth much more than a bug even when it's only the same size, and able to function much less: I think this extra worth comes from potential. Me and Signy were talking about weighing things - I'm just trying to give everything its proper weight.

Perhaps, but those are your assumptions and yours alone. Those who hold different assumptions, or wish to make decisions on what things are rather than what they might be, are not being dishonest in doing so. Your assumptions may lead you to apportion more weight to the foetus than something that IS alive. My own thoughts on the matter may not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 3:36 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
No, but there's a leap being made that an early stage foetus is a 'living creature'. We can say it's alive, but in a very real sense it's nothing but a growth of mother, with no ability to remain alive away from the host.

It's a unique, individual, human life; however frail and inviable. Even parasites are living creatures, and human beings remain parasitic in nature long after birth. I don't think this line of argument/terminology really diminishes human beings at any stage - it's just the way things are.

Quote:
Perhaps, but those are your assumptions and yours alone. Those who hold different assumptions...

Feel free to challenge my 'assumptions' and weigh things differently. I'm trying to arrive at a truth that is common to us all (general morality of the human soul), and learning as I go.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 3:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
It's a unique, individual, human life; however frail and inviable. Even parasites are living creatures, and human beings remain parasitic in nature long after birth. I don't think this line of argument/terminology really diminishes human beings at any stage - it's just the way things are.

Of course not, your going in assumptions are different to mine. I think we have to look at what is, you want to look at what could be.

To say "it's just the way things are" though, that's your assumption being pushed into fact.

Babies can't survive on their own, requiring the provision of food from adults, but a foetus isn't capable of even the basics of life without having those functions performed by another individual. People get switched off of life support all the time, with nothing like the moral hand wringing.

You say it's a unique human life, I say it isn't. It may one day become that, but right now it is not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 4:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Also bear in mind you are weighing the death of one, against only stress and inconvenience to the other.

But you say that like the stress and inconvenience of the other person doesn't count.

Why shouldn't it count?

No, of course it counts. Just pointing out that in terms of rights, the foetus's rights are transgressed more.

Heads should roll

Which is what I disagree with. No person has a right to live based on using another person as a biological host. Be that through organ harvestation, forced blood/bone marrow donation... or pregnancy. The fetus is not an independently viable individual, whose right to being left in peace is being transgressed. The fetus's very existence transgresses the woman's right to be left in peace. Only her voluntary agreement makes this a beautiful and non-damaging (mentally, morally) process.

Taking away termination options unfairly favors the biologically dependent over the "host" they need to survive, by wrongfully equating needs with rights.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 4:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Which is what I disagree with. No person has a right to live based on using another person as a biological host. Be that through organ harvestation, forced blood/bone marrow donation... or pregnancy. The fetus is not an independently viable individual, whose right to being left in peace is being transgressed. The fetus's very existence transgresses the woman's right to be left in peace. Only her voluntary agreement makes this a beautiful and non-damaging (mentally, morally) process.

That's an interesting perspective. If abortions are made illegal, shouldn't certain transplants and donation be made mandatory. If a Foetuses "right to life" goes beyond the Mothers no to be an incubator, does a crash victims right to life outstrip yours not to be a blood donor?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 4:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Which is what I disagree with. No person has a right to live based on using another person as a biological host. Be that through organ harvestation, forced blood/bone marrow donation... or pregnancy. The fetus is not an independently viable individual, whose right to being left in peace is being transgressed. The fetus's very existence transgresses the woman's right to be left in peace. Only her voluntary agreement makes this a beautiful and non-damaging (mentally, morally) process.

That's an interesting perspective. If abortions are made illegal, shouldn't certain transplants and donation be made mandatory. If a Foetuses "right to life" goes beyond the Mothers no to be an incubator, does a crash victims right to life outstrip yours not to be a blood donor?

That's sort of the logic I see in it. If you run over someone with your car and they need blood and an extra kidney, provided you are a compatible donor, should you be forced to donate? You brought them into the situation to be biologically dependent on it to survive (though, technically, with pregnancy women are only 50% at fault) so if biolocical needs trump self-determination, you theoretically should be forced to donate against your will. It's only stress and inconvenience for you, after all, whereas their right to life is at stake.

Obviously, I vehemently disagree with that concept.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 5:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
But I don't THINK a "blob of cells" formed in a uterus by the combining of human sperm and a human egg becomes a tumor. Does it? And if so, I wouldn't think a "tumor" would cause a positive result on a pregnancy test and thus cause someone to seek an abortion.

Despite the many posted pictures of fetal development gone awry... which- yes- DID cause a positive pregnancy test.... you still think that every fertilized egg resulting in testable pregnancy becomes recognizably human?

I don't understand what you're trying to say here, RIP.

Quote:
So we're sticking with this definition then are we?

Yes, because at an early stage of development that's exactly what it is... a little blob of cell. Full of hope, expectation, and promise, but still just a blob of cells.

After much deep thought I came to a realization many years ago. "Nature" does not conform to our definitions. We think we know what it is to be alive. We think we know what it means to be dead. But what about a deep coma? What is brain dead? What about the lady who started developing rigor, was tested as brain dead, and woke up again? We think we know what it means to be human. We think we know what is non-human? But what about the fertilized egg that only develops as far as a placenta? Or develops a headless baby? We think we know what a particle is. We think we know what a wave is. But what about light? It's both. Or neither.

Nature doesn't fit into the boxes we create. Complex phenomena: life, human-ness, subatomic interactions- often exist on a spectrum. There are areas where they are neither fully one nor the other. Not alive and not dead. Not human but not inhuman. Not a wave but not a particle. Not past but not future. It's a fallacy to mistake our ideas... which are conceptually bright and clear.... for reality.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 5:23 AM

What I'm trying to say is that despite the "gone awry" pictures, they're still recognizably human and can logically result in a positive pregnancy test. At least to me. Just because they are mal-formed doesn't or shouldn't designate them a "tumor". The cells were attempting to form a human fetus, not a tumor. Does that make sense?

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 5:34 AM

BYTEMITE

I'm like Kpo in my "not killing insects" mentality; on the other hand, I read a statistic in an article on the abortion debate in Discover magazine that somewhere around 60% of all fertilized embryos are miscarried before the first trimester, seemingly for no reason.

So I am decidedly in the "can't make up their mind" camp of this issue. Ethically I can't accept either option, and think a different solution is needed. And while abstinence only sex education needs to be ended, and a more comprehensive curriculum introduced, I suspect that the reason most of these women are getting pregnant isn't because they haven't heard of birth control or their partners haven't heard of condoms.

I do lean more pro-choice, not just because it's not feasible to stop abortions, but also because it's a choice about life, the life of the mother and the life of the child. I may not approve of killing the child, but that's not for me to judge, I think. I think that's the choice of the mother, who the child is dependent upon until it can live independently of the mother's vital systems.

I can't really put what my opinion is well into words, but I can say that I agree mostly with Agent Rouka's arguments. However, I also want to add that the particular analogy of a crash victim and organ donation brings up a dangerous moral question. A person shouldn't have to submit to the violation of their bodies because of a mistake, but if it impacts someone else to the point of their lives being in danger, and a choice is made to not help them, is that ethical?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 5:41 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

RIPWash

The point I was making was this: is this a person - with all the rights of one ? (BTW - it completely lacks a brain and upper spinal chord. The eyeballs, which are extentions of the brain, have also not formed, though the eye sockets - which are bones - have. That is why you see empty eye sockets.)

You argue that a fertilized egg should have the same rights as a person. If this is not a person - and I would argue that it is not - at what point between being a fertilized egg with all the rights of personhood and this result do you believe it lost its personhood ?

Furthermore, how many people do you see here ?

Or here ?

And, if you do not see a person in those partially formed twins, does it help you understand the difference between a lump of cells which is only a POTENTIAL person, and an actual one ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 5:44 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The cells were attempting to form a human fetus, not a tumor. Does that make sense?

I think what you're saying is.... in IDEAL circumstances it would have formed a baby. I think the answer is... no, not always. Sometimes the error is at the genetic level. Goes all the way back to fertilization and the very first cell division.

I think I understand what you're saying, but I think you still have the concept of the train at the train station trying to get to the next stop. But genes... they just do what they do. They turn on. They turn off. The human genetic code is actually much simpler than rice, it's not a "blueprint" by any stretch of the imagination, although that is how DNA is popularly taught. each step depends on the successful completion of the previous step, which itself depends on a number of "epigenetic" and extrinsic factors: temperature, hormones, vitamins, metals, mitochondria etc. (But maybe you should as Rue, because I'm not a biologist.) It's hard to imagine something so stochastic resulting in a human, which is why it goes awry so often.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 5:51 AM