Planned Parenthood T-Shirts

[Ben Kenobi]

Each is genetically unique. Do you think zygotes, embryos and fetuses conceived by artificial insemination should have the same rights as those conceived naturally? i.e. the method by which the DNA is combined is irrelevant to their "nature as persons?"

Yes.

Why would I think otherwise?

Part of the opposition to IVF of the Catholic church stems from the fact that many of the embryos created by IVF are killed. This only makes sense if one believes that the method of their conception is irrelevant to their status as a person.

They're a prerequisite for survival as an independent entity, i.e. as a separate person. If you want to argue that the zygote or embryo is simply a genetically distinct cell mass that is an integral part of a womans body and dependent on it for it's continued existence, that's ok.

How many eyes does a pregnant woman have, Mtg?

Even while the unborn child is genetically distinct, and dependent on her mother for survival, it does not mean that she is an integral part of her body.

In fact, I could argue that an organ is an integral part of the human body, but it is not genetically distinct from the body. Therefore, the first statement contradicts the second.

Actually, very different - in your first scenario, there is the option to change the environment or location. Inside the womb, there is no internal or external possibility of changing the environment or transplanting to a different environment until viability.

Without transportation, such capacity would also be unavailable to us.

If the "child" can walk out, be carried out, or be delivered and sustained separately from the woman's body carrying the child, then certainly. Otherwise, you don't have a "child."

A child cannot be delivered, except through the assistence of others. And even afterwards, the infant relies upon his mother for survival, and for nourishment.

Yet, we consider the infant a child and the embryo not to be a child.

Independence is irrelevant to personhood.

The issues at common law were not based on a notion of a "right to life" of a "person" not yet born.

Very true. Which is why a new law would be the extension of prior laws in affirming the personhood of the unborn, as the prior laws affirmed the personhood of women, and of other races.

Women had figured out that puking in the morning and missing one's period were pretty likely indicators way before quickening. Not 100% indicators, but commonly reliable indicators.

Granted. However, there are other causes of missing a period, and for puking in the morning. Such events would also require some indication of sexual activity in order to reasonably postulate a pregnancy.

And I think it's rather difficult to prove the last condition in court.

We were discussing the power of the state to define for itself it's prerogatives for taking life, not any actions by a fetus, which by definition can't violate any statutes, since it's not a legal person.

Right, but they are valid responses to your herring, since they bring the discussion back to the real point, as to whether or not the unborn ought to be considered persons.

If they are persons, then the state does not have the right to take away their life, since they do not fall under the common categories in which the state justifies the taking of human life.

It's also a subtle point that distinguishes prolifers from each other. I just prefer to affirm that the state has no such right to take human life, but that is not something on which everyone agrees.

They were idealists. King George III wasn't.

Good thing Idealism trumps Realism in this case, eh?

The state de facto has those powers - martial law, states of emergency, wartime powers, or mere tyranny. The only ultimate "remedy" if the state is not responsive to the expressed desires of the people is the remedy of rebellion.

Which affirms my point. The state, without the support of the people, will fall to a revolution of the people, and their authority will be stripped.

Actually, Roe avoids the definition because the legislatures and common law have defined it - at birth.

So, does this mean that the legislatures can redefine this definition, regardless of the participation of the courts? That should they choose to do so, they can nullify Roe, without facing a constitutional challenge, by defining personhood to begin at conception?

That's an interesting strategy MtG.

The only difference is the DNA sequencing of a single celled organism.

Which affirms what I'm trying to say, that the distinction exists at conception.

Gee, your honor, killing my neighbors wasn't my sole purpose in demolishing the building they lived in while they slept, I really just wanted to improve my view of downtown and Mission Bay.

If people are not informed of the abortifacient side-effect of the pill, and the pill providers do not readily provide such information, then they cannot be held at fault for pursuing such an option.

The knowledge is widely and readily available. They acted with depraved indifference.

Is there a requirement that those who prescribe the pill, to provide this evidence? There are plenty of people who are unaware of this connection, or this side effect.

If it's a child, let's go prosecute any woman who engages in behavior we consider risky for early embryonic and fetal development. Why not? It's at least consistent with the view that the conceived zygote is a legal person and the state has a compelling interest in that "person's" life and well-being.

Why use a mailed fist, when a velvet glove will work just as well?

Removing the abortifacient side-effect accomplishes the end desired, which is to prevent the early abortions caused by the pill.

If the woman seeks a later abortion, you prosecute the providers of abortion services, since they profit off their enterprise, and as doctors, can easily be said to be aware of their profession.

Well, first we'd better outlaw the existing ones, require women to turn them in, and hunt down and destroy these WMDs.

Tackle the supply end. Birth control pills lose their effectiveness quickly.

It has nothing to do with looks. It has to do with the presence of essential parts. Maybe I should sell you a car without an engine and transmission for full price. It's the same car, just at a different stage of development.

That illustrates a very good point. What are the essential parts of a human person? Unlike the car, replacing the parts, does not change the person. That's why I think that our DNA, if not embodying the essential part, represents the part since we retain that throughout our life.

Since you're not there now, you presumably had some means to get there and supplies to consume while you were on the way.

Same with the unborn child. She needs supplies before she will be ready to get there.

And her transportation is not yet ready either.

[Ben Kenobi]

All a state needs is enough thugs to keep the masses in line and enforce it's will.

Thugs are people too.

[Ben Kenobi]

Tell Stalin.

He already knows.

I don't see his state around here anymore.

[Kuciwalker]

It lasted as long as he was alive.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I think there are better alternatives than abortion.

Yes there are. Unfortunately people get knocked up, often through no fault of their own, and don't always want to go through with the pregnancy for a variety of reasons.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Do you really want to give the state arbitrary powers with respect to human rights, the ability to grant and to nullify them at will?

Human rights apply only to human beings.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Death comes to us all.

Why would we seek to hasten it for some?

Because we care less about them and/or consider the benefits associated with ending their life outweigh the consequences of it continuing. Of course.

Exactly the same as in the case of the death penalty, euthanasia, eugenics, religious martyrdom, termination of ectopic pregnancies and critical operations on conjoined twins, in fact. However you already knew that, so why ask the question? Rhetoric?

[Ben Kenobi]

Unfortunately people get knocked up, often through no fault of their own, and don't always want to go through with the pregnancy for a variety of reasons.

I'm thinking this would only apply in rape. Contraceptive failure goes with the territory. If you're going to have sex, you should be able to take care of a baby.

Why is this concept hard to understand?

[Ben Kenobi]

Exactly the same as in the case of the death penalty, euthanasia,

Because we care less about them and/or consider the benefits associated with ending their life outweigh the consequences of it continuing.

So which is it in the case of abortion? Is it just because we care about them less, or is it better that we kill them because they can be used for other purposes?

Rather callous.

I can hardly see you saying that your mom or dad ought to die because they are expendable to society.

[Docfeelgood]

Answer: .038 S@W


Question: What is the most effective means of birth controle?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Human rights apply only to human beings.

Do you want to argue that? Because clearly, after conception it is a human being. Merely one at a very early stage of development.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Contraceptive failure goes with the territory. If you're going to have sex, you should be able to take care of a baby.

Why is this concept hard to understand?

For someone who spouts off so much on the subject of gay sex and sexuality, you don't seem to have a grasp of the mechanics or motivation of human sexuality at all.

By the way- sex for pleasure is not sex for procreation. Is not even sex with the likelihood of an embryo being produced, unless of course you say this because you have shares in a baby milk formula company or Mothercare.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So which is it in the case of abortion? Is it just because we care about them less, or is it better that we kill them because they can be used for other purposes?

Rather callous.

Like I said, it's not a dainty world- why attempt to force daintiness on others?

I can hardly see you saying that your mom or dad ought to die because they are expendable to society.

If you knew what my family life was like, you probably wouldn't have ventured that gambit.

[Alexander's Horse]

ben should get "every sperm is sacred" T-shirt

Cos that is really what this is really about.

[Ted Striker]

Those bullets make babies.


If AH counted all the times he used to hit it as a young stud, we could field an army with his potential offspring.

Definitley wear a jimmysack fellas and don't be wreckless.