05 Jun 09
Originally posted by ScriabinIn divorce cases, do you believe the state should represent the children? I personally don't think so, for the same reasons you gave here.
you miss the point as so many people do
the question of what the fetus is and when is quite irrelevant in my view
the only question is whether the government has a compelling interest to interfere in a woman's right to choose medical care for her own body.
all this consideration of morality and responsibility presupposes something rather important ...[text shortened]... support this view or you allow theocracy -- it is much more than merely the camel's nose.
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by joe beyserthat's a horse of a different color.
In divorce cases, do you believe the state should represent the children? I personally don't think so, for the same reasons you gave here.
who represents the children otherwise?
the children are not part of someone else's body.
they therefore have distinct interests that exist apart from either or both parents.
this is a case by case matter.
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by ScriabinBecause I want to make absolutely clear that I don't misunderstand or misrepresent your position.
do you not understand what I wrote?
why do you ask this question?
If I've read your posts correctly, you don't believe that government may ascribe any limitation whatsoever to abortion at any stage of pregnancy. If, while 10 cm dilated and pushing and about give birth in 5 minutes, a woman suddenly decides that she doesn't want the baby, she has the absolute right to ask the doctor or a bystander to reach in and crush the baby's skull. Furthermore, the state may not limit this in any capacity.
I'm just trying be clear in what your position is before I decide whether and how to respond.
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by uzlessWe're talking about whether the US Supreme Court is liberal enough on abortion.
what are we talking about here and which side is losing?
I think the 1992 Casey decision (pre-viability: no "undue burden" on abortions; post-viability: states can prohibit or regulate abortions except where the life or health of the mother is at stake) is plenty liberal, thank you. Sciarbin thinks there should be no government interference with abortions, period.
Who's losing? It's not the kind of debate you can really win or lose. It's a matter of opinion.
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by ScriabinI think you're missing the point. Before conception, there is no person, and after birth, there is definitely a person. At some point, the non-person becomes a person, and that needs to be recognized because persons have rights. The question only boils down to whether the state has a compelling interest in interfering with a woman's right to choose medical care for her own body when said woman is carrying a non-person. Once she's carrying a person, it's a whole other ball game.
you miss the point as so many people do
the question of what the fetus is and when is quite irrelevant in my view
the only question is whether the government has a compelling interest to interfere in a woman's right to choose medical care for her own body.
all this consideration of morality and responsibility presupposes something rather important ...[text shortened]... support this view or you allow theocracy -- it is much more than merely the camel's nose.
The real question is when does the non-person become a person? Unfortunately, it's almost (totally?) impossible to answer, so the state must make a reasonable compromise to place the line somewhere between zygote and baby.
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76Not liberal enough!! LOL.
We're talking about whether the US Supreme Court is liberal enough on abortion.
I think the 1992 Casey decision (pre-viability: no "undue burden" on abortions; post-viability: states can prohibit or regulate abortions except where the life or health of the mother is at stake) is plenty liberal, thank you. Sciarbin thinks there should be no government interfe ...[text shortened]... losing? It's not the kind of debate you can really win or lose. It's a matter of opinion.
I am just waiting for the day that the Supremes rule that conservatives are not fully formed and developed life forms and can be done with as you please.
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by PBE6yes -- this is THE issue
I think you're missing the point. Before conception, there is no person, and after birth, there is definitely a person. At some point, the non-person becomes a person, and that needs to be recognized because persons have rights. The question only boils down to whether the state has a compelling interest in interfering with a woman's right to choose medical c ...[text shortened]... tate must make a reasonable compromise to place the line somewhere between zygote and baby.
While a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body, she doesn't have the right to do harm to another person's body, even if that person's body happens to be inside of her.
If it's just a bunch of cells, abortion is no more than a healthcare option for the mother -- if it's a person, abortion is murder. Both sides in the debate have to recognize that different people have different definitions of when the fetus becomes a full "person" and that this is a value judgement that no one can "prove". But there does seem to be broad agreement that abortion is in general a bad thing.
But one issue that makes no sense is the ado over "partial birth abortion" -- if the fetus in question is a person, the abortion is murder whether the doctor pulls it out first before killing it, or kills it while still in the womb. If the fetus is not a person, the government has no business dictating how the abortion should be done.
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesCertainly the whole "partial birth abortion" issue is more an emotional issue than anything else. There's probably no logical difference in law between partial birth abortion and death-while-in-the-mother abortion. But it's such a gruesome and upsetting procedure that people are more upset by it than run-of-the-mill abortions.
But one issue that makes no sense is the ado over "partial birth abortion" -- if the fetus in question is a person, the abortion is murder whether the doctor pulls it out first before killing it, or kills it while still in the womb. If the fetus is not a person, the government has no business dictating how the abortion should be done.
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by whodeyWell, 4 of the Supremes are conservatives, so I wouldn't worry about that happening just yet. 🙂
Not liberal enough!! LOL.
I am just waiting for the day that the Supremes rule that conservatives are not fully formed and developed life forms and can be done with as you please.
06 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76it is a decision between a woman, her conscience, her family, her physician and, if she chooses, her religious advisor.
Because I want to make absolutely clear that I don't misunderstand or misrepresent your position.
If I've read your posts correctly, you don't believe that government may ascribe any limitation whatsoever to abortion at any stage of pregnancy. If, while 10 cm dilated and pushing and about give birth in 5 minutes, a woman suddenly decides that she doesn't wan ...[text shortened]... just trying be clear in what your position is before I decide whether and how to respond.
The government has no business in the matter because it can have no interest that is not based on faith. All such motivations should be clearly recognized to be unconstitutional.
First and foremost, laws must be based on rational interests, not religion.
06 Jun 09
Originally posted by PBE6you have made an unwarranted assumption that is not based on fact, but only on belief.
I think you're missing the point. Before conception, there is no person, and after birth, there is definitely a person. At some point, the non-person becomes a person, and that needs to be recognized because persons have rights. The question only boils down to whether the state has a compelling interest in interfering with a woman's right to choose medical c ...[text shortened]... tate must make a reasonable compromise to place the line somewhere between zygote and baby.
until and unless a child is delivered alive and lives on its own outside of the mother's body, there is only an assumption by you that a person exists beforehand.
your use of the word "definitely" does not make it so.
your use of the phrase "needs to be recognized" similarly does not carry any probative weight regarding the 14th amendment or the concept of substantive due process.
06 Jun 09
Originally posted by whodeywe don't need to wait for that day.
Not liberal enough!! LOL.
I am just waiting for the day that the Supremes rule that conservatives are not fully formed and developed life forms and can be done with as you please.
It is self evident.
the best thing to do is to ignore them, humor them, let them sit in pews and all nod and kneel in unison -- or give them pacifiers like Rush or Hannity to suck on.
alternatively, purchase a suitably large island -- Greenland comes to mind -- and let them live there in blissful unanimity and total conformity. They can celebrate their separateness and correctness of belief through the denial of climate change, notwithstanding the inevitable shrinking of their new abode.
They won't notice, as the ebb of ice is proportional to the current rate of ebb in their cerebrums.
They can name their new land Dumbfrackistan.
06 Jun 09
Originally posted by Melanerpesthe statement:
yes -- this is THE issue
While a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body, she doesn't have the right to do harm to another person's body, even if that person's body happens to be inside of her.
If it's just a bunch of cells, abortion is no more than a healthcare option for the mother -- if it's a person, abortion is murder. Both ...[text shortened]... t a person, the government has no business dictating how the abortion should be done.
"While a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body, she doesn't have the right to do harm to another person's body, even if that person's body happens to be inside of her."
This has no truth value. This is a bare assertion that does not rest on established fact. the use of the words "she doesn't" is only a matter of opinion, not fact.
It is an "ought to be" statement.
I would deny it in its entirety. There is no person until and unless s/he is delivered live and lives outside the mother's body on their own. That statement is at least as valid and of equal value as yours.
there is no scientific, medical fact established to prove it one way or another.
So there is no rational way to base a governmental interest in the matter -- only belief and/or religion.
that makes it unsuitable and unconstitutional as a matter of law.
06 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by ScriabinAs usual, ridicule and scorn for ideas different from your own. Dumbfrackistan, eh? Are you suggesting forced deportation or should people just leave everything behind and willingly move to the utopia you envision for others? Does this make you a fascist? Doesn't it sort of ring of a now dead philosophy of a petty little dictator with the funny moustache? And by the way, govt already dictates many things you can and cannot do with your body: suicide, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, use of prescription drugs not in your name, assisted suicide, self mutilation. The list goes on and on. The law also dictates what you cannot do to someone else's body. Where there is confusion is where the law is ambiguous. You can abort a fetus, but if you take drugs during pregnancy and harm said fetus you are subject to prosecution. If you harm a fetus during the commission of a crime such as domestic violence you can be prosecuted for the death of same fetus. If the fetus is not a person then you should not be legally prosecutable for harming a non-person
we don't need to wait for that day.
It is self evident.
the best thing to do is to ignore them, humor them, let them sit in pews and all nod and kneel in unison -- or give them pacifiers like Rush or Hannity to suck on.
alternatively, purchase a suitably large island -- Greenland comes to mind -- and let them live there in blissful unanimity and t to the current rate of ebb in their cerebrums.
They can name their new land Dumbfrackistan.