« Dump Trump? (updated 2aug15) | Main | ‘A Rose by any other name …’ »

29 July 2015

Comments

Gregory

I support the right of a woman to decide to kill the developing human inside her, or, more precisely, I do not personally grant the government the power to stop her, her doctor or her pharmacist from doing it or to punish them for it... most of the time.

I think it's truly not the government's business in the first trimester (or thereabouts), and it's within the government's power to see to an informed consent in the 2nd trimester. Third trimester... bets are off. It's a baby (lest we forget, fetus is latin not for lump of tissue in the womb, it's latin for BABY) and I think the ethics are similar to those for separating conjoined twins. A normal delivery is dangerous to a woman, and she should not be forced to bear, for example, an anencephalic baby or one suffering other heartbreaking, severe birth defect that dooms the child. Exactly where to draw the line is beyond my ken, not to mention that of the Congress.

An addendum: "truly not the government's business" should include not paying for elective abortions.

Account Deleted

Patricia at 10:04: "Scott, you are a very rude dude that always resorts to belittling anyone who disagrees with you."
Well - that's patently untrue, but you seem to like to make baseless accusations against me. I believe that to be rude.
You are the one that said that abortion should never be used as a substitute for birth control and then said that you believe that women have the right to do precisely that. So which is it?

Account Deleted

Greg at 10:57 - "I support the right of a woman to decide to kill the developing human inside her, or, more precisely, I do not personally grant the government the power to stop her,..."
Interesting - In other words, you support killing an innocent, live human being based on it's age and location.
"I think it's truly not the government's business in the first trimester (or thereabouts),..."
Please explain the magic of the first trimester vs later on.

Patricia Smith

Well Gregory, alert the press. We are in agreement.

Gregory

"Interesting - In other words, you support killing an innocent, live human being based on it's age and location."

No, no support for killing an innocent whatsoever (or else I'd possibly support the government paying), just an acceptance that pregnancy carries a physical risk to the mother (not to mention psychological and economic) and there damned well be a bona fide crime before we send a cop with a gun to arrest someone. Otherwise, it isn't law enforcement's business.

Scott, imagine a cop coming across an abortionist about to do the deed to a willing pregnant adult woman. Should the cop shoot if that's the only way to stop the act? Does it matter if it's a first trimester embryo vs a healthy, full term baby?

No magic about trimesters.

Gregory

"Well Gregory, alert the press. We are in agreement."

Probably not.

I also think the government shouldn't pay for elective abortions in whole or in part, I think spouses (or in the case of a pregnant minor child, their parents) should be notified before the procedure and I think culpable parties at Planned Parenthood, StemExpress and any other parties that may be involved in selling fetal body parts (and even "intact fetal cadavers"), or failed to follow the best procedures for the health of the woman in order to maximize value of the "tissue", should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Account Deleted

"Should the cop shoot if that's the only way to stop the act?"
'The act' being the taking of an innocent human life.
The only difference is that it's currently legal, so obviously the cop does nothing. If it were illegal, I doubt the cop would have to shoot anybody. However, don't cops currently shoot if necessary to stop murder?
So - since there is no magic in trimesters please tell me what is the difference in human life going from one trimester to another that makes it OK to kill in the first 3 months but not the next.

Gregory

Belief in a fertilized egg as a human life that has the same standing as a living, breathing sentient human life is a religious tenet, and we don't have a state religion. Sorry, Scott. The police generally don't have to shoot tax cheats, either, but taxes are still collected at the point of a gun. Such is the power of the state.

You're in the same "if it's good, subsidize it, if it's bad, make it illegal" trap that the progressive left is mired in, just a different zip code.

No, a zygote does not have the same rights as a adult female... and by a right, I mean a right as in the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution... the State doesn't have the power to impose their will, nor mine, nor yours. Ben Carson mentioned he has separated conjoined twins. Powerful stuff, life and death. Medical ethics are sticklers for separating such living, breathing human beings.

Third trimester abortions are particular hideous, but what do you do if a medically fragile mother is carrying a third trimester anencephalitic child. If you don't know what that is, google. Look carefully at the pictures.

Now tell me the police should arrest her and her doctor if they conspired to save her life at the expense of a life that had no future, nor hope of consciousness. Just how far are you willing to go to impose your religion on others?

George Rebane

According to my lights Gregory's 435pm third trimester quandary as stated has a simple solution - sacrifice the tragically defective child and save the fragile mother. Harder problems arise when both are healthy, and the mother does not want to be inconvenienced with a (yet another?) child.
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2012/10/abortion-and-the-two-bodies-problem.html

Account Deleted

Ah - we get to the gist of the matter.
"Belief in a fertilized egg as a human life that has the same standing as a living, breathing sentient human life is a religious tenet, and we don't have a state religion."
Well - it might be to some. Rape is also held as evil as a religious tenet, as it is for the non-religious. I believe in the sanctity and preservation of innocent human life. Big deal. Every one's on board so far. Has nothing to do with any one's religion, necessarily. Even atheists believe in that. Now we start backing up, as it relates to the age of the human being. Remember that our current pres was not against the idea of letting a fully born full term baby die on the operating table. Now we go back a bit in age and Gregory says it's (third trimester) "particular(ly) hideous". Hmmmm - seems that the optics are coming into play, here. So the morality or whatever of killing a human is (at least) somewhat dependant on how messy or clinically clean and antiseptic the actual deed is performed? Interesting.
Now -
"No, a zygote does not have the same rights as a adult female... and by a right, I mean a right as in the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution..."
But a Zygote is just a term for a certain stage of development of a human being the same as toddler or adolescent or even premie. They are, scientifically, just as human as you or I. Nothing but age separates us from those you would deny civil rights.
You say a zygote does not possess these rights and I understood that from your last posting. I will again ask why not? It is not enough to say that they do not just because they don't.
"but what do you do if a medically fragile mother is carrying a third trimester anencephalitic child."
Here is where you are getting desperate and flailing.
Adding to that is the snotty and condescending tone of "If you don't know what that is, google."
I'm way ahead of you, pal. It's you that needs to catch up.
Finally -
"Now tell me the police should arrest her and her doctor if they conspired to save her life at the expense of a life that had no future, nor hope of consciousness. Just how far are you willing to go to impose your religion on others?"
I have already told you that since it is legal, the officer won't do anything, as he won't be even called to the scene.
I am not trying to impose my religion on anyone.
I never said I was anti abortion.
There are good reasons for abortion, but it seems that this subject causes many of you to hyperventilate and go off in a tizzy. Patricia was not able to answer my questions and I see that Gregory can not or will not answer my questions.

Gregory

Scott, you've not answered any of mine, and your "I have already told you that since it is legal, the officer won't do anything" because your arguements have been about how it should be illegal because it's murder. My posers are how you would handle the issue.

George (6:42) of course, but I was hoping Scott would figure it out.

Account Deleted

Gregory - I had thought I had answered your question. You didn't stipulate how the authorities should handle the situation based on something other than our current reality.
It's not murder if it's not illegal.
Since you won't provide the details of your hypothetical situation that you wish me to comment on, it becomes difficult for me to provide an answer.
Part of the problem is that you are making a lot of assumptions about my views on the matter that are not based on reality but rather your preconceived ideas.
I didn't bring religion into this, you did.
I never said I was anti abortion.
I never said I was against a woman having an abortion in order to save her life. In fact, I believe I had already stated that in a previous post.
I'm not sure why you are fixating on some kind of scenario where cops are bursting into an operating room with guns blazing. It is currently illegal for late term abortions in most states and we have the example of Dr Gosnell to see how these cases are handled. Why would it be any different in a scenario if it were to become illegal to perform a first trimester abortion if the reason for the procedure was simply convenience of the mother?
I hope that answers your question.

Todd Juvinall

Planned Parenthood will go down in history as the true real life zombie of America.

Gregory

"It is currently illegal for late term abortions in most states and we have the example of Dr Gosnell to see how these cases are handled. Why would it be any different in a scenario if it were to become illegal to perform a first trimester abortion if the reason for the procedure was simply convenience of the mother?"

Why indeed. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” comes to mind. Women found a way when they were illegal, and it's doubtful, if you caught one who found a way after Roe v Wade got repealed (good luck wid dat) that you could find a jury that would convict for murder.

Lets repeat the question I failed to make obvious enough for you to understand. Halting a pregnancy after an egg gets fertilized is made illegal, another kind of murder, as you have apparently suggested. A murderous pregnant woman and a murderous doctor are about to evict the unviable embryo from the womb. A policeman arrives, unable to stop the procedure but with a line of sight to the abortionist. Do they shoot?

You see, my dear Scott, just as making perjury illegal doesn't stop lying under oath, and making car theft doesn't stop cars from being stolen, making 1st trimester abortions illegal doesn't stop 1st trimester abortions. They used to be illegal in many states and when Margaret Sanger was living in Tucson, she counseled women to go across the border into California as it was easier than finding an MD to do it and safer than having an amateur do it.

In short, making bad stuff illegal doesn't stop people from doing bad stuff. The threat of guys with a badge and a gun making life miserable makes people stop doing bad stuff.

Tell me, you gun nuts (and I know you're out there), if Governor Brown or President Obama made one of your guns illegal tomorrow, a Felony, would you turn it in for destruction or would you coat it in the modern version of cosmoline, bag it up and find a place to hide it? Why do you think a woman desperate to terminate a pregnancy she did not want and cannot afford (on many different levels) would act less in her own self interest than you?

Account Deleted

"...evict the unviable embryo from the womb."
Why is it 'unviable'? Are you talking about an embryo that will not live to term because of a defect?
"In short, making bad stuff illegal doesn't stop people from doing bad stuff. The threat of guys with a badge and a gun making life miserable makes people stop doing bad stuff."
Wow - stop the presses. Gee Gregory - don't you think I don't already know that? Did you bother to then carry this sort of reasoning out to its end?
Why make anything illegal? Because according to Gregory the cops have to shoot every one for every infraction. I don't know how many times I have to tell you - I realize it's legal and I realize most folks want to keep it that way. I'm not out at the PP running around with a placard.
And you still won't (or can't) answer my question about why you think a first trimester human (zygote, fertilized egg, whatever) has no rights and at some certain time known only to Gregory, it now has rights.
Just curious.
The question about guns is not germane as we have the Constitutional right to possess them. In NY state there has been paltry compliance of their new gun law.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/23/not-many-people-obeying-new-york-state-a
For you to try to lecture me about folks not complying with laws they disagree with is like you trying to lecture Inuits about cold weather.
I believe in human rights and I believe those rights apply to one and all. There are no women's rights or gay rights or animal rights - only human rights. I like to be alive and enjoy my life. It is only reasonable that I should extend that to all other humans. I know with reasonable certainty when human life begins and I see no reason not to extend the rights I enjoy all the way back to when human life begins. Neither Gregory or Patricia (or anyone else, for that matter) has ever advanced any evidence that would have me question that belief. There are, sadly, reasons for abortion such as preeclampsia. Since it can kill the mother and hence, the child, ending the pregnancy is necessary.

RL Crabb

I'll answer the question: The decision to outlaw abortion after the first trimester, thereby denying personhood to the fetus before that time, would be a political compromise that would satisfy neither side of the argument. It might save some lives in the long run. It would be the kind of compromise that rational people in a working democracy might make, if the nation hadn't run to the far corners of absolutism.

Gregory


"Why is it 'unviable'?"

It's a word that has a definition, Scott. It tends to go along with 1st trimester development.

viable: having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.


"For you to try to lecture me about folks not complying with laws they disagree..."

Yet another straw man. I'm trying to lecture you about what a "right" actually is.


"I know with reasonable certainty when human life begins and I see no reason not to extend the rights I enjoy all the way back to when human life begins."

SOME of the religious know with certainty, the rest don't know with certainty and think the pregnant adult woman has the lion's share of the decision power on a case by case basis. Their case.

So, a morning after pill which keeps a fertilized egg interferes with the right of the zygote to attach to the mom?

George Rebane

Ah yes, here we go around the barn with no common acceptance of what is a 'right'. As an operational definition whose verity is confirmed daily, I offer 'privilege' and 'right' for helping the discussion to proceed on a commonly understood basis.
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/03/rights-and-privileges.html

RLCrabb 303pm - Pray, what defines the progressives' "corner of absolutism" regarding abortion and the beginning of human life?

RL Crabb

George 3:51pm -You have to ask? They can't talk about it, period.

George Rebane

RLCrabb 424pm - Then I'm puzzled as to how any kind of compromise is possible, even among willing parties, when one party will not state from the outset what its druthers are. If you don't know the divergent starting points, how do you know you're going toward a compromise (save perhaps by playing 20-questions with the recalcitrant party)?

RL Crabb

Oh, really? From what I could see of the Republican field, even rape babies and deformed fetuses will have to be brought to term. That's not absolutism?

Jon

Patricia,
Agreed on comment about Scott. A very cold hearted, hard person without empathy for much.
Much better off in Idaho.

Jon

News flash:
Parts of fetal tissue has been sold for research for a long time. Even way, way, WAY before we had an African American President.

The whole PPP affair is bogus. There is nothing new except for crass comments from staffers, who should probably be disciplined.

Gregory

"A RIGHT is a codified permission to do, be, or have that is granted by an agency to its member individuals/agencies who have formed and maintain the granting agency to carry out their collective will in a manner that requires the agency to expend all necessary resources to insure that such granted rights are enjoyed uniformly by all of its franchised members."

George, so the 2nd Amendment is a codified permission to have that is granted by the USA to its citizens?

I would argue it to be a limit on the power of Federal and State and local governments to infringe said right. And my right to speak, and to assemble, and petition the government, it not a permission to do so in the Bill of Rights; it is a commandment to governments at all levels to not interfere.

Account Deleted

A first trimester fetus needs to be inside of the womb. The idea that it is worth less than another fetus because of that is rather strange. A 2 year old has certain needs. If we were to remove the 2 year old from the availability of having those needs met, then it would not be 'viable'. So it's OK to kill a 2 year old? What kind of disjointed reasoning arrives at that conclusion. "SOME of the religious know with certainty, the rest don't know with certainty and think the pregnant adult woman has the lion's share of the decision power on a case by case basis. Their case."
Why do you keep injecting religion into this discussion? My certainty rests on medical science. If the rest don't know then why should we listen to them? The idea that life begins on a whim of the mother is without any logical foundation. Are you going to tell me that human life is considered over on the same sort of whim? And if not, why not?
And you still have not answered my question. I'm beginning to think you really have no idea and are simply parroting existing group-think.

Jon

Religion is injected here because religious Christian anti-abortion conservatives make up 95%+ of the pro-life contingent. The scientific and medical associations are not relatively large blocs of the pro-life movement. Most libertarians with the exception of Mr. Paul, playing desparately to the Repub base, steer clear, as do atheists and agnostics.

George Rebane

RLCrabb 645pm - didn't see an answer to my question there. And don't know the "Republican field" that foster bringing "rape babies and deformed fetuses" to term. We may have watched different debates. But I still don't know what the progressive bookend is to abortion.

Jon 706pm - no "news flash" on that (apparently you didn't read my piece), and that itself is not the issue here. For those who have a hard time connecting, it is the federal government paying for aborting viable human fetuses (then promoting the sale of their parts is just a Lucky Strike extra).

Jon 1019pm - what does the logic argued by ScottO have to do with religion just because of some statistical plurality of religious or medical groups. You should answer his arguments (on the advent of a human being) on their merits and not sidestep them by citing what another cohort believes or does not believe.

Greg 712pm - Important here not to confuse what is a right, and the vehicle of its expression. In the US our Constitution expresses granted rights through the restriction of government powers to abrogate such rights, which are then explicitly granted to states and individuals by the remainder (i.e. omitted restrictions). Unfortunately, not explicitly delineating rights has led to two centuries of litigating as to what are those remaining rights. By many interpretations this factor has been the main force polarizing the collectivists and the classical liberals.

Bill Tozer

Ah, Dr. Rebane, collaralation does not always equate to causation. This has nothing to do with rights.

http://patriotpost.us/posts/36689

George Rebane

BillT 1243am - Yes Mr Tozer, in the days of yore (most certainly biblical times) almost all cultures acknowledged that parents had the right of life and death over their children, and defended that right to the extent that they defended their culture. Today there are fewer such rights granted by cultures, and most certainly not by the societies in which the cultures exist, save perhaps some Islamic ones. And to my knowledge no culture granted the right of gratuitous killing by a parent, it was always for violation of some accepted stricture or desperate familial need. Perhaps that latter is what our 'pro-choice' proponents are hearkening in their arguments.

Bill Tozer

Dr. Rebate, yep. Perhaps us "women haters" here are really saying Black Lives Matter. What a concept, eh?

https://www.facebook.com/RowdyConservatives/photos/a.254420818025296.63999.217926015008110/710392152428158/?type=1&theater

George Rebane

BillT 222pm - You can forget the rebate Mr Tozer, but you're spot on with our message that black lives really do matter.

Gregory

George 11:23PM

No, you got that exactly wrong. The drafting of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are all based on the concept of rights from natural law, not granted rights.

The people had the rights all along; the Constitution was drafted to ceded certain powers to the new central government and the Bill of Rights was added to ensure the new central power was specifically restrained because the anti-Federalists (the libertarians of the day) didn't trust the Feds to stick to the enumerated powers... while the Federalists thought it wasn't needed because the new government wasn't expressly given the powers that would be dangerous.

Ha!

George Rebane

Gregory 924pm - With your first sentence you just ended our conversation about rights. I am talking about operational (i.e. realworld) rights and you are citing philosophical concepts about rights the occasional forfeiture of which has a long and sordid history. But that is your privilege.

Your second paragraph echoes what is well know and what I restated in my 1123pm.

Gregory


If you don't want to converse, that's your decision, George, but natural rights interpretations are quite "operational", thank you:

"Perhaps [D.C. v.] Heller’s deepest affirmation is that it invokes the natural right of self-defense in support of the constitutional right to have firearms. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia cites the historical evidence that the founders intended protection of an individual, not a collective right... And by the way, the court didn’t find that the Second Amendment bestows a right to have guns, as Chemerinsky writes. The Court found that this right was pre-existing, a right that had been there all along. The Second Amendment simply declares that it “shall not be infringed.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/224903/ancient-right-timothy-wheeler

George Rebane

Gregory 845am – you have now expanded and confused the discussion of rights from the crisp operational definition I have provided for privileges and rights (see my 351pm), to the several possible vehicles for expressing and memorializing rights, and now to the several legitimizing bases and origins of rights, with the latter bringing in the notion of ‘natural rights’. Each of these is a separate and independent area of enquiry regarding the overall concept of how rights are perceived/confused in our society. Discussing the latter two without an operational definition of what is a ‘right’ joins us with the fruitless cacophony that we have witnessed in the ‘rights explosion’, and the confusions that have kept lawyers well fed for years.

But I am interested in discussing the realworld implementation of what is formally expressed by some agency as a right, and the dynamics of how such rights appear and disappear over time within any given jurisdiction (e.g. nation-state). Operational rights and privileges are expressed in a contract between agents, are exercised within a defined region, and exist only to the extent that the right granting agent can/will carry out its contractual obligations. All operational rights are existentially maintained and exercised only within a political framework, and almost all rights stop at the border – the exception being the granting agent’s ability and willingness to project power beyond its jurisdictional borders. To use/impose the term 'rights' in any other manner is usually a form of practiced perfidy in order to induce otherwise difficult to extract behaviors.

I am not interested in whether someone claims God’s or Gaia’s or Caesar’s word as the legitimizing principle behind any given right. Nor am I interested in what documents and repositories certain rights were first expressed or are now memorialized. I maintain that the operational definition of existential rights is as I have delineated here (link below), and am very interested in yet another productive critique of these definitions of ‘privilege’ and ‘right’. (The current definitions have been refined over my years in academe and in the company of well-read confreres and colleagues. Perhaps we can here improve them some more through a disciplined discourse; it’s worth a try.)
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/03/rights-and-privileges.html

After having achieved a common understanding of what is an existential right, it may be productive to then discuss the sources of rights, their intrinsic legitimacy, their role in organizing a stable beneficent society, their codification, methods of expression, inclusion in education, realistic granting agent/agency policies for the maintenance of rights, … But staying focused has always proved hard, as years of these comment streams attest.

Gregory

"Crisp operational definitions" that are incorrect aren't terribly interesting to me, George.

"RIGHT –
1. is a codified permission to do, be, or have"

No, and I've given you one example (thank you, Antonin Scalia) of an existing right that was and still is not "codified".

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad