Sane conversation about abortion

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

1159 posts / 0 new

Comments

Quote Kerry:

You're 'strawman' argument appears...

That's "your 'strawman" argument appears..." But that's okay. You're entitled to a typo.

For the last time, a fetus, up until viability, grows and develops within the womb of a woman ONLY by her consent. After it becomes viable, the mother retains her rights of self-determination and privacy, but such must be balanced now with protecting the life of the fetus too—the fetus is not yet a person, but it is worthy of our care and consideration, ethically and morally, considering its advanced development. However, if a woman's life and health are threatened by the pregnancy, her interests must take precedence over that of the fetus, by virtue of the fact that she is the citizen, not the fetus.

Of course, that's the ideal. It assumes that all women have easy access to abortion clinics, and no woman would be manipulated by others to doubt her choice, causing a delay; we hope no woman would have to wait past the time of viability for her abortion. But it happens. Abortion clinics are hard to find in some communities. Women are poor. But women do not willy-nilly get pregnant, forget about it, then suddenly decide it's not what they want in the 30th week of pregnancy. Usually, if a woman wants an abortion after viability, it's because something's wrong with her pregnancy, and she's in danger.

I'm not interested in a nit-picky examination of abstract notions of rights. I'm just about done here, and if my position isn't clear by now, it never will be.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

Yes, I agree with Zenzoe. There is an absoluteness of rights.

D_NATURED, Zenzoe isn't the one that agrees with the 'absoluteness of rights'--I am. Most of what Zenzoe and I have been arguing over is Zenzoe's insistence that 'rights to the person' are 'conditional'--nothing is 'absolute'. I guess if you start with the premise of 'never say never', that might be a point. However, the whole point to the basis of the 'absoluteness of rights' is that, once recognized as a right, it ABSOLUTELY holds precedence over any and all 'community interests' that may try to intervene. Unless, and until, another's 'absolute rights' are being infringed upon. This is what I have been trying to get you to recognize--when does the fetus/child reach a 'right to life' and does that 'right to life' now preempt that woman's 'right to choose'. It's NOT making the woman's 'right to choose' conditional in the sense I see Zenzoe trying to use the word (the woman's 'right to choose' is still ABSOLUTE over any other form of, or reason for, an intervention against it, until the child gains the 'right to life'), it IS in recognizing that at one point in the process, the child does gain rights THAT ARE ABSOLUTE--and that right is 'right to life'. And, what the real point to all these 'issues over (the absoluteness and universality of) rights to the person' ('individual rights') is, I think, that, as their basis to 'natural law', it, as history has shown at least with past Supreme Court decisions of law, something that should develope (and has before up until rather recent times--look at the Supreme Court cases that I cite as examples of this) in a liberal environment--not be constrained--and certainly not be constrained by 'authoritarian conditions'. When it comes to acknowledging (or refuting) that particular point, Zenzoe retreats to the 'strawman argument'. You, D_NATURED, haven't retreated--you're just restating it without having to use the word 'rights' because I guess you think it has a 'libertarian bias' that 'you' are 'supposed to reject' in this so-called 'liberal forum'.

Quote D_NATURED:

Women DO have the inalienable right to the privacy of their own bodies. The only question is, will you really protect women or will you attempt to protect the tad poles.

That sounds pretty 'absolute/universal' as a 'right' to me, D_NATURED. Have you seen me, in any way, reject that? Remember, because I prioritize 'rights' and their 'absoluteness' against any and all contentions against them (unless, and until, intervening on behalf of another one's rights), that is, in my own use of the term, what makes me a 'libertarian'. I do not hold 'libertarianism' as an economic principle--in fact, I reject that component as 'the mind of man' holds it today ('power' and 'greed' and all). However, I do hold it in its most fundamental sense as the preemptive political principle for any real 'representative democracy (or republic)' to be based on 'all men (humans) being created equal'--and 'equal protection of all unalienable rights to the person' in such governmental applications (intent on 'guaranteeing and securing such rights' in its 'rightful form'). I do NOT believe that that can continually be 'handed down from on high' as some form of 'authoritarian conditioning' and it maintain the gist of 'equality of rights' as forthrightly and fundamentally as I believe the premise to the structure of our government (the Declaration of Independence) indicates to me. If it is to be 'dictated from above' without our understaning, then, by that condition, the 'equality of rights' (in its absolute and universal sense as based on 'natural law') can be, and will be, removed.....history has proven it over and over....disguised it in many ways and altered it in many fashions for 'authority' to remove its incentives against 'equality of rights' in the interest of 'organized power and greed'....

Since it is me that you, D_NATURED, are agreeing with as to the 'absoluteness of rights' and not Zenzoe who appears to want to 'condition all rights' (to what, I am not sure), the only contention that I am having with you is in recognizing 'naturally' (and that is the point of 'natural law'--in a rational and reasonable manner, 'we', each one of us through a reasonable and rational discourse on the topic, can recognize its moral and ethical tenets accordingly) the priority of the 'right to life' once that person has gained it--this, by the way, is another contention against 'absoluteness' that I have had with Zenzoe in this discussion. Why is the 'right to life' the preemptive 'right' to have? As I've also said over and over, Roe vs. Wade made that point in their deliberations on the rights of elective abortions. IF the fetus had the 'right to life' existing at conception, then there could be no such thing as a 'legal elective abortion'. As an absolute and universal concept in rights, and as the deliberations in Roe vs. Wade stipulated, without the 'right to life' one has no capacity to acquire and/or exert any other 'right'. The whole point to the Roe vs. Wade decision on this issue was that it predicated its decision with the understanding that a 'right to life at conception' for the fetus did not exist--neither in 'nature' (20% of all pregnancies 'naturally' miscarry) nor in 'law' (self-abortions have never been illegal--the issue of the illegality of elective abortions before Roe vs. Wade had nothing to do with any preemptive 'right to life' of the fetus--it had to do with 'community standards' preventing anyone from helping the woman to abort--this is also why Roe vs. Wade introjected the 'right to privacy' in their decision--that 'privacy' being between the woman who wants to abort and the medical personel helping her).

You see, I am not disagreeing with the ABSOLUTENESS OF RIGHTS--and I'm not sure how you got that from my writings--especially my writings to Zenzoe (who, although formally recognizing the unalienableness of a 'woman's right to abort', seems to want to condition 'all other rights'--especially the 'right to life'--to 'something else'). I am in agreement with the ABSOLUTENESS OF RIGHTS when it comes to the woman's right to choose in her pregnancy. But, not only am I also in agreement with the ABSOLUTENESS OF RIGHTS when it comes to an existing 'right to life', I am in agreement that that 'right' has to be the preemptive 'right' (because no other 'right' can be exerted without it) once the unalienableness of that right is in existence. And, since you do seem to like to put this in blatant descriptions, the point of the recognition of the preemption of the 'right to life' over any other 'right' in this situation really means that the woman is allowed to have that fetus's head crushed and sucked out to death until that fetus (or child) gains the 'right to life'. That's really all I am asking--for an agreement that, at one point in time, the fetus (or child) will gain the 'right to life' that the mother (or anyone) cannot beat the child's head in and suck its brains out to death and her (or anyone) 'have the right' to do it. In that manner, the 'right to abort' is 'conditioned', so to speak--but, it is only 'conditioned' to the comparatively preemptive 'right to life' once that right exists. Now, if you are to agree with Zenzoe and claim that such a 'right to life' is always 'conditioned' on something (and, therefore, no 'right' is really 'absolute'), then how are you seeing the 'ABSOLUTENESS OF (any other) RIGHTS' (I have asked Zenzoe that question in comparing it to the 'right to abort')? Or, is the only ABSOLUTE RIGHT the 'right to abort'?

Maybe you see this form of argument so 'natural' as to not even have to address it. No one would let a mother (or anyone) murder their child (when that 'right to life' for that child exists). But, remember, it is 'I' who holds the ABSOLUTENESS OF RIGHTS (including the 'right to life' once it exists--and its preemptive nature once it exists)--not Zenzoe. Unless you are in agreement that the only ABSOLUTE RIGHT is 'the right to abort'--and the 'right to life' is merely conditional under all situations. Even the assumption that a 'right to life' can be conditioned--and, if you are allowing that under all situations of LIFE, then, I believe you have just removed its 'equal application' and placed it in a situation to be 'authoritarily conditioned away'.....

This is NOT the same argument as the woman's 'right to abort' being absolute when the fetus's 'right to life' doesn't exist. It is in recognizing that such an absoluteness to kill another is absolutely removed once the 'right to life' does exist. The point of contention that Roe vs. Wade allowed any state to make is to be able to define that at any point after 12 weeks (in 'community interest's sake')--but NOT define it as an unalienable 'right to life' until birth for all the nation and all the individuals involved. Do you see that point? While in its perspective field in elective abortion's case, the 'right to choose' for the mother is ABSOLUTE (against any and all 'community interests', otherwise). However, once the fetus/child gains the 'right to life', that ABSOLUTE RIGHT preempts the mother's 'right to choose'--or are you going to allow that mother to bash the child's head in and suck its brains out even after birth as her 'ABSOLUTE RIGHT'? I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.....but, it is Zenzoe who does not want to acknowledge any other 'right' as 'absolute' other than 'the right to abort'--however, realize something here, D_NATURED, unless I've got Zenzoe's point wrong, Zenzoe is in agreement of restricting elective abortions past 'viability' (although, unless Zenzoe says otherwise in the next post that I haven't read yet, Zenzoe isn't apparently claiming that as a 'right to life'--but, even so, Zenzoe is now 'conditioning' the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to abort with the 'viability of the fetus'--as Zenzoe apparently likes to 'condition' every 'right' away from anything that appears 'absolute' in any way--that way, 'authority' can 'condition' all 'rights' as 'authority' makes all 'duties' absolute.....just the opposite of a political incentive truly based on the 'absolute value of individual rights'.....but, I'll let Zenzoe speak for Zenzoe....to further my point, D_NATURED, since you don't claim the label of 'libertarian' for yourself but do claim an ABSOLUTENESS OF RIGHTS in this situation, why don't you ask Zenzoe if Zenzoe believes such 'right', any 'right', to be 'absolute'.....).

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

For the last time, a fetus, up until viability, grows and develops within the womb of a woman ONLY by her consent.

Just so 'we' can understand where our distinctions on this issue lies, that's any and every time, right? No matter what 'interests' any one else in the community may say. Is that correct? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, Zenzoe--I'm not trying to create a 'strawman'--I am trying to understand the qualifications of our differences--especially with relation to the differences of any 'absoluteness' or 'conditioning' you seem to want to place on 'rights'--that, of course, as apparently modern law schools seem to want to promote (my daughter is a lawyer), is 'conditioned by some authority' (whereas, 'duties' are obviously 'absolute' as 'dictated by authorities'--using, of course, 'written laws' and 'written oaths' as one way of applying and defining 'authority'--against any and all 'jury review' and 'jury nullification' potentials as being at least one way the 'common man' can practically check that....).

But, more to this point. When you are making that statement above as the fetus being allowed to stay ONLY by the woman's consent, that is against any and all conditions, otherwise, correct? If so, does that define 'absolute' to you--or is there some 'condition' (on anything) that makes it purely 'relative' (and 'malleable') that I'm missing here, Zenzoe?

Quote Zenzoe:

After it becomes viable...

When is that? Are you talking about 'naturally viable' as at birth--or whenever viability can be obtained at any gestational age as, like Texas law, the earliest gestation to survive being at 20 weeks? Or, do you think 'we' need to 'define that'? Maybe just 'condition it' on whatever is 'established by written law' without having to understand how even those that make the written law define it. And, again, why 'viability'? And, how is, I guess, 'conditioning' this on the 'fetus's viability' distinguished, in any way, upon any unalienable 'right to life' the fetus may gain? Why are you allowing the 'fetus' viability' to get in the way of the woman's ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ABORT, otherwise? Just by your 'declared conditions'--under, of course, your 'declared authority' (did I spell 'your' right there, Zenzoe?)?

Quote Zenzoe:

After it becomes viable, the mother retains her rights of self-determination and privacy, but such must be balanced now with protecting the life of the fetus too.....

Hold on a second. I'm not following that. How does the mother 'retain her rights of self-determination and privacy' IF that now 'must be balanced with protecting the life of the fetus too'? Who gets to determine that 'condition' for the mother, Zenzoe? And why? And, if that 'condition' is being determined by someone (or something) else other than the mother, how does the mother 'retain her rights of self-determination and privacy' in that respect? What is preempting the mother's rights in such a manner? The 'fetus's viability'? How is that in any way different from the fetus's 'right to life' preempting the mother's 'right to choose'? Or, is there some other reason (or 'condition') that someone (or something) else is 'acting for the fetus'? And, if so, what might that be?

Quote Zenzoe:

--the fetus is not yet a person, but it is worthy of our care and consideration, ethically and morally, considering its advanced development.

'Our care and consideration'. Who is that, Zenzoe? The 'community'? Have they seen this fetus, yet? Why should they 'care' about this fetus now (before birth) if they didn't 'care' about the fetus in an earlier stage (and, again, at what 'stage' are you defining that now deserves 'our care and consideration' if it is still prior to birth?).

Quote Zenzoe:

However, if a woman's life and health are threatened by the pregnancy, her interests must take precedence over that of the fetus, by virtue of the fact that she is the citizen, not the fetus

OK, no problem there. But, let's say the fetus is already born. If the mother sees that newborn as 'threatening her life and well-being' in any way, does the mother still have the right to kill that newborn? Or, would the 'right to life' preempt that mother's 'choice' in that situation? I know how you like to 'condition' this on just about anything to try NOT to have this be AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT--but, I think you are verging on the point of the irrational to do so--and I HATE 'authoritarian conditioning' based on IRRATIONAL MOTIVES and their political applications (remember the two drunks--one leaving and getting run over and the other being contained against his wishes and the doctor being sued for both--there can't even be a 'rational component' in allowing it 'both ways' as 'defining harm' in the way that that 'professional obligation' is being set-up--of course, by 'authorities' that can take advantage of such irrational motives without, themselves, being personally responsible in the issue....).

Quote Zenzoe:

Usually, if a woman wants an abortion after viability, it's because something's wrong with her pregnancy, and she's in danger.

Not always, Zenzoe. It can be because something went wrong with the woman's relationships--and, now, she doesn't want to have 'the man's child'. Unless the new federal law against 'partial birth abortions' precludes all elective third trimester abortions (and I'm not even sure one way or the other), some states may still allow the woman to electively abort at that time under those conditions. Even our cohort here, D_NATURED, appears to allow that as an ABSOLUTE RIGHT--despite any apparent 'viability in utero' issues that you (and I) bring up here, Zenzoe. But, my point in the whole issue is that I agree with the Roe vs. Wade decision, it is a 'state/community interest' thing (at least past 12 weeks) until, and unless, the fetus gains the 'right to life'--at which point, now the fetus/child's 'right to life' precludes the woman's (or anyone's) 'right to choose' against it....that happens at least at birth--and, some may try to make it sooner in the interest of the 'fetus's viability'.....D_NATURED, who claims that D_NATURED 'agrees with you', Zenzoe, seems to 'disagree with that'.....

Quote Zenzoe:

I'm not interested in a nit-picky examination of abstract notions of rights. I'm just about done here, and if my position isn't clear by now, it never will be.

'Nit-picky examination of abstract notions of rights'. That's, of course, if you don't mind 'conditioning' all 'rights' to 'something else' other than the ones possessing them. Otherwise, such issues of 'rights' are not just 'abstract'--they are quite real to the one that possesses them and is allowed to exert and/or live with them.......otherwise, 'authoritarily condition' everything and call that 'community interest'.....but, don't call it a democracy 'based on government securing and guaranteeing rights' like some of us thought this nation was created with.....even as those rights and the application of their recognized and established 'unalienableness' have changed with time (usually to be more extensively interpreted and applied--up until recently with the new 'emphasis on the absoluteness of duties and the conditionalities of rights' as 'authority declares its absoluteness and conditionality, accordingly')...

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote D_NATURED:

Yes, I agree with Zenzoe. There is an absoluteness of rights.

D_NATURED, Zenzoe isn't the one that agrees with the 'absoluteness of rights'--I am.

I know. I'm just tired of the argument. Your whole purpose for claiming an absoluteness of rights is to deny the rights of women...ironically. Yet, you don't see that. Fine.

Most of what Zenzoe and I have been arguing over is Zenzoe's insistence that 'rights to the person' are 'conditional'--nothing is 'absolute'.

Right. You call a fetus a person and we don't. We can't change that perception in your mind and, frankly, I don't care to try. I have stated my case as best I could with nothing but the same two thousand word responses.

I guess if you start with the premise of 'never say never', that might be a point. However, the whole point to the basis of the 'absoluteness of rights' is that, once recognized as a right, it ABSOLUTELY holds precedence over any and all 'community interests' that may try to intervene. Unless, and until, another's 'absolute rights' are being infringed upon. This is what I have been trying to get you to recognize--when does the fetus/child reach a 'right to life' and does that 'right to life' now preempt that woman's 'right to choose'.

And the circle of confusion continues. I have heard this question from you a dozen times. My answer is the same. The point is when the fetus breathes its own air.

It's NOT making the woman's 'right to choose' conditional in the sense I see Zenzoe trying to use the word (the woman's 'right to choose' is still ABSOLUTE over any other form of, or reason for, an intervention against it, until the child gains the 'right to life'), it IS in recognizing that at one point in the process, the child does gain rights THAT ARE ABSOLUTE--and that right is 'right to life'.

Don't you see how arbitrary that is? That's not absolute at all. You will choose a certain date that, before which, abortion is legal. One day earlier the abortion is legal, the next day it is not and the woman MUST care for the fetus inside her. The only thing absolute about it is that in every instance, the absolute rights of the mother are being infringed for the "absolute" rights of a developing human within her. You see, the problem is that you're not holding the fetus responsible for it's uninvited inhabitation of another person's womb. You aren't holding its little feet to the same fire to which you hold eveyone else's. Your idea of absolute rights is biased to the fetus over the woman it relies upon for its existence. Mine is biased to the woman at all times.

And, what the real point to all these 'issues over (the absoluteness and universality of) rights to the person' ('individual rights') is, I think, that, as their basis to 'natural law', it, as history has shown at least with past Supreme Court decisions of law, something that should develope (and has before up until rather recent times--look at the Supreme Court cases that I cite as examples of this) in a liberal environment--not be constrained--and certainly not be constrained by 'authoritarian conditions'. When it comes to acknowledging (or refuting) that particular point, Zenzoe retreats to the 'strawman argument'. You, D_NATURED, haven't retreated--you're just restating it without having to use the word 'rights' because I guess you think it has a 'libertarian bias' that 'you' are 'supposed to reject' in this so-called 'liberal forum'.

I have used the word "rights" many times, but not with respect to fetuses. Fetuses, by their nature, are utterly dependent upon-a part of- another person and are not individuals with rights.

Quote D_NATURED:

Women DO have the inalienable right to the privacy of their own bodies. The only question is, will you really protect women or will you attempt to protect the tad poles.

That sounds pretty 'absolute/universal' as a 'right' to me, D_NATURED. Have you seen me, in any way, reject that? Remember, because I prioritize 'rights' and their 'absoluteness' against any and all contentions against them (unless, and until, intervening on behalf of another one's rights), that is, in my own use of the term, what makes me a 'libertarian'. I do not hold 'libertarianism' as an economic principle--in fact, I reject that component as 'the mind of man' holds it today ('power' and 'greed' and all). However, I do hold it in its most fundamental sense as the preemptive political principle for any real 'representative democracy (or republic)' to be based on 'all men (humans) being created equal'--and 'equal protection of all unalienable rights to the person' in such governmental applications (intent on 'guaranteeing and securing such rights' in its 'rightful form'). I do NOT believe that that can continually be 'handed down from on high' as some form of 'authoritarian conditioning' and it maintain the gist of 'equality of rights' as forthrightly and fundamentally as I believe the premise to the structure of our government (the Declaration of Independence) indicates to me. If it is to be 'dictated from above' without our understaning, then, by that condition, the 'equality of rights' (in its absolute and universal sense as based on 'natural law') can be, and will be, removed.....history has proven it over and over....disguised it in many ways and altered it in many fashions for 'authority' to remove its incentives against 'equality of rights' in the interest of 'organized power and greed'....

I agree. It's just that those rights you talk about don't belong to tad poles.

Since it is me that you, D_NATURED, are agreeing with as to the 'absoluteness of rights' and not Zenzoe who appears to want to 'condition all rights' (to what, I am not sure), the only contention that I am having with you is in recognizing 'naturally' (and that is the point of 'natural law'--in a rational and reasonable manner, 'we', each one of us through a reasonable and rational discourse on the topic, can recognize its moral and ethical tenets accordingly) the priority of the 'right to life' once that person has gained it--this, by the way, is another contention against 'absoluteness' that I have had with Zenzoe in this discussion. Why is the 'right to life' the preemptive 'right' to have? As I've also said over and over, Roe vs. Wade made that point in their deliberations on the rights of elective abortions. IF the fetus had the 'right to life' existing at conception, then there could be no such thing as a 'legal elective abortion'. As an absolute and universal concept in rights, and as the deliberations in Roe vs. Wade stipulated, without the 'right to life' one has no capacity to acquire and/or exert any other 'right'. The whole point to the Roe vs. Wade decision on this issue was that it predicated its decision with the understanding that a 'right to life at conception' for the fetus did not exist--neither in 'nature' (20% of all pregnancies 'naturally' miscarry) nor in 'law' (self-abortions have never been illegal--the issue of the illegality of elective abortions before Roe vs. Wade had nothing to do with any preemptive 'right to life' of the fetus--it had to do with 'community standards' preventing anyone from helping the woman to abort--this is also why Roe vs. Wade introjected the 'right to privacy' in their decision--that 'privacy' being between the woman who wants to abort and the medical personel helping her).

Who cares? If people need to go through the exercise of pretending to give women the right to their physical self that they've always had, then fine. Women, through posession of their own bodies, have an inalilenable right to privacy, therein. Men have it. Women should too. Where we part company, Truth, is that you talk about absoluteness of rights and then define an arbitrary moment when a woman's rights end. That is a contradiction.

You see, I am not disagreeing with the ABSOLUTENESS OF RIGHTS

Yes you are.

--and I'm not sure how you got that from my writings--

Because you wrote that women should have a point in their pregnancy where they lose the right to choose to abort. That's why.

especially my writings to Zenzoe (who, although formally recognizing the unalienableness of a 'woman's right to abort', seems to want to condition 'all other rights'--especially the 'right to life'--to 'something else'). I am in agreement with the ABSOLUTENESS OF RIGHTS when it comes to the woman's right to choose in her pregnancy. But, not only am I also in agreement with the ABSOLUTENESS OF RIGHTS when it comes to an existing 'right to life', I am in agreement that that 'right' has to be the preemptive 'right' (because no other 'right' can be exerted without it) once the unalienableness of that right is in existence.

HOLY CRAP! I just figured out what you've been saying and it's soooo wrong. You are saying that because you must be alive to have rights that the right to actually be born is more important than any right you gain thereafter, as a human. LOL. Holy shit, a wave of stupidity washed over me the instant I considered your perspective.

What you ignore is that pre-empting LIFE ITSELF is something else, Kerry. Namely, the functioning womb of a grown woman. If the rights do not start and stop there, it is TYRANNY!

And, since you do seem to like to put this in blatant descriptions, the point of the recognition of the preemption of the 'right to life' over any other 'right' in this situation really means that the woman is allowed to have that fetus's head crushed and sucked out to death until that fetus (or child) gains the 'right to life'. That's really all I am asking--for an agreement that, at one point in time, the fetus (or child) will gain the 'right to life' that the mother (or anyone) cannot beat the child's head in and suck its brains out to death and her (or anyone) 'have the right' to do it.

That moment is birth, Kerry. Ughh...finally...birth.

In that manner, the 'right to abort' is 'conditioned', so to speak--but, it is only 'conditioned' to the comparatively preemptive 'right to life' once that right exists. Now, if you are to agree with Zenzoe and claim that such a 'right to life' is always 'conditioned' on something (and, therefore, no 'right' is really 'absolute'), then how are you seeing the 'ABSOLUTENESS OF (any other) RIGHTS' (I have asked Zenzoe that question in comparing it to the 'right to abort')? Or, is the only ABSOLUTE RIGHT the 'right to abort'?

It is conditional on whether or not it is an individual life or a parasitic life. That is the absolute condition.

Maybe you see this form of argument so 'natural' as to not even have to address it. No one would let a mother (or anyone) murder their child (when that 'right to life' for that child exists). But, remember, it is 'I' who holds the ABSOLUTENESS OF RIGHTS (including the 'right to life' once it exists--and its preemptive nature once it exists)--not Zenzoe.

Yes, yours is the dangerously misguided position.

Unless you are in agreement that the only ABSOLUTE RIGHT is 'the right to abort'--and the 'right to life' is merely conditional under all situations. Even the assumption that a 'right to life' can be conditioned--and, if you are allowing that under all situations of LIFE, then, I believe you have just removed its 'equal application' and placed it in a situation to be 'authoritarily conditioned away'.....

I believe that the woman is the only being in this equation with any rights. There are no conditions on her rights as an individual.

This is NOT the same argument as the woman's 'right to abort' being absolute when the fetus's 'right to life' doesn't exist. It is in recognizing that such an absoluteness to kill another is absolutely removed once the 'right to life' does exist. The point of contention that Roe vs. Wade allowed any state to make is to be able to define that at any point after 12 weeks (in 'community interest's sake')--but NOT define it as an unalienable 'right to life' until birth for all the nation and all the individuals involved. Do you see that point? While in its perspective field in elective abortion's case, the 'right to choose' for the mother is ABSOLUTE (against any and all 'community interests', otherwise). However, once the fetus/child gains the 'right to life', that ABSOLUTE RIGHT preempts the mother's 'right to choose'--or are you going to allow that mother to bash the child's head in and suck its brains out even after birth as her 'ABSOLUTE RIGHT'? I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.....but, it is Zenzoe who does not want to acknowledge any other 'right' as 'absolute' other than 'the right to abort'--however, realize something here, D_NATURED, unless I've got Zenzoe's point wrong, Zenzoe is in agreement of restricting elective abortions past 'viability' (although, unless Zenzoe says otherwise in the next post that I haven't read yet, Zenzoe isn't apparently claiming that as a 'right to life'--but, even so, Zenzoe is now 'conditioning' the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to abort with the 'viability of the fetus'--as Zenzoe apparently likes to 'condition' every 'right' away from anything that appears 'absolute' in any way--that way, 'authority' can 'condition' all 'rights' as 'authority' makes all 'duties' absolute.....just the opposite of a political incentive truly based on the 'absolute value of individual rights'.....but, I'll let Zenzoe speak for Zenzoe....to further my point, D_NATURED, since you don't claim the label of 'libertarian' for yourself but do claim an ABSOLUTENESS OF RIGHTS in this situation, why don't you ask Zenzoe if Zenzoe believes such 'right', any 'right', to be 'absolute'.....).

Yes, we are three different people with three different opinions. Just because Zenzoe and I agree on the end point does not mean we get there the same way. I cannot violate the absolute right of a woman to choose at some arbitrary point and give it to another being that is not considered a person yet. Viability shmiability. What about the woman? What about her life?

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

D_NATURED, Zenzoe isn't the one that agrees with the 'absoluteness of rights'--I am.

I know. I'm just tired of the argument. Your whole purpose for claiming an absoluteness of rights is to deny the rights of women...ironically. Yet, you don't see that. Fine.

Well, D_NATURED, you claim an 'absoluteness of rights' as you say Zenzoe 'claims'--then, you argue against my point of 'absoluteness of rights' as if denying the rights of women. So, what really is your point here--and what does you 'being tired of the argument' really mean? Does that mean that you are 'tired of the argument' that 'rights' are to be considered 'absolute'--or 'conditional'? Do you think 'rights' should be 'conditional' or 'absolute'? Or, as you seem to imply now, only 'conditional' if who you want to support says 'conditional' and only 'absolute' if who you want to support says 'absolute'?

You don't even appear to see the problem with Zenzoe's position of 'conditioning all rights'. THAT can 'deny rights to women' (and everyone else) more that considering them as 'absolute' (against any and all 'community interests') once they are determined to exist. Furthermore, like me, Zenzoe even claims to 'condition the rights of the woman' to the 'viability of the fetus'. But, Zenzoe saying that doesn't 'deny rights to women' to you, does it? Only if 'the libertarian' as myself says it, is that it? And, how is 'me' saying it more likely to 'deny women rights' than Zenzoe saying it, D_NATURED?

I'm beginning to wonder if I'm talking to reasonable people here. Or, is any 'liberal's claim' about being 'unprejudiced and unbiased' only if it is done by someone else that calls themself 'liberal' regardless of what is said? Which, if you don't realize it, is exactly what being 'biased and prejudiced' means....

Quote D_NATURED:

Right. You call a fetus a person and we don't. We can't change that perception in your mind and, frankly, I don't care to try. I have stated my case as best I could with nothing but the same two thousand word responses

God Almighty, D_NATURED. Are you really following this discussion--or do you just come to your conclusions regardless of the context? When you read this coming from Zenzoe JUSTIFYING THE RESTRICTION OF ELECTIVE ABORTIONS:

—the fetus is not yet a person, but it is worthy of our care and consideration, ethically and morally, considering its advanced development.

How does whether that and whether the fetus is qualified 'as a person' make any difference to the woman having her elective abortion restricted? It is still COMPROMISING HER RIGHT TO ABORT. You see that--or is that something you want to ignore because 'you support Zenzoe'? The issue becomes, if this fetus is worthy of 'our care and consideration' at that stage, WHY--and WHO (or WHAT) gets to determine that IF IT'S NOT THE MOTHER? And, by the way, if it's not THE FETUS AS A PERSON (and its 'unalienable right' infringement being the only justification to remove THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT OF THE MOTHER), then, by whatever authority you and Zenzoe allow such a 'condition' (absent any consideration of any other 'unalienable right') made AGAINST THIS (now, so-called) ABSOLUTE RIGHT,' then, by inference, you and Zenzoe are allowing EVERY RIGHT to be 'conditioned' by something that doesn't involve 'unalienable rights'--and, when you do that, NO RIGHT IS UNALIENABLE. Do you understand that--or has 'the brick wall' been built because I claim myself as a 'libertarian'?

Besides that, my position on this issue of abortion is no different from Zenzoe's if Zenzoe is restricting abortion to 'fetal viability'--my reasoning for it contains 'personhood rights' (even as any 'state' uses the concept in making their decision on when elective abortions are to remain legal regardless of the lack of its existence as 'universally unalienable' at this point in time) because I see the only rational incentive to restrict ANY PERSONHOOD RIGHTS is by its infringement on OTHER PERSONHOOD RIGHTS. And, I see 'right to abort' AS A PERSONHOOD RIGHT--unalienable and all--unless the 'right to life' exists in the one being considered in the event (and, while Roe vs. Wade made no claim to its 'unalienableness' for the fetus until birth, it did allow each state to claim a form of 'personhood right to the fetus' before birth and after 12 weeks)--and it IS such a determination of the 'right to life' that is very pertinent to the 'right to abort' (the 'right to life' will supercede the 'right to abort' once that 'right to life' has been recognized as 'existing'--again, not until birth nationally according to Roe vs. Wade but able to be adjusted state-by-state after 12 weeks for any 'personhood of the fetus'--some did NOT do it until birth--some did it at 12 weeks--some, like Texas, did it at the first gestational age where viability outside of the uterus was possible--what's really your problem with this point?)

Or, D_NATURED, let me ask it to you like this: Why are you allowing Zenzoe to restrict the woman's 'right to abort' using the excuse of 'fetal viability'--but not me using the fetus's' 'right to life'? Do you really have a reasonable answer to this--or is your bias and prejudice showing like every other condescending accuser (who claims to be 'so liberal' like you are against 'prejudice and bias') on this board? Will you show me the courtesy of even answering that question--or ignore it, perhaps claim a 'strawman argument' against it.....without putting forth any reasoning on it....

Quote D_NATURED:

And the circle of confusion continues. I have heard this question from you a dozen times. My answer is the same. The point is when the fetus breathes its own air.

No, it is you who is confusing the issue. I have been the one describing the Roe vs. Wade decision as claiming that the fetus has no 'right to life' until birth--but Roe vs. Wade also qualified the universal AND ABSOLUTE RIGHT for the mother to abort (anywhere in the nation and to every individual so involved) at 12 weeks gestation (regardless of any and all 'community interests', otherwise)--and, then, left it up to the states to determine the extent it would allow the woman the 'right to abort' or give the fetus any potential 'right to life' between those two parameters. NO ONE has granted the fetus the 'right to life' in any ABSOLUTE (personhood) SENSE until the federal government intervened to nationally prevent partial birth abortions. But, let this sink into the liberal-heads on this board, Mississippi recently tried to pass a state constitutional amendment that made the 'right to life start at conception'--if that ever happens, just like what started the Roe vs. Wade court case (where California and New York were already allowing abortion all the way to term and other states prevented all elective abortions at any time), that precedence will then be taken as representing an 'unalienable right'--and, if that is the case, the Supreme Court could use what Roe vs. Wade said (that, if the 'right to life' were to be considered as starting at conception, then all elective abortions would have to be considered illegal), and, now, claim all elective abortions be illegal IF that ever is the case. It is YOU who needs to understand what YOU are up against--I understand it completely (and, if Zenzoe is a lawyer, I'm not sure why Zenzoe doesn't understand this, already). And, making some claim that all 'rights to life' are 'conditional' isn't going to change it, either. And, if you are doing that, you are opening up the very authoritarian condition of claiming ALL RIGHTS as being 'conditional'. In that respect, using Zenzoe's own argument of the 'viability of the fetus' (but not determining what that means with respect to abortion) can be used to say 'as long as the fetus is alive, it is viable'--and THAT CONDITION can be used to even restrict this so-called ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ABORT even more. But, instead of addressing that point (even to disagree with it), it's either a 'strawman's argument'--or they are 'tired of the argument'......in neither case, are they addressing THE ABSOLUTENESS OF RIGHTS--and when such rights are appropriately 'contained'--except Zenzoe and, by compliance with that premise, D_NATURED, claims all 'rights' to be 'conditioned', anyway.....as Zenzoe's assault on my character assumes all 'duties' are 'absolute'.....as, of course, whoever Zenzoe and, now, D_NATURED, claim has 'the authority' to make such conditions....

Quote D_NATURED:

Don't you see how arbitrary that is?

Is that so, D_NATURED? But, Zenzoe's 'conditions' and Zenzoe's 'fetal viability' is not arbitrary to you, is that right? Or, if it is declared in writing without a concurrent reasoning for all to see going with it, does that make it less arbitrary to you, D_NATURED? In fact, what isn't arbitrary THAT ISN'T ABSOLUTE, D_NATURED? Can you explain that? Or, is the claim of you being 'too tired of the argument', or perhaps, as Zenzoe's favorite, it being a 'strawman's argument' going to come up?

Quote D_NATURED:

That's not absolute at all. You will choose a certain date that, before which, abortion is legal.

I've quoted the Roe vs. Wade decision. I agree with it. Across the nation to every individual so affected, abortions are legal for any reason prior to 12 weeks gestation--and the fetus had not been given a 'right to life' anywhere in the nation until birth--but, any state now can 'adjust the rights' between those two parameters as 'community interests' see fit. Some states, like California and New York (before the recent federal ban on 'partial birth abortions') alllowed abortions all the way to term. Some, like Utah, restricted them to after 12 weeks. The only real reason to avoid abortions all together is, as Roe vs. Wade also pointed out, if, and when, the fetus gains the 'right to life at conception'. And, when it exists as a 'right to life', THAT IS AN ABSOLUTE. Do you have any other 'condition' in mind to substitute for it--even as you now 'allow Zenzoe's condition of fetal viability' to 'remove the so-called absolute right of women to abort' without saying one word at all against it? There are many reasons against the position of the fetus having the 'right to life at conception' and I have mentioned them many times before on this board--but, I'm spending more than what appears to be productive time on this board now discussing this and I'll leave that for another time. The point is making the 'right to life' conditional does not, in any way, endorse the 'right to abort' as absolute (in fact, making anthing 'conditional' doesn't endorse any 'right' as absolute--but, you sem to allow Zenzoe to do that as you claim it's 'my position' that is against 'the right of women'). What is the point is definitively defining when 'right to life' exists....ABSOLUTELY....and, if you don't keep that in mind, there will be an initiative like Mississippi that will try to say that 'the right to life begins at conception'--and, you can try to pass that off as, well, being 'another state's opinion'--but, in the case of the ABSOLUTENESS OF RIGHTS, you will be wrong...don't try to ignore that point--and don't try to claim that Zenzoe's making all 'rights to life' conditional changes that, either--in fact, THAT will make it worse when just any 'authority's condition' will be able to interject into any 'right' without qualifying what RIGHT it is acting for in doing so....as long as I guess 'it's in writing'....

Quote D_NATURED:

One day earlier the abortion is legal, the next day it is not and the woman MUST care for the fetus inside her.

Yeah, you say that to me. But, you ignore what I say to Zenzoe:

Quote Zenzoe:

--the fetus is not yet a person, but it is worthy of our care and consideration, ethically and morally, considering its advanced development.

'Our care and consideration'. Who is that, Zenzoe? The 'community'? Have they seen this fetus, yet? Why should they 'care' about this fetus now (before birth) if they didn't 'care' about the fetus in an earlier stage (and, again, at what 'stage' are you defining that now deserves 'our care and consideration' if it is still prior to birth?).

Why is that, D_NATURED? Do you have any reason other than your bias and prejudice against me--the 'libertarian' that emphasizes 'rights'--and, by the way, when it comes to any intervention against them, THEIR ABSOLUTENESS (unless, and until, they infringe on another's 'rights')?

Quote D_NATURED:

Your idea of absolute rights is biased to the fetus over the woman it relies upon for its existence. Mine is biased to the woman at all times.

But, Zenzoe speaks to a concern of 'the viability of the fetus' up against your 'bias to the woman at all times'. Why are you ignoring that as you accuse me, D_NATURED? As I told Zenzoe, our decisions are similar--our reasoning is the point of contention--and has been all along. Yet, you offer all these ABSOLUTE reasons against 'my position'--and you ignore the CONDITIONAL emphasis of Zenzoe's making a similar conclusion. Why is that, D_NATURED?

And, let me tell you now, D_NATURED, if you aren't taking part in defining what is ABSOLUTE ABOUT THESE RIGHTS, then SOMEBODY ELSE WILL DO IT FOR YOU. So, there will have to be clear lines made as to which ABSOLUTE RIGHT holds precedence--and why. It's NOT to CONDITION IT against anything else OTHER THAN ANOTHER'S ABSOLUTE RIGHTS. Do you disagree with that--or do you accept Zenzoe's 'conditions' removing all 'rights' as absolute? Or, do you see that as what Zenzoe is saying? Or, is it only because 'I' am a 'libertarian' and Zenzoe claims to be 'liberal'?

Quote D_NATURED:

Women, through posession of their own bodies, have an inalilenable right to privacy, therein. Men have it. Women should too. Where we part company, Truth, is that you talk about absoluteness of rights and then define an arbitrary moment when a woman's rights end. That is a contradiction.

Are you talking about my agreement with Texas law? Texas used that point as the earliest gestation that a fetus has ever survived--it's not quite as 'arbitrary' as you make it out to be. Texas law is recognizing that, if one fetus has survived at 20 weeks, then, by the 'one for all and all for one' premise on ABSOLUTE RIGHTS (in other words, government shouldn't be allowed to 'pick and choose' such rights once such rights are given to any-ONE--that would be ARBITRARILY CONDITIONAL to do so), all fetuses 'past 20 weeks' should be given such an opportunity. I have no problem with that. Sorry to hear that you do. But, make no mistake about it, D_NATURED, I had no problem with other states giving the woman the 'right to abort' all the way to term. I AM NOT granting the fetus the 'right to life' as an ABSOLUTE RIGHT (to be universally applied against all other 'states interests' in the nation and with every individual so involved)--I am understanding with, and in agreement to, Texas' point of 'if one can survive on its own at 20 weeks, all should be allowed to do so' (it's a reasonable premise--you don't have to agree to it because it doesn't contain AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT in the manner of it being applied throughout the nation in equal effect against any and all other 'community's interests'--but, at least, I understand the premise). But, once again, D_NATURED, why are you addressing this just to me? Why are you ignoring the point that Zenzoe has restricted a woman's 'right to abort' with the 'condition of fetal viability'?

Plus, don't forget the other point--if any state passes an amendment that 'the right to life starts at conception', that precedence will be taken to the Supreme Court and, then, the very statements of Roe vs. Wade will come up and, now, be used to say 'all elective abortions are now illegal'. And, you or Zenzoe claiming that the 'right to life' ISN'T ABSOLUTE is going to make no difference. There is a lot of Supreme Court precedence to show that, once an unalienable right has been determined to exist, no written law, or personal action, can obstruct its expression. In fact, Zenzoe claiming that 'all rights are conditional' just further justifies restricting any 'right' (none have to be determined as being ABSOLUTE and UNALIENABLE against any 'written law', or even personal action, impeding them)--but, I don't see you pointing that out. Why, D_NATURED? If you are all about recognizing ABSOLUTE RIGHTS, should 'conditions' be placed on them? And, if so, for what reason? Any real thoughts of your own? Or, just more of 'being tired of this argument'--perhaps even a claim on a 'strawman argument'--or maybe you want to bring Ulysses back in to harass me without qualifications....

Quote D_NATURED:

Because you wrote that women should have a point in their pregnancy where they lose the right to choose to abort. That's why.

That's not 'just me', D_NATURED. That's Roe vs. Wade. Past 12 weeks, Roe vs. Wade allowed it. But, once again, as stated over and over, Roe vs. Wade did not give the fetus the 'right to life' (to go against any and all other 'state, or personal, interests' as its ABSOLUTE QUALITY) until birth. Now, if you don't want such an ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO WOMEN to be so 'conditioned' at any stage in the pregnancy, why just address this at me, D_NATURED? Why aren't you asking Zenzoe about 'conditioning it to the viability of the fetus'? Anything other than your biases and prejudices at work here, D_NATURED?

Quote D_NATURED:

HOLY CRAP! I just figured out what you've been saying and it's soooo wrong. You are saying that because you must be alive to have rights that the right to actually be born is more important than any right you gain thereafter, as a human. LOL. Holy shit, a wave of stupidity washed over me the instant I considered your perspective.

God Almighty, once again, D_NATURED. You been smoking too much dope, lately? That's OK as long as you aren't trying to make a rational argument. Let's me see if I can spell it out for you. How can you have a 'right'--of any type, under any condition, for any reason--IF YOU AREN'T ALIVE? Is that REALLY TOO HARD FOR YOU TO SEE? By the way, once again, I got that 'reasoning' from the oral arguments of Roe vs. Wade (you might get a better basis on this by listening to it--I had a copy of May It Please The Court that I used to listen to while driving--I gave it away to my lawyer daughter). If you don't have 'life', you don't have access or the ability to acquire any other 'right'. Period. Really too hard for you to understand there, D_NATURED? Maybe you want to claim a 'right' WITHOUT LIVING--have any idea on how that could be done? Smoke a little more and, maybe, it'll come to you.....

Quote D_NATURED:

What you ignore is that pre-empting LIFE ITSELF is something else, Kerry. Namely, the functioning womb of a grown woman. If the rights do not start and stop there, it is TYRANNY!

Actually, you're mentioning something else there. That's the prospect of a 'virtue over life'--like the moral reasoning for war. It could be used in the issue of pregnancy but only tangentially and for different effect--and not exactly for the same reason. However, in someone that already has the 'right to life' that is 'willing to die for the virtue', you're missing a BIG POINT--it's the one who possesses that 'right to life' that has the 'right to decide what to die for'--not anyone else. In fact, forcing them to do so against their will IS TYRANNY.....but, let Zenzoe 'condition' that to some 'authoritarian decree' and no 'absolute right' will be involved, anyway......

Quote D_NATURED:

That moment is birth, Kerry. Ughh...finally...birth.

With that respect, that's all I needed to know, D_NATURED. Now, just to be sure, in that respect, while the mother (or anyone) could bash the head of the fetus in and kill it before birth, even if the same reasons to do so after birth existed, the mother would no longer have that 'right', is that so? Is that not the same thing as the 'right to life' preempting 'the right to choose'--especially if that 'right to life' exists?

Quote D_NATURED:

Yes, yours is the dangerously misguided position.

What's dangerous? Or, perhaps, more to my point, which is more 'dangerous': Claiming ANY RIGHT AS ABSOLUTE IN ANY WAY or DECLARING ALL RIGHTS AS CONDITIONAL IN EVERY WAY? I don't think you have a real good grasp on what's at stake here, yet.....

Quote D_NATURED:

I believe that the woman is the only being in this equation with any rights. There are no conditions on her rights as an individual.

Oh? What about Zenzoe's 'fetal viablity'--any problems with that 'condition' restricting such 'rights to women'? Or, is this just about 'my position' being 'dangerous to rights'.....with me seeing the most dangerous aspect of that being 'conditioning out ALL ABSOLUTENESS IN RIGHTS'....but, you not noting that....

Quote D_NATURED:

Just because Zenzoe and I agree on the end point does not mean we get there the same way.

Again, you haven't been following the discussion very closely, have you? Zenzoe mentions 'fetal viability'--do you have any comments to make about that?

Oh, look, you do make one point about the condition of 'viablity':

Viability shmiability. What about the woman? What about her life?

Is that, again, addressed to me as the condescending accuser against 'libertarianism' that I profess to be--or, are you now saying something for Zenzoe to respond to? And, is this claim on 'fetal viability' a 'threat' to the 'rights of women' to you, D_NATURED? Or, again, is that just to be biased against me and my position. And, since Zenzoe specifically makes this point on 'fetal viablity', D_NATURED, why do you say this:

Just because Zenzoe and I agree on the end point does not mean we get there the same way.

Are you really 'agreeing with Zenzoe' and whatever endpoint you are talking about--or just saying that? Remember, it is Zenzoe that is speaking of 'fetal viablity' in this case---does 'fetal viability' do any different in restricting the rights of the woman to abort than does any proposed fetal 'right to life'? So, tell me, D_NATURED, how is it that you and Zenzoe are 'agreeing on the endpoint'--especially as being any different as to how 'I' see the 'endpoint'--with the CONTENTION OF ABSOLUTE RIGHTS AND ALL--except maybe because you and Zenzoe claim to be 'liberal' and I have described myself as 'libertarian' (because of the emphasis of those very RIGHTS). And, that's not 'biased' and 'prejudiced' on your part, D_NATURED? Or, is the dope clouding your perspective? And, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against dope in the right setting--speaking about RIGHTS rationally may not be one of them....especially when you are already biased against the person you are speaking to.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:I'll ignore most of Ulysses comments

Well, that'll just settle my hash, I'll tell ya!

Really, though, the best outcome would've been if he'd have dropped off the planet. He's like one of those goddam self-righting inflatable clowns or color lithographed blow-up cartoon boxers we got to play with in the '40s and '50s. You smacked 'em down as hard as you could and they just kept springing up and coming back for more. You got frustrated for a while. Then you realized that it was boring, and that hoping to get different results from repeating the same thing was the mark of a fool, so you moved on to play with other toys. The only thing that makes him worse than those clowns is that community values allow him to vote and procreate, thus granting him the possibility of inflicting more like himself on an unsuspecting humanity. And we wonder why progress is so slow...

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

And, just when I thought he might be gone, he showed up again. Got recharged, who knows how. The only answer is to avoid feeding him via interaction. If you do interact with him, be ready for infinite tailchasing, because as a doctor (he claims), he has lots of extra time to write Jeremiads on here.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Anyway, you keep putting me in a camp that undervalues individual rights. I wish you would stop that.

Yeah, well, you just stay in your place, missy! Don't you realize that in any idealized Lib paradise, if you can't do WHATEVER you want, WHENEVER you want, and you have to pay a dime in taxes which will be used to help anybody else, you're being imposed upon, condescended to, and having your individual rights taken away? Greater good, indeed. Who needs important philosophical distinctions like that? See what happens when women are allowed to learn to read?

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

[quote=Kerry]

You're 'strawman' argument appears...

That's "your 'strawman" argument appears..." But that's okay. You're entitled to a typo.

Speaking only for myself, I think he truly and simply doesn't know the difference.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote Zenzoe:

For the last time, a fetus, up until viability, grows and develops within the womb of a woman ONLY by her consent.

Just so 'we' can understand where our distinctions on this issue lies, that's any and every time, right? No matter what 'interests' any one else in the community may say. Is that correct? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, Zenzoe--I'm not trying to create a 'strawman'--I am trying to understand the qualifications of our differences--especially with relation to the differences of any 'absoluteness' or 'conditioning' you seem to want to place on 'rights'--that, of course, as apparently modern law schools seem to want to promote (my daughter is a lawyer), is 'conditioned by some authority' (whereas, 'duties' are obviously 'absolute' as 'dictated by authorities'--using, of course, 'written laws' and 'written oaths' as one way of applying and defining 'authority'--against any and all 'jury review' and 'jury nullification' potentials as being at least one way the 'common man' can practically check that....).

But, more to this point. When you are making that statement above as the fetus being allowed to stay ONLY by the woman's consent, that is against any and all conditions, otherwise, correct? If so, does that define 'absolute' to you--or is there some 'condition' (on anything) that makes it purely 'relative' (and 'malleable') that I'm missing here, Zenzoe?

Quote Zenzoe:

After it becomes viable...

When is that? Are you talking about 'naturally viable' as at birth--or whenever viability can be obtained at any gestational age as, like Texas law, the earliest gestation to survive being at 20 weeks? Or, do you think 'we' need to 'define that'? Maybe just 'condition it' on whatever is 'established by written law' without having to understand how even those that make the written law define it. And, again, why 'viability'? And, how is, I guess, 'conditioning' this on the 'fetus's viability' distinguished, in any way, upon any unalienable 'right to life' the fetus may gain? Why are you allowing the 'fetus' viability' to get in the way of the woman's ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ABORT, otherwise? Just by your 'declared conditions'--under, of course, your 'declared authority' (did I spell 'your' right there, Zenzoe?)?

Quote Zenzoe:

After it becomes viable, the mother retains her rights of self-determination and privacy, but such must be balanced now with protecting the life of the fetus too.....

Hold on a second. I'm not following that. How does the mother 'retain her rights of self-determination and privacy' IF that now 'must be balanced with protecting the life of the fetus too'? Who gets to determine that 'condition' for the mother, Zenzoe? And why? And, if that 'condition' is being determined by someone (or something) else other than the mother, how does the mother 'retain her rights of self-determination and privacy' in that respect? What is preempting the mother's rights in such a manner? The 'fetus's viability'? How is that in any way different from the fetus's 'right to life' preempting the mother's 'right to choose'? Or, is there some other reason (or 'condition') that someone (or something) else is 'acting for the fetus'? And, if so, what might that be?

Quote Zenzoe:

--the fetus is not yet a person, but it is worthy of our care and consideration, ethically and morally, considering its advanced development.

'Our care and consideration'. Who is that, Zenzoe? The 'community'? Have they seen this fetus, yet? Why should they 'care' about this fetus now (before birth) if they didn't 'care' about the fetus in an earlier stage (and, again, at what 'stage' are you defining that now deserves 'our care and consideration' if it is still prior to birth?).

Quote Zenzoe:

However, if a woman's life and health are threatened by the pregnancy, her interests must take precedence over that of the fetus, by virtue of the fact that she is the citizen, not the fetus

OK, no problem there. But, let's say the fetus is already born. If the mother sees that newborn as 'threatening her life and well-being' in any way, does the mother still have the right to kill that newborn? Or, would the 'right to life' preempt that mother's 'choice' in that situation? I know how you like to 'condition' this on just about anything to try NOT to have this be AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT--but, I think you are verging on the point of the irrational to do so--and I HATE 'authoritarian conditioning' based on IRRATIONAL MOTIVES and their political applications (remember the two drunks--one leaving and getting run over and the other being contained against his wishes and the doctor being sued for both--there can't even be a 'rational component' in allowing it 'both ways' as 'defining harm' in the way that that 'professional obligation' is being set-up--of course, by 'authorities' that can take advantage of such irrational motives without, themselves, being personally responsible in the issue....).

Quote Zenzoe:

Usually, if a woman wants an abortion after viability, it's because something's wrong with her pregnancy, and she's in danger.

Not always, Zenzoe. It can be because something went wrong with the woman's relationships--and, now, she doesn't want to have 'the man's child'. Unless the new federal law against 'partial birth abortions' precludes all elective third trimester abortions (and I'm not even sure one way or the other), some states may still allow the woman to electively abort at that time under those conditions. Even our cohort here, D_NATURED, appears to allow that as an ABSOLUTE RIGHT--despite any apparent 'viability in utero' issues that you (and I) bring up here, Zenzoe. But, my point in the whole issue is that I agree with the Roe vs. Wade decision, it is a 'state/community interest' thing (at least past 12 weeks) until, and unless, the fetus gains the 'right to life'--at which point, now the fetus/child's 'right to life' precludes the woman's (or anyone's) 'right to choose' against it....that happens at least at birth--and, some may try to make it sooner in the interest of the 'fetus's viability'.....D_NATURED, who claims that D_NATURED 'agrees with you', Zenzoe, seems to 'disagree with that'.....

Quote Zenzoe:

I'm not interested in a nit-picky examination of abstract notions of rights. I'm just about done here, and if my position isn't clear by now, it never will be.

'Nit-picky examination of abstract notions of rights'. That's, of course, if you don't mind 'conditioning' all 'rights' to 'something else' other than the ones possessing them. Otherwise, such issues of 'rights' are not just 'abstract'--they are quite real to the one that possesses them and is allowed to exert and/or live with them.......otherwise, 'authoritarily condition' everything and call that 'community interest'.....but, don't call it a democracy 'based on government securing and guaranteeing rights' like some of us thought this nation was created with.....even as those rights and the application of their recognized and established 'unalienableness' have changed with time (usually to be more extensively interpreted and applied--up until recently with the new 'emphasis on the absoluteness of duties and the conditionalities of rights' as 'authority declares its absoluteness and conditionality, accordingly')...

Imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending imposing condescending.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote Zenzoe:

First, why should autonomy be the priority in such an assessment?

'Autonomy' is the priority in ethics IF 'individual rights' are the priority in politics. Since you said you understood the meaning of 'autonomy', I asked you if you connected the ethical perspective of 'autonomy' to the political perspective of 'individual rights'--and to what extent, if any? If not, what is YOUR definition of either--'autonomy' or 'individual rights'--and do you correlate the two in any way? Again, not a strawman argument as far as I'm concerned--just trying to understand where you are coming from when you talk of 'conditioned rights'.....are we back to the dogs being family companions vs. the next meal as 'their rights'?

Quote Zenzoe:

This was your OATH. It was and is an obligation. Either you honor your oath, or you do not.

Is that your definition of the Oath--or my definition of the Oath? Mine says 'do no harm'--but, even with that, as I've told you before, that can be irrationally applied in a manner that does not have a straight-forward answer. You don't seem to have a problem with that because, in your supposed 'rational view', 'everything can be conditioned' (except, perhaps, at least at one point--unless you've already changed your mind, the 'unalienable right to abort'). Those who have to deal with such issues every day do have a problem with that......and, it's condescenders like you and Ulysses that allow that to happen.....which one is more 'harmful', Zenzoe? The drunk being allowed to walk across the street and get killed--or the one being forced to stay against his will? Not as easy as your accusations try to make it, Zenzoe. Not by a long shot--and, certainly, made no better when you allow yourself to 'condition it' on anything--and, then, try to force me to follow your definition of the Hippocratic Oath. Does the Hippocratic Oath include appeasing the Munchausen's person (and, therefore, play up to such self-mutilation for control of authority) to you up against my professional judgment (as well as my autonomy) against it? Is 'the customer always right' in the field of medicine to you, Zenzoe?

So, I guess even the oath itself is simply relative, rather than objective, in meaning; I wonder what the medical professional societies and AMA would think about him believing that. I still don't believe that he's a doctor; he doesn't write well enough to be educated at that level. He's some kluck who does this for whatever goofball thrills he gets out of it and he has somebody else construct his arguments and positions for him in such a way as to take up other people's time and elicit responses so he'll have something to do. Or, he just wants to take up space and waste time on this particular board.

In any case, if he really were a doctor and an educated man, and had even a basic knowledge of ethics, outside of medical ethics, he'd know that simply doing nothing was doing indirect harm, or de facto harm. If harm results from lack of action, is it not still harm? As to the "is the customer always right" rhetoric, should or would any doctor but a Lib think of patients as mere "customers" and even make such an argument, although it were merely rhetorical? Shows where his Lib values are, doesn't it?

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

That's about all I have to say for now. I'm sure you will counter with something to the effect that I'm not making sense to you--thus, posing a 'rational accusation'......all I can say for myself is that it does make sense to me....a whole lot of sense.....

Yes, it does. To you alone. That's largely the problem.

Sigh.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Hey, since this is a topic on abortion--which I think falls into the category of abortion rights, law, moral and ethical judgment, why don't you show me how smart you are, Ulysses, and make a comment on the topic. Do you think 'rights' should be as absolute as you now claim 'duties' (of course, my 'duty'--not yours) are? Plus, since Zenzoe even posited the remark that some here 'undervalue individual rights', I suspected you right from the start, Ulysses. But, in light of that concept, and since you claimed to be the ethical expert (at least expert enough to judge--or is that accuse--my ethical knowledge), I was wondering what your ideas on autonomy might be (Zenzoe doesn't seem to want to expound on that topic--although, Zenzoe did state that Zenzoe knew what 'autonomy' and 'Munchausen's' meant...and Zenzoe is quite good with words...). We know fetuses and newborns are too little for expressing much of their own autonomy (other than perhaps, you know, screaming and crying like they do--somewhat like you do), but, once they have a life, we grant them autonomy that deserves our sanctioning (it's when to do it that I think is the issue here)--and, like all absolute and unalienable rights, something that can't be taken away without 'due process'. And, the same goes with the pregnant woman wanting to abort, again, as long as there is no entity for which we grant autonomy to contend with (the 'right to life' with), that woman has that choice (the 'right to choose' against any and all 'community interests').

By the inference that Zenzoe made that there were those in here that 'undervalued individual rights', I proposed the rationale that as much as you ignore the autonomy in another is directly related to as much as you undervalue their individual rights (it goes right along with this issue of determining what difference, if any, is there in a 'community interested in individuality' and one who 'grants individual rights to others as much as acquiring them for oneself'). What do you say, Ulysses? Or, do you just come in here occasionally, cry and scream at me like a little baby (where's DRC to try to appease your rants?)--and, then, appear to just sit there pouting without anything really pertinent to say, do you? Until you want to cry and scream and rant again when it suits your temperament.....

I'll make one more remark on this issue of 'duties' and 'rights'. Zenzoe seems to be a person expressing concerns about misogyny--even going so far as describing it as the 'Feminine Principle' that is being attacked--and, I agree. Now, with respect to the absoluteness of 'duties' vs. the absoluteness of 'rights', which, to you, represents more the 'Feminine Principle'? 'Rights' allow expression--'duties' demand it. Which is 'more feminine'?

Later....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Ulysses:

He's like one of those goddam self-righting inflatable clowns or color lithographed blow-up cartoon boxers we got to play with in the '40s and '50s. You smacked 'em down as hard as you could and they just kept springing up and coming back for more. You got frustrated for a while. Then you realized that it was boring, and that hoping to get different results from repeating the same thing was the mark of a fool, so you moved on to play with other toys.

With apologies to Kerry (on my part alone), I have to say I LOL'd over that one. It's such an apt analogy. But Kerry's resilience is exactly why I referred to myself as Fool. I keep trying! Regardless!

Mixing metaphors for the moment, this thread morphs into a tighter Gordian Knot, with every attempt to undo it. Not one participant's rapier attempts to cut through the thing —whack whack whack, ping ping ping, clank clank clank— does the trick. I don't know what to do. Where's my jackhammer...

Laboring on, my raw, bleeding, bare fingers crying out for relief...

Quote Kerry:

Plus, since Zenzoe even posited the remark that some here 'undervalue individual rights', I suspected you right from the start, Ulysses.

Did I say that? I certainly don't think it. I think you think it. I think we all value individual rights, but those of us who also value community, do not see a Medusian conflict between the two, as you do.

Quote Kerry:

I'll make one more remark on this issue of 'duties' and 'rights'. Zenzoe seems to be a person expressing concerns about misogyny--even going so far as describing it as the 'Feminine Principle' that is being attacked--and, I agree. Now, with respect to the absoluteness of 'duties' vs. the absoluteness of 'rights', which, to you, represents more the 'Feminine Principle'? 'Rights' allow expression--'duties' demand it. Which is 'more feminine'?

The Knot tightens, or at least grows another twisted gnarl. But, huh? Kerry, when I defend the Feminine Principle, I do so on behalf of a societal adjustment toward balance between the masculine and the feminine. Misogyny has a place in this discussion, but only where a male thinks he is entitled to ponder the questions of rights vs. community, "over and against or above condescending interests of customers..."

I give up, for now. Time for breakfast.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:Hey, since this is a topic on abortion--which I think falls into the category of abortion rights, law, moral and ethical judgment, why don't you show me how smart you are, Ulysses, and make a comment on the topic.

Here's why. The simple story of the little old lady applies. When asked why she doesn't vote, she said voting only encourages politicans. I don't make a comment because it only encourages you.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

The Knot tightens, or at least grows another twisted gnarl. But, huh? Kerry, when I defend the Feminine Principle, I do so on behalf of a societal adjustment toward balance between the masculine and the feminine. Misogyny has a place in this discussion, but only where a male thinks he is entitled to ponder the questions of rights vs. community, "over and against or above condescending interests of customers..."

I give up, for now. Time for breakfast.

The only sword available for this particular Gordian knot is the sword of ignoring him, and then hoping, most likely in vain (Sigh!), that he will either simply stay inside his home and remain calm, or, even more desirably, just disappear. But hey, it's your energy; waste it as you will. Those who joust nobly with windmills deserve A's for effort. You get an A.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Ulysses:
Quote Zenzoe:

The Knot tightens, or at least grows another twisted gnarl. But, huh? Kerry, when I defend the Feminine Principle, I do so on behalf of a societal adjustment toward balance between the masculine and the feminine. Misogyny has a place in this discussion, but only where a male thinks he is entitled to ponder the questions of rights vs. community, "over and against or above condescending interests of customers..."

I give up, for now. Time for breakfast.

The only sword available for this particular Gordian knot is the sword of ignoring him, and then hoping, most likely in vain (Sigh!), that he will either simply stay inside his home and remain calm, or, even more desirably, just disappear. But hey, it's your energy; waste it as you will. Those who joust nobly with windmills deserve A's for effort. You get an A.

That's sweet of you, Ulysses, but I'm a little disappointed that, being true to the original expression, you didn't take the opportunity to describe my quixotic efforts as "jousting nobly" with windbags. Ah well...may the joust begin again... ;-)

Quote Kerry:

My 'right to choose' and 'right to life' can be 'due processed' completely out of existence if I murder someone else (whose absolute 'right to life' and 'right to choose' have been removed by 'my choice'). As I've told you before, I wouldn't mind seeing a DNA-proven child rapist murderer be capitally punished--and done so by any means (in fact, you might be glad to know that I think that 'unreasonable punishment' is conditioned to the 'nature of the crime'--but, that conditioning is because such 'unalienable rights' that the child rapist-murderer may have once had were now removed by 'due process').

Quote Kerry:

I am in agreement with the ABSOLUTENESS OF RIGHTS when it comes to the woman's right to choose in her pregnancy. But, not only am I also in agreement with the ABSOLUTENESS OF RIGHTS when it comes to an existing 'right to life', I am in agreement that that 'right' has to be the preemptive 'right' (because no other 'right' can be exerted without it) once the unalienableness of that right is in existence. And, since you do seem to like to put this in blatant descriptions, the point of the recognition of the preemption of the 'right to life' over any other 'right' in this situation really means that the woman is allowed to have that fetus's head crushed and sucked out to death until that fetus (or child) gains the 'right to life'. That's really all I am asking--for an agreement that, at one point in time, the fetus (or child) will gain the 'right to life' that the mother (or anyone) cannot beat the child's head in and suck its brains out to death and her (or anyone) 'have the right' to do it. In that manner, the 'right to abort' is 'conditioned', so to speak--but, it is only 'conditioned' to the comparatively preemptive 'right to life' once that right exists. Now, if you are to agree with Zenzoe and claim that such a 'right to life' is always 'conditioned' on something (and, therefore, no 'right' is really 'absolute'), then how are you seeing the 'ABSOLUTENESS OF (any other) RIGHTS'

In the first statement, above, Kerry gives examples where rights can be removed —by due process, as by community agreement on the morals and ethics we're all going to abide by—that is, instances proving the non-existence of rights that can be said to be absolute. (Absolute: "Not capable of being violated or infringed; complete and without restriction or qualification; not limited by law.")

But then, in the second statement, he claims "right to life" to be an absolute right. Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that a contradiction? Can he have it both ways?

While I have said the interests of a fetus at the time of viability must be taken into consideration, I have also said that where an unwanted pregnancy presents a dire threat to a woman's right not only to life, but to the pursuit of happiness as well, she has a right to defend herself, in the same way a woman has a right to defend herself against a would-be rapist or murderer. But Kerry wants the fetus to have equal rights to its mother, once it reaches viability, and that such equality renders the woman's right to self-determination nil. At least, that's my understanding of Kerry's position (No doubt I'll get a correction). The fact is, even in California, where abortion is restricted after viability (I keep telling Kerry, but he never hears this fact), the doctor, in consultation with the mother, not the court, first makes the determination as to the ethics involved and whether the situation calls for an abortion. The woman's life and health always take precedence over a fetus' supposed "right to life."

A few facts:

• Only 1.4% of abortions occurred past 21 weeks in 2000. http://www.policyalmanac.org/culture/archive/abortion_statistics.shtml

• "In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy

Quote Wikipedia:

Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability.[note 1] An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy.”

Abortion, when induced in the developed world in accordance with local law, is among the safest procedures in medicine.[1] However, unsafe abortions (those performed by persons without proper training or outside of a medical environment) result in approximately 70 thousand maternal deaths and 5 million disabilities per year globally.[2] An estimated 42 million abortions are performed globally each year, with 20 million of those performed unsafely.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote D_NATURED:

D_NATURED, Zenzoe isn't the one that agrees with the 'absoluteness of rights'--I am.

I know. I'm just tired of the argument. Your whole purpose for claiming an absoluteness of rights is to deny the rights of women...ironically. Yet, you don't see that. Fine.

Well, D_NATURED, you claim an 'absoluteness of rights' as you say Zenzoe 'claims'--then, you argue against my point of 'absoluteness of rights' as if denying the rights of women.

That's why your position is arbitrary and not absolute because it chooses a 12 week point of no return after which women potentially lose their rights. At 11:59 on the night before the 90th day, the women have their right and the fetus is a question mark, two minutes later she's a criminal and the fetus is no more "viable" than it was two minutes ago. That aint absolute with regard to rights. The only absolute is that you arbitrarily have chosen a time to treat women and doctors as felons and restrict their rights. That aint very libertarian of you.

So, what really is your point here--and what does you 'being tired of the argument' really mean? Does that mean that you are 'tired of the argument' that 'rights' are to be considered 'absolute'--or 'conditional'? Do you think 'rights' should be 'conditional' or 'absolute'? Or, as you seem to imply now, only 'conditional' if who you want to support says 'conditional' and only 'absolute' if who you want to support says 'absolute'?

I have demonstrated again and again how it is YOUR perspective that is conditional. You condition a woman's rights on her gestation process. I say ABSOLUTELY that women have a right to say who or what grows within their bodies and the greater harm to society is the mere notion that we can sit around and quibble about the right of a human being to their own body.

You don't even appear to see the problem with Zenzoe's position of 'conditioning all rights'. THAT can 'deny rights to women' (and everyone else) more that considering them as 'absolute' (against any and all 'community interests') once they are determined to exist. Furthermore, like me, Zenzoe even claims to 'condition the rights of the woman' to the 'viability of the fetus'. But, Zenzoe saying that doesn't 'deny rights to women' to you, does it? Only if 'the libertarian' as myself says it, is that it? And, how is 'me' saying it more likely to 'deny women rights' than Zenzoe saying it, D_NATURED?

Climb down off your cross, Kerry. Frankly, I haven't been reading the full exchange between Zenzoe and yourself as your ridiculously long and repetitive nonsense is more than I can take. I am dyslexic and it's hard enough reading shit that makes sense, much less what you have offered.

I'm beginning to wonder if I'm talking to reasonable people here. Or, is any 'liberal's claim' about being 'unprejudiced and unbiased' only if it is done by someone else that calls themself 'liberal' regardless of what is said? Which, if you don't realize it, is exactly what being 'biased and prejudiced' means....

I don't care if you call yourself the queen of England, if you maintain that women have a human rights "off" switch, I say you're wrong. How much more clear can I make MY self before I begin to wonder if I'm talking to a reasonable person, and I'm not the only one suspicious of you.

Quote D_NATURED:

Right. You call a fetus a person and we don't. We can't change that perception in your mind and, frankly, I don't care to try. I have stated my case as best I could with nothing but the same two thousand word responses

God Almighty, D_NATURED. Are you really following this discussion--or do you just come to your conclusions regardless of the context? When you read this coming from Zenzoe JUSTIFYING THE RESTRICTION OF ELECTIVE ABORTIONS:

Here's a secret for you...I'm not reading your entire exchange with Zenzoe. I'm only going on the conversation that we've had. Zenzoe and I may disagree here, so what?

—the fetus is not yet a person, but it is worthy of our care and consideration, ethically and morally, considering its advanced development.

How does whether that and whether the fetus is qualified 'as a person' make any difference to the woman having her elective abortion restricted? It is still COMPROMISING HER RIGHT TO ABORT. You see that--or is that something you want to ignore because 'you support Zenzoe'? The issue becomes, if this fetus is worthy of 'our care and consideration' at that stage, WHY--and WHO (or WHAT) gets to determine that IF IT'S NOT THE MOTHER? And, by the way, if it's not THE FETUS AS A PERSON (and its 'unalienable right' infringement being the only justification to remove THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT OF THE MOTHER), then, by whatever authority you and Zenzoe allow such a 'condition' (absent any consideration of any other 'unalienable right') made AGAINST THIS (now, so-called) ABSOLUTE RIGHT,' then, by inference, you and Zenzoe are allowing EVERY RIGHT to be 'conditioned' by something that doesn't involve 'unalienable rights'--and, when you do that, NO RIGHT IS UNALIENABLE. Do you understand that--or has 'the brick wall' been built because I claim myself as a 'libertarian'?

The brick wall is your insistence that women should be arbitrarily denied their human rights for your pleasure.

Besides that, my position on this issue of abortion is no different from Zenzoe's if Zenzoe is restricting abortion to 'fetal viability'--my reasoning for it contains 'personhood rights' (even as any 'state' uses the concept in making their decision on when elective abortions are to remain legal regardless of the lack of its existence as 'universally unalienable' at this point in time) because I see the only rational incentive to restrict ANY PERSONHOOD RIGHTS is by its infringement on OTHER PERSONHOOD RIGHTS. And, I see 'right to abort' AS A PERSONHOOD RIGHT--unalienable and all--unless the 'right to life' exists in the one being considered in the event (and, while Roe vs. Wade made no claim to its 'unalienableness' for the fetus until birth, it did allow each state to claim a form of 'personhood right to the fetus' before birth and after 12 weeks)--and it IS such a determination of the 'right to life' that is very pertinent to the 'right to abort' (the 'right to life' will supercede the 'right to abort' once that 'right to life' has been recognized as 'existing'--again, not until birth nationally according to Roe vs. Wade but able to be adjusted state-by-state after 12 weeks for any 'personhood of the fetus'--some did NOT do it until birth--some did it at 12 weeks--some, like Texas, did it at the first gestational age where viability outside of the uterus was possible--what's really your problem with this point?)

I already told you the problem with that. If at ANY point you deny a woman her rights, you have committed a crime against society. If that means I disagree with you, Zenzoe, Roe and Wade, so be it. Holy crap, I may be more libertarian than you, Kerry.

Or, D_NATURED, let me ask it to you like this: Why are you allowing Zenzoe to restrict the woman's 'right to abort' using the excuse of 'fetal viability'--but not me using the fetus's' 'right to life'? Do you really have a reasonable answer to this--or is your bias and prejudice showing like every other condescending accuser (who claims to be 'so liberal' like you are against 'prejudice and bias') on this board? Will you show me the courtesy of even answering that question--or ignore it, perhaps claim a 'strawman argument' against it.....without putting forth any reasoning on it....

I don't allow Zenzoe to restrict a woman's anything, Kerry. I disagree with both the right to life and the viability arguments. I believe it is the woman's absolute right to deny any other being to live in their body without their permission and deadly force can be used to remove the trespassing being. That's the position I've had the whole thread.

Where Zenzoe is concerned, being a woman, she can count on me to have a hands-off approach to telling her what to do with her body. For, as a woman she bears an ability and a responsibility that is too important to be left to bureaucrats and basket cases who blabber on about "rights" of fetuses while they desecrate the very word with their actions. You, yourself, said women have always retained the personal right to abortion. But not an absolute right, right? Geeez...

Quote D_NATURED:

And the circle of confusion continues. I have heard this question from you a dozen times. My answer is the same. The point is when the fetus breathes its own air.

No, it is you who is confusing the issue. I have been the one describing the Roe vs. Wade decision as claiming that the fetus has no 'right to life' until birth--but Roe vs. Wade also qualified the universal AND ABSOLUTE RIGHT for the mother to abort (anywhere in the nation and to every individual so involved) at 12 weeks gestation (regardless of any and all 'community interests', otherwise)--and, then, left it up to the states to determine the extent it would allow the woman the 'right to abort' or give the fetus any potential 'right to life' between those two parameters. NO ONE has granted the fetus the 'right to life' in any ABSOLUTE (personhood) SENSE until the federal government intervened to nationally prevent partial birth abortions. But, let this sink into the liberal-heads on this board, Mississippi recently tried to pass a state constitutional amendment that made the 'right to life start at conception'--if that ever happens, just like what started the Roe vs. Wade court case (where California and New York were already allowing abortion all the way to term and other states prevented all elective abortions at any time), that precedence will then be taken as representing an 'unalienable right'--and, if that is the case, the Supreme Court could use what Roe vs. Wade said (that, if the 'right to life' were to be considered as starting at conception, then all elective abortions would have to be considered illegal), and, now, claim all elective abortions be illegal IF that ever is the case. It is YOU who needs to understand what YOU are up against--I understand it completely (and, if Zenzoe is a lawyer, I'm not sure why Zenzoe doesn't understand this, already). And, making some claim that all 'rights to life' are 'conditional' isn't going to change it, either. And, if you are doing that, you are opening up the very authoritarian condition of claiming ALL RIGHTS as being 'conditional'. In that respect, using Zenzoe's own argument of the 'viability of the fetus' (but not determining what that means with respect to abortion) can be used to say 'as long as the fetus is alive, it is viable'--and THAT CONDITION can be used to even restrict this so-called ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ABORT even more. But, instead of addressing that point (even to disagree with it), it's either a 'strawman's argument'--or they are 'tired of the argument'......in neither case, are they addressing THE ABSOLUTENESS OF RIGHTS--and when such rights are appropriately 'contained'--except Zenzoe and, by compliance with that premise, D_NATURED, claims all 'rights' to be 'conditioned', anyway.....as Zenzoe's assault on my character assumes all 'duties' are 'absolute'.....as, of course, whoever Zenzoe and, now, D_NATURED, claim has 'the authority' to make such conditions....

You can sign a proclamation declaring that no teenage boy (or middle aged man, for that matter) will touch his Willie, but there will more crimes committed that night than in any previous.And most of them not on record. You cannot legislate away a woman's access to her own body. All you can do is make people criminals. Rights don't come from the Supreme Court, Kerry, we're born with them. BORN with them, not conceived with them. Not twelve weeks old with them.

Quote D_NATURED:

Don't you see how arbitrary that is?

Is that so, D_NATURED? But, Zenzoe's 'conditions' and Zenzoe's 'fetal viability' is not arbitrary to you, is that right? Or, if it is declared in writing without a concurrent reasoning for all to see going with it, does that make it less arbitrary to you, D_NATURED? In fact, what isn't arbitrary THAT ISN'T ABSOLUTE, D_NATURED? Can you explain that? Or, is the claim of you being 'too tired of the argument', or perhaps, as Zenzoe's favorite, it being a 'strawman's argument' going to come up?

Dude, if you are a doctor, write yourself a prescription immediately for something strong. You're about to crack...

Quote D_NATURED:

That's not absolute at all. You will choose a certain date that, before which, abortion is legal.

I've quoted the Roe vs. Wade decision. I agree with it. Across the nation to every individual so affected, abortions are legal for any reason prior to 12 weeks gestation--and the fetus had not been given a 'right to life' anywhere in the nation until birth--but, any state now can 'adjust the rights' between those two parameters as 'community interests' see fit. Some states, like California and New York (before the recent federal ban on 'partial birth abortions') alllowed abortions all the way to term. Some, like Utah, restricted them to after 12 weeks. The only real reason to avoid abortions all together is, as Roe vs. Wade also pointed out, if, and when, the fetus gains the 'right to life at conception'. And, when it exists as a 'right to life', THAT IS AN ABSOLUTE. Do you have any other 'condition' in mind to substitute for it--even as you now 'allow Zenzoe's condition of fetal viability' to 'remove the so-called absolute right of women to abort' without saying one word at all against it? There are many reasons against the position of the fetus having the 'right to life at conception' and I have mentioned them many times before on this board--but, I'm spending more than what appears to be productive time on this board now discussing this and I'll leave that for another time. The point is making the 'right to life' conditional does not, in any way, endorse the 'right to abort' as absolute (in fact, making anthing 'conditional' doesn't endorse any 'right' as absolute--but, you sem to allow Zenzoe to do that as you claim it's 'my position' that is against 'the right of women'). What is the point is definitively defining when 'right to life' exists....ABSOLUTELY....and, if you don't keep that in mind, there will be an initiative like Mississippi that will try to say that 'the right to life begins at conception'--and, you can try to pass that off as, well, being 'another state's opinion'--but, in the case of the ABSOLUTENESS OF RIGHTS, you will be wrong...don't try to ignore that point--and don't try to claim that Zenzoe's making all 'rights to life' conditional changes that, either--in fact, THAT will make it worse when just any 'authority's condition' will be able to interject into any 'right' without qualifying what RIGHT it is acting for in doing so....as long as I guess 'it's in writing'....

You are no different from Mississippi if you want to say that a woman's rights only last 12 weeks. That ain't absolute.

Quote D_NATURED:

One day earlier the abortion is legal, the next day it is not and the woman MUST care for the fetus inside her.

Yeah, you say that to me. But, you ignore what I say to Zenzoe:

That's true. I ignored what you said to Zenzoe, by not reading it. You're very clever.

Can I say something to you without saying the same thing to Zenzoe? Is it OK if Zenzoe reads this and considers herself to be a full recipient of any information within? I didn't realize you guys had wasted six pages telling each other how much you agree with each other. I could have sworn there was a debate. Are you telling me it was six pages of haggling over when to deny women rights? I say never.

Quote Zenzoe:

--the fetus is not yet a person, but it is worthy of our care and consideration, ethically and morally, considering its advanced development.

'Our care and consideration'. Who is that, Zenzoe? The 'community'? Have they seen this fetus, yet? Why should they 'care' about this fetus now (before birth) if they didn't 'care' about the fetus in an earlier stage (and, again, at what 'stage' are you defining that now deserves 'our care and consideration' if it is still prior to birth?).

If I ever grow a fetus in my body, I'll let you know what I decide. From the outside perspective of manhood, I cannot allow women to be treated in a way that I would not want to be treated by society. It's really that simple.

Why is that, D_NATURED? Do you have any reason other than your bias and prejudice against me--the 'libertarian' that emphasizes 'rights'--and, by the way, when it comes to any intervention against them, THEIR ABSOLUTENESS (unless, and until, they infringe on another's 'rights')?

My bias against you is that you are a blowhard. I have no more bias against libertarians than I have against children with imaginary friends.

Quote D_NATURED:

Your idea of absolute rights is biased to the fetus over the woman it relies upon for its existence. Mine is biased to the woman at all times.

But, Zenzoe speaks to a concern of 'the viability of the fetus' up against your 'bias to the woman at all times'. Why are you ignoring that as you accuse me, D_NATURED? As I told Zenzoe, our decisions are similar--our reasoning is the point of contention--and has been all along. Yet, you offer all these ABSOLUTE reasons against 'my position'--and you ignore the CONDITIONAL emphasis of Zenzoe's making a similar conclusion. Why is that, D_NATURED?

Because she's closer to me than you are, in her position. I always go after the perspective furthest from my own. At least to see if there is middle ground. In this case, there is not.

And, let me tell you now, D_NATURED, if you aren't taking part in defining what is ABSOLUTE ABOUT THESE RIGHTS, then SOMEBODY ELSE WILL DO IT FOR YOU. So, there will have to be clear lines made as to which ABSOLUTE RIGHT holds precedence--and why. It's NOT to CONDITION IT against anything else OTHER THAN ANOTHER'S ABSOLUTE RIGHTS. Do you disagree with that--or do you accept Zenzoe's 'conditions' removing all 'rights' as absolute? Or, do you see that as what Zenzoe is saying? Or, is it only because 'I' am a 'libertarian' and Zenzoe claims to be 'liberal'?

There the repetitive, paranoid martyr routine again. I agree that you should be self conscious about your libertarianism but you could at least pretend, for the length of this conversation, that you're not.

Re-read my above comments for clarification on my points.

Quote D_NATURED:

Women, through posession of their own bodies, have an inalienable right to privacy, therein. Men have it. Women should too. Where we part company, Truth, is that you talk about absoluteness of rights and then define an arbitrary moment when a woman's rights end. That is a contradiction.

Are you talking about my agreement with Texas law? Texas used that point as the earliest gestation that a fetus has ever survived--it's not quite as 'arbitrary' as you make it out to be. Texas law is recognizing that, if one fetus has survived at 20 weeks, then, by the 'one for all and all for one' premise on ABSOLUTE RIGHTS (in other words, government shouldn't be allowed to 'pick and choose' such rights once such rights are given to any-ONE--that would be ARBITRARILY CONDITIONAL to do so), all fetuses 'past 20 weeks' should be given such an opportunity. I have no problem with that. Sorry to hear that you do. But, make no mistake about it, D_NATURED, I had no problem with other states giving the woman the 'right to abort' all the way to term. I AM NOT granting the fetus the 'right to life' as an ABSOLUTE RIGHT (to be universally applied against all other 'states interests' in the nation and with every individual so involved)--I am understanding with, and in agreement to, Texas' point of 'if one can survive on its own at 20 weeks, all should be allowed to do so' (it's a reasonable premise--you don't have to agree to it because it doesn't contain AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT in the manner of it being applied throughout the nation in equal effect against any and all other 'community's interests'--but, at least, I understand the premise). But, once again, D_NATURED, why are you addressing this just to me? Why are you ignoring the point that Zenzoe has restricted a woman's 'right to abort' with the 'condition of fetal viability'?

Zenzoe hasn't restricted anything. Re-read my above comments for clarification.

Plus, don't forget the other point--if any state passes an amendment that 'the right to life starts at conception', that precedence will be taken to the Supreme Court and, then, the very statements of Roe vs. Wade will come up and, now, be used to say 'all elective abortions are now illegal'. And, you or Zenzoe claiming that the 'right to life' ISN'T ABSOLUTE is going to make no difference. There is a lot of Supreme Court precedence to show that, once an unalienable right has been determined to exist, no written law, or personal action, can obstruct its expression. In fact, Zenzoe claiming that 'all rights are conditional' just further justifies restricting any 'right' (none have to be determined as being ABSOLUTE and UNALIENABLE against any 'written law', or even personal action, impeding them)--but, I don't see you pointing that out. Why, D_NATURED? If you are all about recognizing ABSOLUTE RIGHTS, should 'conditions' be placed on them? And, if so, for what reason? Any real thoughts of your own? Or, just more of 'being tired of this argument'--perhaps even a claim on a 'strawman argument'--or maybe you want to bring Ulysses back in to harass me without qualifications....

I understand the danger of the religious right and what their meddling could do. You asked a bunch of questions so I'll give a general answer. I agree that rights are inalienable. They do not start at conception, though, or at viability or at any time before birth. It is impossible for a fetus to exercise ANY right EXCEPT the right to live prior to that. That right exercised, by itself, does nothing for society. Nada. Yet, a grown woman who is capable of understanding and using her various rights to make society better is far more valuable than the fetus within her. There is no comparison. You are poisoning the dog to save the fleas.

Quote D_NATURED:

Because you wrote that women should have a point in their pregnancy where they lose the right to choose to abort. That's why.

That's not 'just me', D_NATURED. That's Roe vs. Wade. Past 12 weeks, Roe vs. Wade allowed it. But, once again, as stated over and over, Roe vs. Wade did not give the fetus the 'right to life' (to go against any and all other 'state, or personal, interests' as its ABSOLUTE QUALITY) until birth. Now, if you don't want such an ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO WOMEN to be so 'conditioned' at any stage in the pregnancy, why just address this at me, D_NATURED? Why aren't you asking Zenzoe about 'conditioning it to the viability of the fetus'? Anything other than your biases and prejudices at work here, D_NATURED?

See above comments, Mr. Christ.

Quote D_NATURED:

HOLY CRAP! I just figured out what you've been saying and it's soooo wrong. You are saying that because you must be alive to have rights that the right to actually be born is more important than any right you gain thereafter, as a human. LOL. Holy shit, a wave of stupidity washed over me the instant I considered your perspective.

God Almighty, once again, D_NATURED. You been smoking too much dope, lately? That's OK as long as you aren't trying to make a rational argument. Let's me see if I can spell it out for you. How can you have a 'right'--of any type, under any condition, for any reason--IF YOU AREN'T ALIVE? Is that REALLY TOO HARD FOR YOU TO SEE? By the way, once again, I got that 'reasoning' from the oral arguments of Roe vs. Wade (you might get a better basis on this by listening to it--I had a copy of May It Please The Court that I used to listen to while driving--I gave it away to my lawyer daughter). If you don't have 'life', you don't have access or the ability to acquire any other 'right'. Period. Really too hard for you to understand there, D_NATURED? Maybe you want to claim a 'right' WITHOUT LIVING--have any idea on how that could be done? Smoke a little more and, maybe, it'll come to you.....

You condescending prick. Why don't you smoke some more crack so you can stay up all night writing three thousand word jumbles of thoughts, concerns, facts, conjecture, questions and attacks without any order or meaning. Then you might have an excuse.

Quote D_NATURED:

What you ignore is that pre-empting LIFE ITSELF is something else, Kerry. Namely, the functioning womb of a grown woman. If the rights do not start and stop there, it is TYRANNY!

Actually, you're mentioning something else there. That's the prospect of a 'virtue over life'--like the moral reasoning for war. It could be used in the issue of pregnancy but only tangentially and for different effect--and not exactly for the same reason. However, in someone that already has the 'right to life' that is 'willing to die for the virtue', you're missing a BIG POINT--it's the one who possesses that 'right to life' that has the 'right to decide what to die for'--not anyone else. In fact, forcing them to do so against their will IS TYRANNY.....but, let Zenzoe 'condition' that to some 'authoritarian decree' and no 'absolute right' will be involved, anyway......

There, you said it's the "one" who possesses that right. Is a fetus one? I say it is not. The woman is one, deserving every absolute right that men enjoy and one they do not. But that is the sticking point, isn't it?

Quote D_NATURED:

That moment is birth, Kerry. Ughh...finally...birth.

With that respect, that's all I needed to know, D_NATURED. Now, just to be sure, in that respect, while the mother (or anyone) could bash the head of the fetus in and kill it before birth, even if the same reasons to do so after birth existed, the mother would no longer have that 'right', is that so? Is that not the same thing as the 'right to life' preempting 'the right to choose'--especially if that 'right to life' exists?

But you are not "a" life until you are born. Prior to that, the fetus is part of the mother who is already "A" life. It is HER body in which the fetus dwells. How do you continue to ignore that?

Quote D_NATURED:

Yes, yours is the dangerously misguided position.

What's dangerous? Or, perhaps, more to my point, which is more 'dangerous': Claiming ANY RIGHT AS ABSOLUTE IN ANY WAY or DECLARING ALL RIGHTS AS CONDITIONAL IN EVERY WAY? I don't think you have a real good grasp on what's at stake here, yet.....

No, it is you who does not know what is at stake. Your dividing of rights between the fetus and the mother enables the religious ass hats to gain ground. You are not the absolute advocate of rights that you think. You are a part time advocate of rights and a part time ass hat. I'd like to keep you off the ass hat roles for more than 12 weeks, if possible.

Quote D_NATURED:

I believe that the woman is the only being in this equation with any rights. There are no conditions on her rights as an individual.

Oh? What about Zenzoe's 'fetal viablity'--any problems with that 'condition' restricting such 'rights to women'? Or, is this just about 'my position' being 'dangerous to rights'.....with me seeing the most dangerous aspect of that being 'conditioning out ALL ABSOLUTENESS IN RIGHTS'....but, you not noting that....

Take another pill. Zenzoe if she gets pregnant, can consider her fetus to be "alive" at whatever point she wants. Or, if she wants the fetus ripped out, that's her decision too. I'm out of it, won't you join me?

Quote D_NATURED:

Just because Zenzoe and I agree on the end point does not mean we get there the same way.

Again, you haven't been following the discussion very closely, have you? Zenzoe mentions 'fetal viability'--do you have any comments to make about that?

Oh, look, you do make one point about the condition of 'viablity':

Viability shmiability. What about the woman? What about her life?

That's right, and Zenzoe can read. If she feels any part of my argument is an affront to her sense of morality, she'll tell me. You can stop attack-defending her.

Quote "douche bag":

Is that, again, addressed to me as the condescending accuser against 'libertarianism' that I profess to be--or, are you now saying something for Zenzoe to respond to? And, is this claim on 'fetal viability' a 'threat' to the 'rights of women' to you, D_NATURED? Or, again, is that just to be biased against me and my position. And, since Zenzoe specifically makes this point on 'fetal viablity', D_NATURED, why do you say this:

Just because Zenzoe and I agree on the end point does not mean we get there the same way.

Are you really 'agreeing with Zenzoe' and whatever endpoint you are talking about--or just saying that? Remember, it is Zenzoe that is speaking of 'fetal viablity' in this case---does 'fetal viability' do any different in restricting the rights of the woman to abort than does any proposed fetal 'right to life'? So, tell me, D_NATURED, how is it that you and Zenzoe are 'agreeing on the endpoint'--especially as being any different as to how 'I' see the 'endpoint'--with the CONTENTION OF ABSOLUTE RIGHTS AND ALL--except maybe because you and Zenzoe claim to be 'liberal' and I have described myself as 'libertarian' (because of the emphasis of those very RIGHTS). And, that's not 'biased' and 'prejudiced' on your part, D_NATURED? Or, is the dope clouding your perspective? And, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against dope in the right setting--speaking about RIGHTS rationally may not be one of them....especially when you are already biased against the person you are speaking to.....

You and your reefer madness. LOL. You're such a douche bag.

Why do you care if I'm biased against you, for some reason you've yet to explain?

I don't need to argue viability with Zenzoe, because she knows I give her full reign over her own body and expect her to do the same for me. So far, you are the only one arguing in favor of the law as it exists. Meanwhile, you blab on about absolute rights, granted by the Supreme Court or the state of Texas. I told you what I believe, either tell me why I'm wrong sans Zenzoe references or STFU.

The only thing worse than a blabbering, repetitive ass hat is...well, there's nothing worse. I'll let you go now. Time for me to go smoke a joint and protest a war while wearing a tie-died t-shirt and shouting communist slogans. Time for you to do what libertarians do. Namely, drone on for thousands of wasted words of paranoia and arrogance. Forgive me if I don't participate further in your dissecting of the rights of women. There's only so much idiocy I can stand.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote Kerry:

I'll make one more remark on this issue of 'duties' and 'rights'. Zenzoe seems to be a person expressing concerns about misogyny--even going so far as describing it as the 'Feminine Principle' that is being attacked--and, I agree. Now, with respect to the absoluteness of 'duties' vs. the absoluteness of 'rights', which, to you, represents more the 'Feminine Principle'? 'Rights' allow expression--'duties' demand it. Which is 'more feminine'?

The Knot tightens, or at least grows another twisted gnarl. But, huh? Kerry, when I defend the Feminine Principle, I do so on behalf of a societal adjustment toward balance between the masculine and the feminine. Misogyny has a place in this discussion, but only where a male thinks he is entitled to ponder the questions of rights vs. community, "over and against or above condescending interests of customers..."

A 'societal adjustment towards balance'. Who, or what, determines that for you, Zenzoe? Whatever it is you think this 'Knot' represents is not 'loosened' by ignoring the relationship that 'community impositions' (what justifies them and how) may have with 'autonomous expression'. In fact, without the concept of 'rights' being honored to begin with, I'm not sure how you can politically confirm anything of autonomy--nor 'balance' anything in community. You have any examples that show how the 'balance of community interest' can be done and fully recognize personal autonomy WITHOUT RIGHTS? Or, does 'autonomy' and its involved 'political rights' have anything to do with your 'balanced community'?

I think the whole issue then becomes: What are the 'limits of rights' in a 'balanced community'? With respect to beings with complete autonomy, that would be in a community that honors rights ABSOLUTELY--not conditionally. The only 'condition' to them is when they interfere with others' rights--something that has to be determined through 'due process'. Ignoring that for some idea that something else 'balances community' invites the very oppressive and prejudicial aspects of what 'community authority' can represent WITHOUT RIGHTS. Much of our American social and legal history I think bear that out. I think the Supreme Court cases of Loving vs. Virginia, Griswald vs. Connecticut, Roe vs. Wade and Lawrence vs. Texas, all bear that out.

Or, let me ask it to you this way, Zenzoe: What aspect of 'community balance' are you supporting other than a securing and guaranteeing of 'mutual autonomy' as being the primary force and primary focus of 'community'? It's the same question that I've been asking DRC and Ulysses now for quite some time: What is the distinction that you are making between a 'community interested in individual expression' and one who is 'granting individual rights to others as much as acquiring them for oneself'? And, perhaps, more to the point of our discussion, what aspect of fact or faith are you placing in anything that you say represents 'community' and the 'interest of community balance' that does anything other than a securing and guaranteeing of 'mutual autonomy' of its members? What is beyond that that is in the interest of 'community' that should supercede that 'securing and guaranteeing of individual rights' tenet? Can that be described and communicated--and what is it?

I see the most likely thing 'tying the Knot' being ignorance to how any purpose is to be enacted and its associated faith in conglomerated causes without addressing specific circumstances in resolution (the problem with the absoluteness of 'duties' vs 'rights' comes into play with that)--and it opens up the possibility that, without that specific recognition, any 'social cause' so inappropriately considered but still eventually ignorantly enacted can create (perhaps) the 'unintended consequences' of oppression and prejudice. Wars without real 'virtues over life causes' can do that. Communities that claim a 'balanced' interest in unborn children, marriage choices, birth control options, sexual relations options, etc., can all do that. So, what duty of 'community' can be more important than the securing and guaranteeing of the right of mutual autonomy and its political counterpart--individual rights? Why can't you address what limits you think are appropriately placed on autonomy in the interest of 'the community'' (an abstract entity that lacks any substance without each member)--and not more directly in the interest of 'another'. What is the difference between a 'community interested in individual expression' and one who 'grants individual rights to others as much as acquiring them for oneself'? It's ignorace of that specific consideration that offers up oppression and prejudice in the name of 'balance' as I see it--and is what really 'ties the Knot tighter'....

Rights allow expression--duties demand it. Again, which is more 'feminine'? And, how does a 'demanding duty' create this 'community balance' any more than an 'allowing right'? As I see it, 'duties' help tie that Knot--'rights' (as a MUTUAL expression) are a way out of it....otherwise, can you distinguish what you mean by 'community balance' against 'mutual autonomy'? It's a question that I've been asking for quite sometime now--no one seems to have the courtesy of directly addressing it other than to, in some ways, castigate me instead for it....claiiming 'duties' (of course, my duties--not yours) are more absolute than 'rights' (except, somehow, when you talk about the absolute 'right to abort' by removing any and all incentives in its absolute context to the 'right to life'--a ridiculous and ignorant proposal to make--the only distinction to make against these two rights with respect to their absolute expression in the right context is when does a human life with rights begin--and, when the 'right to life' exists, another's 'right to life' ALWAYS preempts your 'right to choose' against it--unless removed by 'due process')....

And even though you said you understood the term, Zenzoe, none of you have even once actually addressed the concept of 'autonomy' as to what you mean about it--not even to compare it to 'community balancing interests' and whatever that is to mean--not even Ulysses who claims that I don't know anything about 'ethics'--I think I do know that 'ethics' has a LOT to do with 'autonomy'--what do you really think, Ulysses?....why isn't anyone else mentioning the word in any context to its meaning? It does go right along with the political incentive of 'individual rights'. What 'community interest' is beyond 'mutual autonomy'?

And, this is what I said about 'community balance' in post #156, Zenzoe:

'Granting individual rights to others as well as acquiring them for oneself' as the personal (and, therefore, more specific and factual) claim on 'communities interested in individual expression' is 'my balance', Zenzoe.

And, this is what you said to me in post #238, Zenzoe:

Anyway, you keep putting me in a camp that undervalues individual rights. I wish you would stop that.

I know how you don't seem to like to categorize things, and, if it weren't for the impositions of authority (and I how I see a need to have authority JUSTIFY its impositions every step of the way--especially if you are going to claim that 'duties' are more absolute than 'rights'), we probably wouldn't have to categorize things so much. But, that's not the case in this political world. And, especially since you are one of the ones making duties more absolute than rights (through the categorization of 'written law' and 'written oaths'), I feel there is a responsibility to specify, categorically, such incentives and actions NOT based on 'securing and guaranteeing individual rights'--espeically if they are NOT based on 'doing so for another's rights'--and, therefore, to specify what 'community interest' you are talking about whose imposition supercedes any and all 'securing and guaranteeing of individual rights'. I think that needs very specific qualifications to continually check all oppressive and prejudicial potentials in such impositions--open and up front.....just like what I thought what used to represent the American democratic experiment in government and the securing and guaranteeing of individual rights with that government--the main reason why 'unalienable rights' supercedes all other governmental (or any authoritatively impositional) initiatives against it, otherwise....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I'll ignore most of Ulysses comments once again--and D_NATURED seems to have taken my comment about D_NATURED smoking as an insult (we were talking about pot, weren't we?). Sad to see that, D_NATURED. But, when you bias yourself from the beginning, it's hard to really see what I am saying, isn't it?

The point I am sayiing is fairly simple, you are the one who couldn't see it--and least to respond to it directly without your 'HOLY CRAP' bullshit. The 'right to life' preempts any person's 'right to choose' against it unless removed by 'due process'--and some (unlike me) who are against capital punishment wouldn't even remove that person's 'right to life' even with 'due process' (which leaves only 'war' to do it--and that can only be justified if it's a war with a 'virtue over life'). Some (like me) may argue why do you have no problem killing a fetus 'by choice' and do have a problem killing a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer by 'due process'--but I'll leave that as it is for now.

The real point to this issue of 'fetal-killing' is when does the 'right to life' exist? It doesn't try to qualify the 'right to life' as 'conditional'--it tries to qualify it as when does a fetus gain the 'right to life'? That's the ethical choice we should be making--collectively and individually--and the reason for that is that, if you don't keep that in mind, then, there will come along an initiative to claim 'the right to life at conception' to do it for you. And, once again, it's not to ignore the absolute unalienableness of 'the right to life'--it's to determine for yourself when that 'right to life' is to begin. Fine if you say it's at birth (in its 'unalienable' sense, Roe vs. Wade agrees with you). But, I think it's also fine that Texas says it is when the earliest gestation to survive is. What Zenzoe's issues over 'the care and concern of fetal viability' without defining it is, I have no earthly idea. I do think if someone is going to take that 'care and concern' to its 'community-balancing' potential, then someone is going to define when 'the community' is, now, to have enough 'care and concern for the fetus' to the point to where that 'community' will be restricting that pregnant mother's 'choices' in her pregnancy--and what distinction that restriction has between it being done for any potential fetal 'right to life', I have no earthly idea.

Quote D_NATURED:

Take another pill. Zenzoe if she gets pregnant, can consider her fetus to be "alive" at whatever point she wants. Or, if she wants the fetus ripped out, that's her decision too. I'm out of it, won't you join me?

That would be, of course, Zenzoe's choice for Zenzoe's pregnancy. But, then, I was getting the impression that Zenzoe's 'care and concern over fetal viability' (perhaps in the interest of 'community balance') was for any fetus--not just potentially yours. Is that correct? If not, what's your point, Zenzoe, about the 'care and concern for fetal viability'--and, with respect to someone enacting it 'for the community'--at what stage in the gestation of the pregnancy would that 'viability' be defined--Texas defines it as the earliest gestation that has survived--20 weeks. Are you saying now that any abortion for any reason is OK with you until birth--if so, what's the point about the 'care and concern for fetal viability' once again? You see, D_NATURED, you are ignoring other's positions as you attack my in the same context.....and you claim that 'I' am condescending you....

Quote D_NATURED:

You condescending prick. Why don't you smoke some more crack so you can stay up all night writing three thousand word jumbles of thoughts, concerns, facts, conjecture, questions and attacks without any order or meaning. Then you might have an excuse.

I don't smoke crack and I never have (the only stimulant I have ever used is coffee)--and, although I disagree with them vehemently, I could pass a piss test now (not saying I could have always passed a pissed test on the very issue you address--but I could now). Do you smoke pot? I believe I have heard you say as much on these boards--so, my 'accusation' isn't quite the same as 'yours', is it? Your bias and prejudice is still showing...

Quote D_NATURED:
Quote Kerry:

With that respect, that's all I needed to know, D_NATURED. Now, just to be sure, in that respect, while the mother (or anyone) could bash the head of the fetus in and kill it before birth, even if the same reasons to do so after birth existed, the mother would no longer have that 'right', is that so? Is that not the same thing as the 'right to life' preempting 'the right to choose'--especially if that 'right to life' exists?

But you are not "a" life until you are born. Prior to that, the fetus is part of the mother who is already "A" life. It is HER body in which the fetus dwells. How do you continue to ignore that?

I'm not ignoring that, D_NATURED. What you seem to be ignoring as you say that you are 'following the discussion between me and Zenzoe' is that Zenzoe has said that the 'right to life' is 'conditional'--even as Zenzoe has pointed out once before of the 'absoluteness' of the 'right to abort' (although, once again, 'conditioning' that against a 'care and concern for fetal viability' at some point--at what point before birth, Zenzoe hasn't specified--but, if it is to be used as a 'community-balancing interest'--even, by the way, in 'supporting another's right'--it will be, and should be, specified--Texas does it at 20 weeks--Zenzoe seemed to agree with that before). Even using the same reasons to abort, once the 'right to life' has been determined to exist, the woman's 'right to choose' that death no longer is legal--or ethical. That was my point. You can make it at birth if you want--but, eventually, you are going to make it--and, once you make it, the woman's 'right to choose' in that case is lost.

It IS all 'about the rights'......you are smoking too much if you think 'community interest' or 'community balance' has anything more to offer.....or, again, tell me what that is....and, how is such a 'community balance' or 'community interest' to introject itself at any point in this issue between fetus/child and mother if it's NOT about 'the rights' involved....can you explain that? I've been asking it for a while....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Oye.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Okay. As for "autonomous," Kerry:

  • "of persons; free from external control and constraint in action and judgment
  • adjective: existing as an independent entity; self-governing; not subject to control from the outside; independent."

As I've said of "absolute rights," I cannot think anyone, especially a fetus, who is absolutely autonomous.

But, again, the word has different meanings and applications, depending on context. For example, I have an absolute right, as an autonomous, free citizen, to be safe in my home from warrant-less invasions by government; my freedom as an autonomous being may be infringed upon, but only via a legal warrant (we hope). However, let's change the context: If I hear someone trying to break into my house, and I am afraid, I realize just how little my autonomy matters; in that instance, I am no longer an independent being. Rather, I am highly dependent on my community, and in a proper community, one can call the police. Or I could get out my baseball bat and get ready to bash the intruder's head in, while waiting for the police to arrive.

In Libertarian Land, I could only call the privatized police for help, if I've signed up for the service and am current with my bill. Or, in extreme Libertarian Land, defending myself, by myself, would be my only option, and I would fully expect my community to be indifferent to what happens to me. That's because there, everybody is literally autonomous, and your needs of community can jolly well go to hell.

A fetus can make no claims to autonomy. The world of a fetus, by definition and practical reality, is community incarnate. It is wholly dependent in every way imaginable. The fetus does not live in a libertarian paradise; it lives in community, and no libertarian ideals can be applied to it. To try to do so is absurd. It may receive our welcome, or it may not; and that's all about context too.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

I'll ignore most of Ulysses comments once again

But of course you will. Truth hurts, doesn't it?

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

not even Ulysses who claims that I don't know anything about 'ethics'--I think I do know that 'ethics' has a LOT to do with 'autonomy'--what do you really think, Ulysses?

About what?

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

With Kerry there is no pretending;

He'll tolerate no condescending,

His posts, NEVER closing, fall short of imposing;

Erudition ain't there -- and ain't pending.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

I'll ignore most of Ulysses comments once again--and D_NATURED seems to have taken my comment about D_NATURED smoking as an insult (we were talking about pot, weren't we?). Sad to see that, D_NATURED. But, when you bias yourself from the beginning, it's hard to really see what I am saying, isn't it?

The point I am sayiing is fairly simple, you are the one who couldn't see it--and least to respond to it directly without your 'HOLY CRAP' bullshit. The 'right to life' preempts any person's 'right to choose' against it unless removed by 'due process'--and some (unlike me) who are against capital punishment wouldn't even remove that person's 'right to life' even with 'due process' (which leaves only 'war' to do it--and that can only be justified if it's a war with a 'virtue over life'). Some (like me) may argue why do you have no problem killing a fetus 'by choice' and do have a problem killing a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer by 'due process'--but I'll leave that as it is for now.

The real point to this issue of 'fetal-killing' is when does the 'right to life' exist? It doesn't try to qualify the 'right to life' as 'conditional'--it tries to qualify it as when does a fetus gain the 'right to life'? That's the ethical choice we should be making--collectively and individually--and the reason for that is that, if you don't keep that in mind, then, there will come along an initiative to claim 'the right to life at conception' to do it for you. And, once again, it's not to ignore the absolute unalienableness of 'the right to life'--it's to determine for yourself when that 'right to life' is to begin. Fine if you say it's at birth (in its 'unalienable' sense, Roe vs. Wade agrees with you). But, I think it's also fine that Texas says it is when the earliest gestation to survive is. What Zenzoe's issues over 'the care and concern of fetal viability' without defining it is, I have no earthly idea. I do think if someone is going to take that 'care and concern' to its 'community-balancing' potential, then someone is going to define when 'the community' is, now, to have enough 'care and concern for the fetus' to the point to where that 'community' will be restricting that pregnant mother's 'choices' in her pregnancy--and what distinction that restriction has between it being done for any potential fetal 'right to life', I have no earthly idea.

Quote D_NATURED:

Take another pill. Zenzoe if she gets pregnant, can consider her fetus to be "alive" at whatever point she wants. Or, if she wants the fetus ripped out, that's her decision too. I'm out of it, won't you join me?

That would be, of course, Zenzoe's choice for Zenzoe's pregnancy. But, then, I was getting the impression that Zenzoe's 'care and concern over fetal viability' (perhaps in the interest of 'community balance') was for any fetus--not just potentially yours. Is that correct? If not, what's your point, Zenzoe, about the 'care and concern for fetal viability'--and, with respect to someone enacting it 'for the community'--at what stage in the gestation of the pregnancy would that 'viability' be defined--Texas defines it as the earliest gestation that has survived--20 weeks. Are you saying now that any abortion for any reason is OK with you until birth--if so, what's the point about the 'care and concern for fetal viability' once again? You see, D_NATURED, you are ignoring other's positions as you attack my in the same context.....and you claim that 'I' am condescending you....

Quote D_NATURED:

You condescending prick. Why don't you smoke some more crack so you can stay up all night writing three thousand word jumbles of thoughts, concerns, facts, conjecture, questions and attacks without any order or meaning. Then you might have an excuse.

I don't smoke crack and I never have (the only stimulant I have ever used is coffee)--and, although I disagree with them vehemently, I could pass a piss test now (not saying I could have always passed a pissed test on the very issue you address--but I could now). Do you smoke pot? I believe I have heard you say as much on these boards--so, my 'accusation' isn't quite the same as 'yours', is it? Your bias and prejudice is still showing...

Quote D_NATURED:
Quote Kerry:

With that respect, that's all I needed to know, D_NATURED. Now, just to be sure, in that respect, while the mother (or anyone) could bash the head of the fetus in and kill it before birth, even if the same reasons to do so after birth existed, the mother would no longer have that 'right', is that so? Is that not the same thing as the 'right to life' preempting 'the right to choose'--especially if that 'right to life' exists?

But you are not "a" life until you are born. Prior to that, the fetus is part of the mother who is already "A" life. It is HER body in which the fetus dwells. How do you continue to ignore that?

I'm not ignoring that, D_NATURED. What you seem to be ignoring as you say that you are 'following the discussion between me and Zenzoe' is that Zenzoe has said that the 'right to life' is 'conditional'--even as Zenzoe has pointed out once before of the 'absoluteness' of the 'right to abort' (although, once again, 'conditioning' that against a 'care and concern for fetal viability' at some point--at what point before birth, Zenzoe hasn't specified--but, if it is to be used as a 'community-balancing interest'--even, by the way, in 'supporting another's right'--it will be, and should be, specified--Texas does it at 20 weeks--Zenzoe seemed to agree with that before). Even using the same reasons to abort, once the 'right to life' has been determined to exist, the woman's 'right to choose' that death no longer is legal--or ethical. That was my point. You can make it at birth if you want--but, eventually, you are going to make it--and, once you make it, the woman's 'right to choose' in that case is lost.

It IS all 'about the rights'......you are smoking too much if you think 'community interest' or 'community balance' has anything more to offer.....or, again, tell me what that is....and, how is such a 'community balance' or 'community interest' to introject itself at any point in this issue between fetus/child and mother if it's NOT about 'the rights' involved....can you explain that? I've been asking it for a while....

English: Douche Bag

Spanish: El Dushjo Bago

Japanese: Douchebag San

French: Le' Douche'

German: Deutsch Bag

American sign language: *the bird*

I think you get the picture...

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote Ulysses:

With Kerry there is no pretending;

He'll tolerate no condescending,

His posts, NEVER closing, fall short of imposing;

Erudition ain't there -- and ain't pending.

Oh, but Kerry does pretend, as much as I appreciate your rhyme, Ulysses. I may have gotten him wrong, but I see him wishing for absolutes, pretending absolutes exist, being highly uncomfortable with paradox. To recognize paradox, for Kerry, is to step into quick sand. He might suffocate there, or so it seems. Though he likes to pose questions and present difficult ideas to ponder, he doesn't really want a quandary. He wants solid ground, certainty. Am I wrong?

I like absolutes too, such as, "a woman's womb belongs to her." Period. It's an absolute fact. A woman's autonomy and freedom of choice depend on this remaining an absolute. But at the same time, interdependency and community commingle with such an "absolute," not to obliterate, or dilute it, but as a reality within it. This presents a dilemma: How can we be autonomous and free and yet interdependent? But this is the paradox, which seems self-contradictory, and yet it is true. I am at once a person and a citizen.

This is the reason I can insist on the woman's absolute right to have an abortion, and yet recognize that at a certain point the state may have a "compelling interest" in protecting the life of the fetus (as well as that of the mother): "...the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ... protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a 'compelling' point at various stages of the woman's approach to term." It is a paradox, and such a paradox presents dilemmas, but we can live with paradox, if we are going to be free and interdependent. We value both freedom and community.

To be unable to deal with paradox deprives us of depth and complexity, just as leaving out the onions, garlic, cumin, chipolte chilis in adobo sauce, etc., etc., would deprive us of a great pot of beans.

I must be getting hungry... ;-)

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Ulysses:

With Kerry there is no pretending;

He'll tolerate no condescending,

His posts, NEVER closing, fall short of imposing;

Erudition ain't there -- and ain't pending.

When Kerry found rights absolute

It was cause he found feti so cute

And the liberty lost

To his tad poles a cost

For which this douche bag don't give a hoot.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:
Quote Ulysses:

With Kerry there is no pretending;

He'll tolerate no condescending,

His posts, NEVER closing, fall short of imposing;

Erudition ain't there -- and ain't pending.

When Kerry found rights absolute

It was cause he found feti so cute

And the liberty lost

To his tad poles a cost

For which this douche bag don't give a hoot.

To roast your most favorite right-winger,

Allows for your tasty rhymed zinger—

Attesting the subject’s good use

As container for cleanliness juice

Doth put the poor dear through the wringer.

I've got to say, no title of any previous thread has ever been so wrong as this one is.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Don't try to take my issue on 'absoluteness' as some pretension in your condescending remarks. My issue is specifically and directly addressed to political authority--not thinking up any and all exceptions to the rule (interesting that those who value 'demanding duties'--especially mine, not theirs--over 'allowing rights', and their most absolute expression, now claim 'exceptions to the rule'--and, now, who is 'pretending'? Are there exceptions to the 'demanding duties' that you wanted to place me under? Not by your account--in your claim of my 'duty being demanded', I could harbor no exception--even under my claim of autonomy--as you give yourself the capacity just to make 'any exception to anything'--especially to the 'conditioning of rights' as you are the one that makes 'duties absolute'--strange that you now also get to claim that 'I' am the one 'pretending'--is that, also, something that 'I' can take no exception to?). And, I would define a political authority as anyone or anything that has the sanctioned capabilities of imposing against the will of any one. Am I really 'taking away' that 'authority'? Look closely, not really--I am acknowledging that its most just, and justifiable, actions has to take some form of creating and protecting 'mutual autonomy'.

In fact, in some ways, I am in a position of 'imposing authority'--but, notice how restrained that 'authority' is with 'another's autonomy' (you never really answered whether you would want to be the drunk who left the ER under their own volition to get run over in the street or the drunk that was confined against his will for 'his own protection'--or, is it in your claim that, as 'I' am the one 'pretending', you, by not answering that issue, are implicitly stating that the drunk should be able to sue either way against the ER physician, hospital and ER corporation as your supposed rational position and rational conclusion-- 'either way'?--as 'two halves against the middle'--and that, of course, is not 'pretending'....). But, I do claim that the most justifiable rationale for political authority to do anything is in 'securing and guaranteeing individual rights'--absolutelly. It's the incentive in our Declaration of Independence (that started this American experiment in government), it has been expressed in one way or the other as our most valued political will as Americans (with, up until recentlly, always extending to more people under more circumstances--not restricting, or restraining, it), and, in the troubled times that we see ourselves in now, I still see it as the one rock upon which to anchor against the distractions of oppression and prejudice (usually done now 'in the interest of protecting us against our will'--just a rehash of the political motive of 'Original Sin'). But, I guess we do need to 'protect the drunks against themselves'--and, of course, 'protect the fetuses if we have care and concern over their viability' (but, in your own pretensions, not really having to say at what gestation that is to take, is it? Just blame others for being 'so absolute' in defining it....and, as such, what substance are you putting in with this 'care and concern over the fetal viability'? Vs. just 'pretending'.....).

You see, 'mutual autonomy' is not just a cognitive pretension on my part--but I see it as the most rational, just, moral, and ethical, perspective to any motive of endeavor that acts with political authority (the first option sues because 'authority' diidn't protect the drunk even 'against the drunk's will'--the second option sues because that 'authority' acted 'against the drunk's will' in trying to protect the drunk--and that, of course, has 'no pretensions'--anything that isn't absolute has the potential to 'pretend'--and, in the case of the two drunks, it's whatever 'authority' that gets to judge the 'authority against the drunk' that gets to 'play two halves against the middle'--a very sophisticated form of 'pretension'--one that gives itself the right to 'go either way' in that judgment--ignoring that a rational decision with a logical progression cannot reallly do that--ignoring that the only political impositions that can even possibly remove oppression and prejudice is by acting only through exacting the motives to prevent such oppression and prejudice--a political authority that gives itself the right to 'go either way' doesn't do that--and which is more fundamental to a just society that intends to honor 'freedom of choice'--one that honors even the autonomy to act against one's own well-being as 'one's choice'--or one that authorizes protection even 'against yourself--and your own will' perhaps as a 'community interest or balance'? ). And, if you disagree with any of what I've said here, then, without pretending, tell me what you think exceeds this motive of 'mutual autonomy' and its political authorizing rationale to its social endpoint (of 'freedom and justice for all') as far as to its rational extent of just, moral, or ethical issues against any 'community interest' you can otherwise really state--instead of just pretend to know....and, then, once again, allow such a pretension to ignorantly oppress and prejudge as it 'conditions rights' and makes 'duties absolute'....

You could even apply it to unwanted pregnancies up against Zenzoe's 'care and concern for fetal viability'--unless you aren't going to act on such 'care and concern until natural birth'--at which case, with respect to your 'care and concern for fetal viability', again, who really is 'pretending', Zenzoe? Or, do you just want to be able to say you 'have care and concern for fetal viability'--but still let D_NATURED crush the fetus's skull and suck its brains out just before birth if that is what the mother wants--for any reason? Don't try to claim that 'I' am the one 'pretending' here, Zenzoe--I take my remarks on this issue quite seriously and contemplatively and I bet I have been doing it for longer than you have lived (although that is just a guess on my part)--and, it does get down to the 'opposing of rights'--and when does a human life with rights begin--because, even though that fetus or that newborn obviously doesn't have the capacity to exert 'complete autonomy', the first issue of an autonomous existence is the right to exist--thus, the 'right to life'--that may indeed be a rightful imposition for 'community interest' in its political authority--protecting another's 'right to life' against someone else's 'right to choose' (and how much protection you offer? In a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer's case so decided by 'due process', I'm willing to kill for that protection of a child's 'right to life' over the child rapist-murderer's 'right to choose'--are you?....or, are you only willing to kill the fetus--or, in a more pretending fashion, 'have the fetus killed', you didn't do it, did you?--for the mother's choice...and have the 'care and concern' to 'rehabilitate the child rapist-murderer's choice' even if such a 'choice' was against the 'right to life' of the child that was raped and murdered--the 'right to life' is 'conditional' to you, anyway--not 'absolute'...what a pretension .). But, of course, with an unwanted pregnancy's case, again, I do think think that all depends upon when such an human entity does gain the 'right to life'--otherwise, what authority, and justification (without pretension) does a 'community interest' have to act against the pregnant mother's 'right to choose'? Even if it comes down to bashing that fetus's head in and sucking its brains out if the mother wishes.....right, D_NATURED? Who's really pretending here?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

You, Kerry, are pretending that anyone wants to read another two thousand word testament to your thick head. Zenzoe is right. This thread has gone insane.

Congrats. You will probably be the last man standing in this contest (unless I can think of another lymerick). Know that your natural immunity to writer's cramp and your ability to drone endlessly have been an evolutionary advantage to your cyber being. You should also be glad that this technology does not enable me to reach through my screen and put a few extra twists in your bow tie.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

D-NATURED So much for the peace sign

Semi permeable memebrain's picture
Semi permeable ...
Joined:
Nov. 10, 2011 8:36 am

Semi, I don't think bearing a peace sign means you cannot vigorously defend a woman's right to determine her reproductive destiny, nor does it mean you have to be tolerant of willful incoherence.

Kerry, I apologize for ridiculing you, and I would truly like to read and comprehend your writings; but it does not appear to any of us that you would truly like to be read and understood. It also does not appear that you bother to read and comprehend what we write, either. If we're here to communicate, how does your style enhance communication?

For example, take your first sentence in your first paragraph at #281: "Don't try to take my issue on 'absoluteness' as some pretension in your condescending remarks." Why use the word "pretension"? I used the word "pretend," as in make-believe, not as in deceitful pretense.

To whom is your sentence addressed? Does it relate to your paragraph, or is it, as it appears, a sentence that should stand on its own? Couldn't you have edited it out, for clarity sake? Was it entirely necessary to the logic of the paragraph?

Your next sentence, in the same paragraph, starts another subject entirely: "My issue is specifically and directly addressed to political authority--not thinking up any and all exceptions to the rule..." What rule? What political authority? Public, private? What is "thinking up any and all exceptions to the rule..." doing there?

And then, without explaining any of those questions, you insert a sudden parenthetical diversion into your paragraph that goes on and on in relentless obscurity: "(interesting that those who value 'demanding duties'--especially mine, not theirs--over 'allowing rights', and their most absolute expression, now claim 'exceptions to the rule'--and, now, who is 'pretending'? Are there exceptions to the 'demanding duties' that you wanted to place me under? Not by your account--in your claim of my 'duty being demanded', I could harbor no exception--even under my claim of autonomy--as you give yourself the capacity just to make 'any exception to anything'--especially to the 'conditioning of rights' as you are the one that makes 'duties absolute'--strange that you now also get to claim that 'I' am the one 'pretending'--is that, also, something that 'I' can take no exception to?)...." Kerry, why such a diversion pockmarked with so many incomprehensible sink holes? What does "demanding duties" mean? Where did that come from? What the hell subject are you on now? And so forth...

Kerry, in the interest of communication, I WANT YOU TO CONDESCEND TO ME. Treat me like a five-year-old and talk "down" to me. Have you ever adjusted your communication style for a child, to speak in their language, using the words and phrases you share? And please use short, declarative sentences when you can, and with references that are plain to me and not abstract to me. Also, try to stick to one subject at a time, within any one paragraph, and let me know if your next paragraph is changing the subject, okay? That would be so nice, because I won't take it as an insult to my intelligence; I will take it as a courtesy on behalf of mutual communication.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Semi permeable memebrain:

D-NATURED So much for the peace sign

Really? Until you can tell me who I haven't been peaceful toward, you're just as full of shit as Kerry.

Maybe you're one of those conservatives who doesn't understand that peace-at any cost- is not the liberal way. We are as willing to fight and die for our rights and for justice as you are. I'm even willing to fight and die for rights that I, as a man, can not even exercise...like abortion.

Am I against international conflict that takes the lives of the innocent and leaves the politicians who started it richer and more powerful? Yes. That doesn't mean that if some guy puts his hands on my wife I won't bust him in the mouth. That also doesn't mean that my frustration with Kerry's convenient and deliberate dismissal of my positions based upon a recreational activity I enjoy won't earn him the full extent of my ire. Deal with it.

Kerry's a douche bag. You defend them, I guess. The peace sign was never meant to mean total pacifism. Maybe I should invent a new symbol that means I am peaceful except to douche bags. Would that make you happy?

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Zenzoe said

Semi, I don't think bearing a peace sign means you cannot vigorously defend a woman's right to determine her reproductive destiny, nor does it mean you have to be tolerant of willful incoherence.

I do not realy understand your response. I think D-NATURED has every right to vigoursly defend his position, nor does he need to be tolerant of willfull incoherence. But are you saying that wanting to grab someone by the throat is included in those ideas? Maybe D-NATURED is only talking about adjusting the tie, but judging by his tone I knid of doubt it

Semi permeable memebrain's picture
Semi permeable ...
Joined:
Nov. 10, 2011 8:36 am
Quote Semi permeable memebrain:

Zenzoe said

Semi, I don't think bearing a peace sign means you cannot vigorously defend a woman's right to determine her reproductive destiny, nor does it mean you have to be tolerant of willful incoherence.

I do not realy understand your response. I think D-NATURED has every right to vigoursly defend his position, nor does he need to be tolerant of willfull incoherence. But are you saying that wanting to grab someone by the throat is included in those ideas? Maybe D-NATURED is only talking about adjusting the tie, but judging by his tone I knid of doubt it

You, or anybody else, being alarmed about it is an overreaction and is unwarranted. What, specifically, do you believe could ever come of it? The answer is "nothing," so why wax alarmed?

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Semi (@#286), I guess that's the difference between you and me: I read D_NATURED's rhetoric as humorous. I laughed at the mental image of D_NATURED, reaching through his screen "to put a few extra twists" in Kerry's bow tie. Kerry's bow tie needed a few extra twists, given all the twists and turns he has subjected this discussion to. No, it's not nice, but neither has Kerry's relentless torturing of the English language been exactly nice; in fact, it has been bloody maddening. Perhaps you haven't been reading all along?

Anyway, verbal violence actually has some benefits. For one, if you curse (one study), you cope with pain better. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1913773,00.html  You also do your health a favor by expressing anger: It may help to protect you from heart disease and stroke. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/02/030203071450.htm

Do you think when women curse out their husbands during labor they're being violent?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

[quote=Ulysses]

With Kerry there is no pretending;

He'll tolerate no condescending,

His posts, NEVER closing, fall short of imposing;

Erudition ain't there -- and ain't pending.

Oh, but Kerry does pretend, as much as I appreciate your rhyme, Ulysses. I may have gotten him wrong, but I see him wishing for absolutes, pretending absolutes exist, being highly uncomfortable with paradox. To recognize paradox, for Kerry, is to step into quick sand. He might suffocate there, or so it seems. Though he likes to pose questions and present difficult ideas to ponder, he doesn't really want a quandary. He wants solid ground, certainty. Am I wrong?

I don't think your assessment is wrong. His position on this stuff is directly analogous to those who want to study epistemology and, when they first begin their quest, assume the sophomoric position that because we can't know everything, we can't know anything. They're also usually the same people who can't reconcile the idea that everything that's true isn't formally logical and that everything that's formally logical isn't always true. It'd be nice if the world worked via absolutes; everybody would then have perfect clarity about everything. All the time. Alas, the waters are muddy, and one must learn to swim in them and simply try to make the best choices, based on many variables, all the time. That's all anybody can do. It solves nothing to get angry because there are few absolutes. Those of us who are lucky learn that early-on, for better or worse. Some never learn it. They lead distracted, unenjoyable lives because all they can focus on is their anger about it.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
I do not realy understand your response. I think D-NATURED has every right to vigoursly defend his position, nor does he need to be tolerant of willfull incoherence. But are you saying that wanting to grab someone by the throat is included in those ideas? Maybe D-NATURED is only talking about adjusting the tie, but judging by his tone I knid of doubt it

I never offered to grab him by the throat. I said, put a couple extra twists in his bow tie. It was as much about pointing out that I imagine Kerry dressed as a douche bag too. That's unfair to bow tie wearers, though. I'll just imagine him with a Ron Paul T-shirt from now on.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

I never offered to grab him by the throat. I said, put a couple extra twists in his bow tie. It was as much about pointing out that I imagine Kerry dressed as a douche bag too. That's unfair to bow tie wearers, though. I'll just imagine him with a Ron Paul T-shirt from now on.

Actually, D_NATURED, it's an insult to douche bags too. ;-)

(I hope you saw my defense of your comment @ #288, btw.)

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Ulysses:
Quote Zenzoe:

[quote=Ulysses]

With Kerry there is no pretending;

He'll tolerate no condescending,

His posts, NEVER closing, fall short of imposing;

Erudition ain't there -- and ain't pending.

Oh, but Kerry does pretend, as much as I appreciate your rhyme, Ulysses. I may have gotten him wrong, but I see him wishing for absolutes, pretending absolutes exist, being highly uncomfortable with paradox. To recognize paradox, for Kerry, is to step into quick sand. He might suffocate there, or so it seems. Though he likes to pose questions and present difficult ideas to ponder, he doesn't really want a quandary. He wants solid ground, certainty. Am I wrong?

I don't think your assessment is wrong. His position on this stuff is directly analogous to those who want to study epistemology and, when they first begin their quest, assume the sophomoric position that because we can't know everything, we can't know anything. They're also usually the same people who can't reconcile the idea that everything that's true isn't formally logical and that everything that's formally logical isn't always true. It'd be nice if the world worked via absolutes; everybody would then have perfect clarity about everything. All the time. Alas, the waters are muddy, and one must learn to swim in them and simply try to make the best choices, based on many variables, all the time. That's all anybody can do. It solves nothing to get angry because there are few absolutes. Those of us who are lucky learn that early-on, for better or worse. Some never learn it. They lead distracted, unenjoyable lives because all they can focus on is their anger about it.

Obviously, I completely agree. Well put. I think it's the only sane attitude to have on the subject.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote D_NATURED:

I never offered to grab him by the throat. I said, put a couple extra twists in his bow tie. It was as much about pointing out that I imagine Kerry dressed as a douche bag too. That's unfair to bow tie wearers, though. I'll just imagine him with a Ron Paul T-shirt from now on.

Actually, D_NATURED, it's an insult to douche bags too. ;-)

(I hope you saw my defense of your comment @ #288, btw.)

I did. Thank you. I liked the lymerick too. I would like to see a thread where every post must contain a lymerick. It would force people to think about what they write.

Insults to douche bags aside, I am ahamed that I let him get to me. I know that was his main goal and not to exchange ideas. What he didn't realize is how close we were to being in agreement, if he is sincere. To conceive of absolute rights that are neither absolute or "right", though, is a contradiction, no matter how many words you use to say it. Furthermore, repeating the original idea is not an adequate response to someone pointing out the contradiction.

The big picture is hard to see with all of these tiny corpses being the focus of attention. The abortion debate should be less about our fake horror at realizing that doctors turn fetuses into medical waste and more about recognizing that the only baby ovens we know of are in grown women. Women whose birthright should be the privacy of their own bodies, no matter what the Supreme Court or Texas says. For anyone, male or female, to pretend that isn't a most basic human need that shouldn't be guaranteed to every human is nuts. Once you take that away, what good is mere life? Haven't these people seen the matrix?

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Zenzoe- Good luck with violence,or psuedo viollence, as a method for therapeutic release. I know serial kjillers feel that way. It is also notable that you seem to justify this in terms of wives cursing at husbands and notr the other way around.

.

Semi permeable memebrain's picture
Semi permeable ...
Joined:
Nov. 10, 2011 8:36 am
Quote Semi permeable memebrain:

Zenzoe- Good luck with violence,or psuedo viollence, as a method for therapeutic release. I know serial kjillers feel that way. It is also notable that you seem to justify this in terms of wives cursing at husbands and notr the other way around.

Lemme guess. Tad pole lover?

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

Insults to douche bags aside, I am ahamed that I let him get to me. I know that was his main goal and not to exchange ideas. What he didn't realize is how close we were to being in agreement, if he is sincere. To conceive of absolute rights that are neither absolute or "right", though, is a contradiction, no matter how many words you use to say it. Furthermore, repeating the original idea is not an adequate response to someone pointing out the contradiction.

The big picture is hard to see with all of these tiny corpses being the focus of attention. The abortion debate should be less about our fake horror at realizing that doctors turn fetuses into medical waste and more about recognizing that the only baby ovens we know of are in grown women. Women whose birthright should be the privacy of their own bodies, no matter what the Supreme Court or Texas says. For anyone, male or female, to pretend that isn't a most basic human need that shouldn't be guaranteed to every human is nuts. Once you take that away, what good is mere life? Haven't these people seen the matrix?

You mustn't feel ashamed that he got to you. He got to me too. There's another person on this forum who also uses obfuscation, when he wants to be insulting, when he feels intellectually superior and wishes to confound his opponents. I can't be sure with Kerry, though. Sometimes I think he might be losing it. (Hi Kerry) I just wish he would respect the thread and write plainly.

Most of all, even though you and I disagree about restrictions on abortion (and I think you may be right), to read your passionate defense of women and our reproductive rights, helps to heal misogyny's wounds, those I must carry around with me. Thanks so very much for that. The world needs more men like you.

Quote Semi-literate:

"Zenzoe- Good luck with violence,or psuedo viollence, as a method for therapeutic release. I know serial kjillers feel that way. It is also notable that you seem to justify this in terms of wives cursing at husbands and notr the other way around."

"Viollence?" "Kjillers?" "notr?" Been typing long, Semi? How about reading with comprehension? You might want to give it a try. As of now, you get an F in reading comprehension.

Yeah, I'm a serial killer... everybody knows, angry words lead to murder...Oo-oo-oo...be careful—I might get you with my angry words...

"Good luck?" Now there's a passive-aggressive use of the expression, if I ever saw one. See, if your anger weren't so repressed, you wouldn't have to be passive-aggressive. You could be honest, instead.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

D_NATURED and Ulysses, a limerick awaits you here: http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/leighmf/blog/2011/12/half-time-flushin... ...See last comment of mine there, which is about this story: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/mad-mad-world/Islamic-cleric-ba....

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote "Zenzoe":

You mustn't feel ashamed that he got to you. He got to me too. There's another person on this forum who also uses obfuscation, when he wants to be insulting, when he feels intellectually superior and wishes to confound his opponents. I can't be sure with Kerry, though. Sometimes I think he might be losing it. (Hi Kerry) I just wish he would respect the thread and write plainly.

I wish he had responded with a limerick.

Most of all, even though you and I disagree about restrictions on abortion (and I think you may be right), to read your passionate defense of women and our reproductive rights, helps to heal misogyny's wounds, those I must carry around with me. Thanks so very much for that. The world needs more men like you.

It's common sense to me, Zenzoe. Why on earth would anyone think that women deserved less? Could it be a certain book the're prone to reading? The one where women were cattle.

It seems that a lot of people have attitudes that it's a dog eat dog world. People who grew up without love, who have no concept of it as adults. They are comfortable with an alpha dog sort of world view where they are destined to either be a boot-lick or a bully.

Women are easy targets in a might makes right world. The human species suffers from a case of intellectual constipation and can't seem to make the jump to a species-friendly model. There's so much more we could be and could have been.

How many wonderful female artists, poets, engineers and scientists have been lost to male dominated history?

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

1.Passive Aggressive passive aggressive
A defense mechanism that allows people who aren't comfortable being openly aggressive get what they want under the guise of still trying to please others. They want their way, but they also want everyone to still like them. I assure you I have no interest in you likng me. You must be very expert to know that a seeming moderately sarcastic phrase "like good luck with that is symptomatic of a passive aggressive personality. Maybe some folks just do not like to be as abruptly rude as you. Are all attempts at restraint cowardly or repressed? As for the rest. Yes you introduced the idea that verbal violence could be therapeutic. If you believe there is no relation to betweeen verbal violence and violence other the seemingly odd semantic correspondence then I guess your point is well taken

Semi permeable memebrain's picture
Semi permeable ...
Joined:
Nov. 10, 2011 8:36 am
Are all attempts at restraint cowardly or repressed?

I know you 've gone into "ignore D_NATURED mode" and are technically talking to ZenZoe, but I think this is an excellent question. When it comes to women's rights, the answer is yes. When it comes to human rights, yes. There are some things so important that they desreve our full passion.

I think it's obvious I feel very strongly about the right of women to their own bodies. I can't help but think that if there had been less cowardice and repression in the past, we might have gotten a lot closer to societal justice today. How many people disagreed with Jim Crow but were too frightened to say anything stronger than, well the negros can't be all bad. Those people, through their cowardice, were complicit in the crimes of their peers. Every generation has a choice to continue the ignorant ways of their fathers or not.

Zenzoe is not rude, Semi, I am. I am convinced that the polite get ignored and, so, when I see that there is a problem in the way women are treated with regard to their reproductive freedom that must be discussed, I get "rude". People are so busy picking out language that diffuses all meaning and all I want to do is find the most graphic and clear language I can. Should I politely allow the insanity to continue for another generation? Should Zenzoe?

Nobody here would set out to insult you or be rude to you over a debate about ice cream flavors. This is a big deal and evey second that pregnant women are given conditional rights is a second too many. That you look past that to criticize my tie twisting fantasy and Zenzoe's subsequent defense of me is fine if you don't mind being the person who is sweeping the porch during a hurricane.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Nobody here would set out to insult you or be rude to you over a debate about ice cream flavors. This is a big deal and evey second that pregnant women are given conditional rights is a second too many. That you look past that to criticize my tie twisting fantasy and Zenzoe's subsequent defense of me is fine if you don't mind being the person who is sweeping the porch during a hurricane.

Touche.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Can Humanity Be Saved?

Thom plus logo As the Amazon is on fire and the Democratic Party refuses to hold a debate focused on climate change, an Australian think tank has come out with a report suggesting the possibility that climate change could destroy human civilization within as little as 30 years.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system