Planned Parenthood T-Shirts

[Last Conformist]

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?

The only way to remove that power from the state is to have a supranational body with the power to dictate terms to the state.

And once you subscribe to that, you can kiss your credibility as a right-winger goodbye.

[Ben Kenobi]

Self-awareness is another subjective concept. How do we define what constitutes self-awareness, let alone what actions by an individual constitute a demonstration that the individual is self-aware.

There is plenty of evidence (EEG, monitoring by ultrasound, etc.) that late term fetuses engage in a large variety of actions which are not mere stimulus-response.

I agree, but still, the definition is a poor one since it does not clearly demarcate who should live and who should die, the stark choice of abortion.

[Ben Kenobi]

The only way to remove that power from the state is to have a supranational body with the power to dictate terms to the state.

And once you subscribe to that, you can kiss your credibility as a right-winger goodbye.

I think that the states are given authority over men, rather than taking it for themselves. The state derives their authority from the people, and when the state ceases to serve the people, they no longer have authority over them.

As for an international body, that is replacing one state with a larger one.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think the welfare of the woman is more important than the welfare of an unborn child. My views flow from that.

Is the welfare of the woman more valuable than the life of the child?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Of course it is. It's only the fact that kids look cute in little hats that keeps them away from the definition "vermin".

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course it is. It's only the fact that kids look cute in little hats that keeps them away from the definition "vermin".

Then having a bad day is a justification to kill your child?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

As justifications for killing your child go, it's one of the better ones. It beats "God told me to do it".

[Ben Kenobi]

I think there are better alternatives than abortion.

If you can't take care of your child, give her to someone who does want to take care of her.

What does it say about our country that a woman would have her abortion paid for, yet has to take care of her child without adequate support?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

A foetus ain't a child, Ben. I think it'll take your first experience of miscarriage to set you straight on that point. If it doesn't, I fear for your sanity because it's not a dainty world out there.

[molly bloom]

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

Indeed.

Wait a few years and have God kill the firstborn.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I think that the states are given authority over men, rather than taking it for themselves. The state derives their authority from the people, and when the state ceases to serve the people, they no longer have authority over them.

Theorize about legitimate authority at will; the fact is, the state has that power.

[Ben Kenobi]

Last Conformist

Theorize about legitimate authority at will; the fact is, the state has that power.

A state, without people, is powerless.

The power of the state derives from the support of the people.

Laz

I think it'll take your first experience of miscarriage to set you straight on that point. If it doesn't, I fear for your sanity because it's not a dainty world out there.

Death comes to us all.

Why would we seek to hasten it for some?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

A state, without people, is powerless.

The power of the state derives from the support of the people.

Tell Stalin.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, but they are not distinct from their parents. The sperm are cells of the father, and the eggs are cells of the mother. Special cells, but not distinct from the parents, as the zygote wouldbe.

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?"

At that stage, such organs are not a prerequisite for survival.

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.

The ability to survive is contingent on the environmental conditions. In a sufficiently harsh environment, even the supposedly independent people, would not be able to live on their own.

One then either changes environment directly, adapts to it, or changes location. Of course, if the entire surface of the earth turns to molten lava and the oceans boil away, we're all SOL and the entire point is moot.

No different from the unborn child, in that at that stage, his environment is inside the womb.

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.

Right, but is an abortion clinic an objectively neutral setting for the child?

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."

One could argue that the common law has generally restricted such activities to kill the child inside the womb, which has only changed in recent years.

Of course, one could point out that such actions weren't murder at common law, but lesser offenses, so there was (a) a recognition that the full legal status of being a "person" didn't apply prior to birth; and (b) the law(s) which generally governed such offenses was the law of chattels and that of the master-servant relationship which governed the husband-wife relationship. The issues at common law were not based on a notion of a "right to life" of a "person" not yet born.

The requirement for quickening is more of a limitation of technology, in that they had no way to conclusively prove a pregnancy present, until quickening. Now our technology is more advanced.

Not really - pregancy could be assumed from symptoms, and quickening could be merely assumed as reaching a certain stage of development. 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.

And historically, the common law has granted protection up until the moment when it could be shown that human life existed. Development does not enter the picture.

Wrong. "Protection" changed (at quickening) from none to lesser offenses analogous to damage against chattel or a servant, and (at birth) from such lesser offenses to murder. The common law clearly recognized stages of fetal/neonate development, without having the medical language to explicitly describe those stages. The nature of the legal "protection" changed abrubtly at those stages of development.

Has the unborn child violated any statute of the law warranting a death penalty?

Is the unborn child a threat to anyone else, necessitating self-defense?

I see red herring is in season. 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.

That's not exactly the position of the founders in your Constitution, MtG.

They were idealists. King George III wasn't.

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?

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.

And I think the life of another person constitutes compelling interest, which is why Roe scrupulously avoids the definition of a human person.

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

But are an adult raccoon and adult human the same? If there is no difference between the two zygotes, why are there differences later on? Or are there very real differences in the zygotes which manifest themselves more obviously as they develop?

The only difference is the DNA sequencing of a single celled organism. What it would become later is irrelevant to what it is at the moment.

The pill eh?

Because that is not the sole purpose of using the pill.

I'll try that as a defense to murder - 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.

People can use the pill without knowing that the pill can cause early abortions, in altering the tissue of the endometrium so as to prevent the implantation of a conceived embryo.

{Sam Waterston voice}The knowledge is widely and readily available. They acted with depraved indifference.


If a conceived zygote is a "person" why is taking a pill without knowledge of how the pill works a defense to killing the zygote? In fact, let's get to early prenatal care and healthy lifestyles. 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.

A better course would be to require all contraceptives to remove all abortifacient side-effects in order to be approved for use.

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

Why? Because they don't look the way that we expect people to look like after they are born?

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's a poor argument. The person looks different because that is how they are supposed to look at that stage of development.

Looks aren't the issue. Structure is.

Just use unborn child and avoid that complication altogether.

It's not an unborn child until late fetal development.

But this depends on the environment. If I were at the north pole, then I would not be able to survive on my own without prior preparations.

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

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Last Conformist



A state, without people, is powerless.

The power of the state derives from the support of the people.

There are people all over the place. Most of them had nothing to do with the formation of the states which hold power over them.

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