Planned Parenthood T-Shirts

[Ben Kenobi]

Interests don't necessarily give rise to rights, and the terms are not synonomous in law. There is also a difference between a party actually having a particular right or interest, or merely asserting that they do so.

Why then would the interest of the mother in the preservation of bodily integrity be considered a right, and the interest in the preservation of the life of the unborn child not be considered a right?

The decision to dissociate oneself from a native tribe is a matter of behavior, not of status, therefore it is supremely illogical to use it as a basis to determine one's legal status as a human being.

What if one believed, that one cannot dissociate from a tribe, any more than one can dissociate from their family? I'm sure the natives would argue on different grounds, why tribal membership ought to have no bearing on personhood, rather than the purely 'emotional' grounds that such dissociation would entail.

I'm thinking along the lines, that regardless of tribal membership, it does not fundamentally alter their nature as persons.

The framework created in Roe is limited to the single purpose of determining whether there are separate competing rights such that the state can assert a protective interest independent of the woman carrying the fetus.

Yes, but this standard is one based merely on gestational age, which has no bearing on their nature as persons. Just as age does not make you more of a person when you are already born, why should it make you less of one before you are born?

It seems to me that while the framework elucidates an interest of the state in the unborn child, they cite an arbitrary definition to define whether the interests are compelling.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Sava
I want a shirt that says, "YOU should have been a choice."

(I'm not referring to anyone here... I mean YOU in a general sense)

It seems to me a t-shirt like that would actually be supporting anti-abortionists. Think of all the great people we've never had in this world because of abortion.

We probably killed the guy who will come up with a cure for cancer.

I'm not anti-abortion, but sometimes I wonder...

[Sava]

Originally posted by Dissident


It seems to me a t-shirt like that would actually be supporting anti-abortionists. Think of all the great people we've never had in this world because of abortion.

We probably killed the guy who will come up with a cure for cancer.

I'm not anti-abortion, but sometimes I wonder...

A fetus hasn't accomplished anything. People's accomplishments are the result of their life experience, not their simple existence. By that line of logic, we could just as easily be aborting psychopathic killers. I mean, if you think about it, killers and criminals often have ****ty childhoods. What kind of childhood would being an unwanted child be? As I've said before, I would rather not be born at all then be born to a mother that doesn't love me. I can't imagine how ****ed up someone would be if their mother didn't want them to exist. My gut tells me that aborted babies would more likely be messed up and possibly criminals than Einsteins.

[MRT144]

reminds me of a sticker:

your fetus could have been president

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Azazel
I think this is turning into another one of those stalemate/mastrubation threads. So I'll just point out my pov and then leave. I'll return tomorrow, though.

See, that's where this thread comes in:

End All Be All to Repetitive OT Discussions

[Ben Kenobi]

My gut tells me that aborted babies would more likely be messed up and possibly criminals than Einsteins.

Why condemn the child before you know?

Why not wait and see?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MRT144
reminds me of a sticker:

your fetus could have been president

A 35-year-old fetus (probably) wouldn't make a very good president.

[Dinner]

It would probably smell bad too.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why then would the interest of the mother in the preservation of bodily integrity be considered a right, and the interest in the preservation of the life of the unborn child not be considered a right?

Uh, because the mother is a person in all legal meanings, and the zygote/embryo/fetus (depending on it's developmental state) is not.

What if one believed, that one cannot dissociate from a tribe, any more than one can dissociate from their family? I'm sure the natives would argue on different grounds, why tribal membership ought to have no bearing on personhood, rather than the purely 'emotional' grounds that such dissociation would entail.

I'm thinking along the lines, that regardless of tribal membership, it does not fundamentally alter their nature as persons.

Belief is irrelevant. In the indian case (Standing Bear v. Crook), the issue of tribal association was a technical issue of standing to sue. Under the law of the time, an indian had no individual rights other than such rights as might be conveyed or agreed upon by the United States to such tribe as a whole. Standing Bear took the position that he renounced his association to any tribe, and thus could not be relegated to a collective and inferior status as a member of the tribe.

Yes, but this standard is one based merely on gestational age, which has no bearing on their nature as persons.

I suggest you study some biology. You've decided the issue on religious grounds, and now you simply adjust the meaning of terminology and concepts of biology to fit what you've already decided. One's "nature" as a "person" is a subjective concept. The biological condition of an undifferentiated cell or a 3-day embryo is different from that of a 15 week fetus, or a full term fetus. Once you get out into the third trimester, the distinctions become extremely arbitrary, but they are not so earlier in gestation - say before the fetus has a brain or vertebrae.

Just as age does not make you more of a person when you are already born, why should it make you less of one before you are born?

Nice strawman - there is no legal concept of "more of a person" or "less of a person." Is this something like "more pregnant" or "less pregnant?"

You are a person, or you are not. It's a legal term. Prior to birth, you are not.

It seems to me that while the framework elucidates an interest of the state in the unborn child, they cite an arbitrary definition to define whether the interests are compelling.

The only thing arbitrary about "viability" is that on the margins, it is subject to legitimate differences of expert opinion. I'm not pro-abortion, mind you, and I think the standard in Roe goes too late into pregnancy, but the non-arbitrary alternative is "any time before birth." The advantage to viability as a standard is that medical technology can push that date back. As a standard, it makes some sense (more than any other alternative), in that pre-viability it's very hard to build a rationale for a superior set of rights on behalf of something that can not exist independently of, or outside the body of, a single specific individual.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Why condemn the child before you know?

Why not wait and see?

Well, aside from the fascist nature about restricting reproductive rights... there's the fact that we are living in a society. And somehow, MORE unwanted children doesn't sound like a good thing.

Plus, it's survival of the fittest. Nobody has a right to live.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
fine, as far as i'm concerned, "potential human being" has a time limit of a year from conception. so if your mole lasted longer than a year, che, and still hasn't become a human, it doesn't pass the test. a fetus, however, that isn't aborted, and does get born within a year, does pass it.

Why a year? Eggs fertilised in virto can be kept in a suspended state almost indefinitely.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
At conception you have the genetic code required to grow and develop, as a person distinct from either parent, a characteristic not possessed by sperm, and retained by the child throughout their life.

Again, potential human beings are not actual beings.

Since all of us have the potential to be criminals, does that mean we all needed to be locked up?

[Q Classic]

Why a year? Eggs fertilised in virto can be kept in a suspended state almost indefinitely.

either you love being an ass, or you just like trying to find loopholes.
fine.

an addendum. it has to have a time limit of a year and has to be inside of a female human's body during that year. an in vitro fertilized egg, not being inside of a human's body, would pass the test save for the fact that it is not implanted in a womb, and therefore avoids the entire issue of abortion by virtue of it not being involved in any way with the issues surrounding abortion, that of it being inside a woman's body and her right to choose whether or not she has a baby inside of her.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Why a year? Eggs fertilised in virto can be kept in a suspended state almost indefinitely.

either you love being an ass, or you just like trying to find loopholes.
fine.

No, it's just that I found your set of criteria arbitrary.

Originally posted by Q Cubed
it has to have a time limit of a year and has to be inside of a female human's body during that year.

This set. You can keep adding conditions until the set has been narrowed down to your satisfication. This does not mean these conditions are reasonable and/or logical.

Originally posted by Q Cubed
an in vitro fertilized egg, not being inside of a human's body, would pass the test save for the fact that it is not implanted in a womb, and therefore avoids the entire issue of abortion by virtue of it not being involved in any way with the issues surrounding abortion, that of it being inside a woman's body and her right to choose whether or not she has a baby inside of her.

I don't see how this is a counterargument wrt to certain entities being "potential human beings."

[Q Classic]

This set. You can keep adding conditions until the set has been narrowed down to your satisfication. This does not mean these conditions are reasonable and/or logical.

i am adding more conditions until it satisfies you. my original definition suited me just fine, thank you.

I don't see how this is a counterargument wrt to certain entities being "potential human beings."

i don't see how my position somehow offends you. i see abortion as a wrong, but that it cannot be banned or legislated yet.

so what is this, i take **** from the fervet pro-life crowd and i take **** from the fervent pro-choice crowd.

**** this ****, man. **** all of you *******s, because really, this is why moderates get disinterested in politics. it's hard enough to try and justify your positions, but for ****'s sake, at least you retards who firmly believe just one side of the whole ****ing black-or-white world of nothing but shades of grey only have to defend against one idiot side.