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

D-NATURED That is all fair and reasonable. It is my opinion that is more a question of self control, and that becoming 'passionate,' if you will, more often than not leads those involved in the conversation to devolve into name calling and the like. Thus the content of the discussion actually moves away from the subject which you find so important.

The second point is that we are a community here and I do think there are some standards we all need to adhere to. I am not here to claim definitively whether or not you were nearing such a standard, but personally it is my opinion that any discussion of physical contact amongst one another in a hostile manner is over the line

I also apologize for not responding to you here since I called your motives into question it was only fair to respond to your questions. The problem was a combination of being overwhelemd by the questions from the three of you and a presupposition that further conversation was going to devolve is what inspired my temporary silence

Semi permeable memebrain's picture
Semi permeable ...
Joined:
Nov. 10, 2011 8:36 am
D-NATURED That is all fair and reasonable. It is my opinion that is more a question of self control, and that becoming 'passionate,' if you will, more often than not leads those involved in the conversation to devolve into name calling and the like. Thus the content of the discussion actually moves away from the subject which you find so important.

Had you followed the entire thread from the outset, you'd realize how warranted frustration was.

The second point is that we are a community here and I do think there are some standards we all need to adhere to. I am not here to claim definitively whether or not you were nearing such a standard, but personally it is my opinion that any discussion of physical contact amongst one another in a hostile manner is over the line

Perhaps, but your concern about it is mostly unwarranted. It's unwarranted because nobody knows anybody else's actual identity or where they are, thus precluding any "physical contact." The only way that doesn't apply would be if somebody outs him/herself by divulging personal info. That would be self-nomination for a well-deserved Darwin Award.

So, relax.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Semi permeable memebrain:

D-NATURED That is all fair and reasonable. It is my opinion that is more a question of self control, and that becoming 'passionate,' if you will, more often than not leads those involved in the conversation to devolve into name calling and the like. Thus the content of the discussion actually moves away from the subject which you find so important.

The content of the discussion moved away from what was important when Kerry turned from the "repeat idiocy, ad nauseum" debate style to the "dismiss my consistent rights-centered argument based upon my marijuana consumption" technique. He lost the argument at that moment but I was too pissed that he would attack me personally over something so benign that I got personal back with him. Some times, though, conversations DO devolve. I'm not afraid of that either and can sling shit with the best of them.

The second point is that we are a community here and I do think there are some standards we all need to adhere to. I am not here to claim definitively whether or not you were nearing such a standard, but personally it is my opinion that any discussion of physical contact amongst one another in a hostile manner is over the line.

We are a community, I agree. Of the community members engaged in debate at the time, you were the only one who found issue with my comical threat. Even the target of my line-overstepping behavior did not mention it.

I also apologize for not responding to you here since I called your motives into question it was only fair to respond to your questions. The problem was a combination of being overwhelemd by the questions from the three of you and a presupposition that further conversation was going to devolve is what inspired my temporary silence.

No apology necessary from you toward me or from myself to Kerry, for that matter. I'm not here to abuse anybody to make myself feel better and I'm sure as hell not here to be anyone else's floor mat. We can discuss things passionately and I do not deny Kerry his passions any more than I would have him deny mine. Civility is not only nice words, though, it's humane actions. It's being thoughtful about how the things we think and do affect others. That is why, despite Kerrys lack of "foul" language or outright name calling, his position was supremely uncivil with regard to women and other humans who deserve rights.He was also quite condescending to myself, Zenzoe and Ulysses, when the frustration mounted, and we reciprocated.

Even at it's most devolved, however, this forum is harmless. The worst thing we could have done is to end our debate with a series of "fuck you"s, which might have offended a forum member who was still in pre-school. As it turned out, several of us offered up Limericks, which I think is one of the highest -most civil- forms of communication. Seven pages later, the Limericks are the only thing in this thread worth keeping.

Semi broke silence to blame

My behavior for being un-tame

But a twist of the tie

And a punch in the eye

Are really not one and the same.

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

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?

That's what you say--but, in your insistence on how confusing my communication is here:

Quote Zenzoe:

What rule? What political authority?

You failed to acknowledge that I even defined it for you here:

And, I would define a political authority as anyone or anything that has the sanctioned capabilities of imposing against the will of any one.

So, are you really trying to 'communicate' here, Zenzoe--or just pretend? And, if that excuse about pretension wasn't an insult, I wonder why Ulysses agreed with it? Ulysses only agrees to things that are condescending and insulting to me (because Ulysses is a pompous ass). And, you don't even have to agree with my definition if it suits you (but, if you don't agree to it and you want to comment directly on 'political authority', then, in the interest of 'communication', then, I think it would only be fair if you define it)--but, please don't make the excuse of me not trying to 'communicate directly' in your above quasi-questions on 'what political authority' that I am talking about when I even define it for you, Zenzoe.

Now, the problem that I see with this issue is that, for some reason, everyone here (except D_NATURED quite peripherally--but that's so D_NATURED won't look like he is agreeing with me because I'm a 'libertarian') wants to define the issues that are involving abortion in any other terminology other than 'rights'--and in any way other than 'absolute rights'--because, as they proclaim the high road of 'mature understanding', 'nothing' is 'absolute'. With respect to any other political perspective to consider, I, as simplistic as this seems to be to those that have such 'mature understanding', do believe that 'rights' are as absolute as they get. But, that is only if you want politics to be rational and you want to have a rational basis from which to propose to others in your political intentions--that, of course, isn't 'mature enough' for the 'community interests' implied here.

D_NATURED has claimed that, as a 'right', he's all for the pregnant woman having the right to abort the fetus even if it were the moment before birth--crush their heads and suck their brains out. Sounds pretty 'absolute' to me--and I respect that position. But, then, Zenzoe comes along and claims something that has to do with the 'care and concern of fetal viability'--even at one point agreed with my definition that Texas uses of such fetal viability being defined as 20 weeks--or the earliest gestation that has survived outside of the uterus. However, Zenzoe, it seems in an effort to debunk anything that could even be remotely considered absolute--especially, apparently, the 'right to life'--does not define when such a 'fetal viability interest' is to take precedence over the pregnant woman's right to have an elective abortion for any reason--which, according to D_NATURED (and me when it's determined as a right), was pretty absolute--as I recall, for D_NATURED, it was all the way to birth and for any reason--is that a fair assessment, D_NATURED--or, are you still mad at me for calling out your pot-smoking and not even going to agree with me on that because of me being 'libertarian'?

At any rate, counter to that assessment, Zenzoe and Ulysses have claimed the 'mature, sophisticated, intellectualized, perspective' that 'nothing is absolute' (and, of course, insinuating that it's 'not mature, sophisticated or intellectualized' to claim otherwise--but, that's not condescending of Zenzoe and Ulysses to do that, is it? Bullshit.). And, of course, that appears to include any 'rights' determined as 'unalienable' even in court by this 'mature assessment' of nothing being absolute (although, Supreme Court decisions such as Loving vs. Virginia, Griswald vs. Connecticut, Roe vs. Wade, and Lawrence vs. Texas absolutely disagree in that characterization of 'no rights being absolute' since all these court judgments were based on the recognition that an unalienable--and, by any political standard otherwise imposed, absolute--right to the person existed that could not be altered by any written law to affect their free expression). Zenzoe even seems to claim a peculiar posturing against the 'right to life' when it is determined to exist even from a political perspective as being 'absolute' (the distinction that I was trying to make to D_NATURED on how the mother's 'right to choose'--otherwise, absolutely considered against any outward interruptions as a 'right'--changes so ABSOLUTELY once the 'right to life' of the child has been determined to exist--in Texas, at 20 weeks--but, even if 'at birth'--the point being, the 'right to life' does ABSOLUTELY supercede the 'right to choose' against it from a political perspective--unless removed by due process).

Politic definitions are made by agreement. If nothing in politics is defined in any absolute sense (not even 'rights'), then, it will be impossible to confirm any rational explanation, or assumption, made on its behalf. Without the absolute requirements of such inferences in 'rights', irrational impositions can be made as any professed motive--not too bad for those that give themself the power to impose--very difficult for the ones having been imposed upon. Just like what is more in the interest of justice, the drunk risking his own demise leaving under his own volition--or making the drunk stay against his will? If that is rightfully a 'malleble assessment' that requires no political definition being used to have any absolute quality, then, anything in politics can be manipulated by those in positions to do so--for whatever reason--or, no real reason at all since it's something 'more than rational', anyway--but, whether that is 'mature' or not is a matter of opinion.....it does certainly make the political authority imposing such 'judgments' not have to be responsible for any rational assessment--or reason--to impose.....and, that's mature and without a condescending perspective? That politically defines a condescending perspective....when the authority can impose without reason....especially a consistent reason....

Quote Zenzoe:

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...

In your quest to make all 'rights' conditional, in my examples that I use from my own life, you have taken the opportunity to claim that my duty is absolute--regardless of the circumstances (outside of physical harm). Remember this statement in post 209:

Quote Zenzoe:

There, the oath not only reminds you of your place in community — "a member of society"— but it also reminds you of your obligation to treat everyone, whether they are nice, sane people or not: "...as well as the infirm."

So, as you make 'rights' conditional (appearing to see no difference in 'human rights' and the 'rights of dogs'--conditioned on whether the community sees that dog as a family companion or the next meal), you make my duties absolute--even though you never once responded on whether a lawyer would take a client on if the first thing that client said to that lawyer was 'I'll sue you if I think you did something wrong'--even without bodily harm--but you did hold lawyers up as 'absolutely' abiding by 'their oath'.....

Quote Zenzoe:

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.

Really, Zenzoe. Is 'mutual communication' what you are trying to do here? OK, I'll take you at your word then and ask if, in the interest of 'mutual communication', since you are the one that claimed that a 'care and concern for fetal viability' is to be considered, when should it be considered? Or, are you even against absolutely defining that for this discussion? And, can you compare it to how absolute D_NATURED gives the pregnant mother the right to choose (even to the point of right before birth--'crushing its head and sucking its brain's out') as honoring the mother's absolute choice in this issue....and, if you don't have any responsibility in defining such political inferences to be made on such a 'care and concern for fetal viability' (something that I think goes right in line with declaring the existence of an absolute 'right to life' whenever you do so) against the pregnant mother's otherwise absolute 'right to choose' in such cases, what is it that you are really 'communicating'?

In the case of such 'care for fetal viability' up against crushing the fetus's head and sucking its brains out, are you the feminine component of 'care without conviction' (and how does that factor into any 'politically authorized' action?) as D_NATURED is the masculine component of 'conviction without care' (and how does that keep oppression and prejudice in check?) in this act of electively aborting? If you consider that for a bit, maybe you'll see why I do believe this is all about rights--and their absolute political realms (against any other politically authorizing influence) by definition--and when a human life with rights begins....or, you and Ulysses can continue to claim that a 'mature, sophisticated, intellectualized attitude' that 'nothing is absolute' is the 'right thing' to do with 'rights'--even politically.....I disagree--and I hope that my statements here 'communicate' why.....

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

There once was a doctor who penned

Some comments he could not amend;

Though ne’er understood

—His head made o’ wood—

Plopped nonsense from out his back end.

—Zenzoë's inner bitch wrote that, not me.

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

Since it appears that everyone here but me is making sense, I would like to hear some sense come out of any of you to indicate what sense you have, or are making of any of this, that I don't. D_NATURED has the sense to have the fetus's skull crushed and the brains sucked out if that is what the mother wants even right before birth--a sense of absoluteness when it comes to rights of the mother to choose (and I agree with it in that sense). On the other hand, Zenzoe, and, of course, the great intellectual, Ulysses, say there is no such thing as absolutes--even political rights. Doesn't seem to make much sense to me because if unalienable rights aren't absolute in any political sense, then, they aren't unalienable (but, of course, to Zenzoe and Ulysses, no 'mature, sophisticated, intellectualizing person' has any sense that anything of a political nature is 'absolute'--ostensibly in the name of 'community interests' they condescendingly claim)--but, with a sense of unalienable rights, even courts seem to claim the same ABSOLUTE sense as I see in this (such as the Supreme Court decisions of Loving vs. Virginia, Griswald vs. Connecticut, Roe vs. Wade, and Lawrence vs. Texas and all...)--but, I guess 'mature, sophisticated, intellectualizing' people don't have to see that (they apparently sense a 'community interest' that no one else can sense and, they, of course, don't have to determine in their own sense--and certainly not have to explain it to lowlife as Ulysses senses in me--'I' can't be anything but condescended in any sense Ulysses can hold--but, that is, of course, not in any self-serving, egotistical sense from Ulysses claiming such 'community interests'....which I have the sense to say 'bullshit' for--hypocritical bullshit at that...).

Zenzoe seems to have the sense to want to have the pregnant mother choose--but, then, adds the sense that there is to be 'care and concern over fetal viability'--but, doesn't take the sense to actually say what that is (when is that to take precedence in the pregnancy, etc.--you know, definitions in law do have some absolute characteristics that Zenzoe and Ulysses don't seem to sense). Zenzoe, also, didn't have the sense to explain, if such a 'care and concern for the fetal viability' were to hold precedence over the mother's otherwise absolute right to decide the outcome of her fetus's life before birth, how is that in any sense different from a fetal 'right to life' at that point? Zenzoe doesn't appear to have the sense to approach a human 'right to life' as absolute as the mother's 'right to choose'--claiming in the fetus's case that, if the mother's life and well-being is at risk, the fetus no longer has the 'right to life'. But, you know, after thinking about that, that doesn't make sense. If the mother's life and well-being is at risk at any time during the pregnancy, the fetus's life and well-being is at risk. So, Zenzoe should have the sense to see that that is a false dichotomy--or, maybe not.

And, Ulysses is nothing but condescending in whatever sense that word can take. Ulysses likes to think that Ulysses has everything in order as someone who makes nothing absolute--but, then, someone who thinks that statistical trends are official facts in law and science would think so. But, I do think (and have the sense to know) that every real scientist reallizes that, in any rational sense (is that the sense we are supposed to be making?), without having the sense to explain the results of the statistics in any intricate fashion (as if any ONE could understand what is going on), statistics can make no sense at all--and, from a legal viewpoint, most of statistics' 'sense' is just to remove any sense of considering specifics in any circumstance (same goes for statistics in medicine, also). But, then, when more of your ego is hidden by a self-important claim on 'community interest' (as if you had any sense of what that really meant as a 'community interested in individuality'), you would have the sense to see that any general sense imposed cannot cover any particular sense allowed as any, or in any, 'community interest' (that's if you are really interested in 'expressing individuality')--and, as far as legal considerations go, rights do have an absolute sense in every particular case--especially against the impositions of such generalizing 'community interests' imposed against it. Unless, of course, as Zenzoe seems to sense, you are taking the sense of a dog whose sense of 'rights' varies according to 'community interests'--some as family companions and some as the next meal--and, then, claim that you can't see that in any sense differently for human rights as you hold the 'right to life' only in a conditional sense.....just like the dog being the next meal in some 'community interests'....

Bitch all you want, Zenzoe......But, now, can you show any sense (that you claim I don't have) in doing so?......or, is however you see 'political authority' to be varied from your feminine 'care and concern for fetal viability' (without the conviction of saying what that is to mean by anything claiming 'political authority') to D_NATURED's 'crush the skull and suck out the brains even right before birth if that is what the mother wants' (without the care of the fetus at all--but, apparently, although appearing to be somewhat reluctant in doing so, acknowledging that only moments later when the fetus takes its first breath as a newborn, the role of the rights in this respect can ABSOLUTELY change...am I wrong in that sense here?....)--but, still, ignoring what point 'right to life' absolutely makes in all of this.....claiming none of this has any absolute sense to it--any 'mature, sophisticated, intellectualizing' person could see that, right?.....and, now, who's not making sense? And, who is still 'pretending'?

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

Even at it's most devolved, however, this forum is harmless.\

Then why be upset about it?

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

Kerry, the problem of the "absolute" appears in ethical methodology, much as it does in religious belief. There may be such a Mind of God thing as "absolute truth," but we don't know it here on earth in human terms. So we do the best we can with the interacting truths and values that do happen in real life. While there are ethicists who continue to argue for "the absolute" and hold the opinion you do about "relativizing truth," the reason "contextual ethics" came to the fore was that ethical relevance and ethical reality does not show up in those neat packages.

The issue under discussion is the legal policies governing the choices available to women who are pregnant and do not wish to be for various reasons. I find the moral absolutism of Catholicism on this issue blind and misogynistic to reality and contemptuous to the moral sensitivity of pregnant women. I think they make the best choices available because they have it on the line. And, rather than complain about those who make trivial and superficial decisions, I am glad they are not raising children. I am very worried about mothers who "had to" have the child because of external authorities. I worry about those kids and their human development.

The Religious Right is far less theologically sophisticated than the Catholics, and this is about Culture War and proving that "secular liberals" are heretical dangers to God's Covenant with America. No tactic or strategy is beyond their use in this sentimentalized moralism, a truly ugly example of the politics of conscience, or low intensity religious war.

We make moral choices involving human life all the time. The Right's agenda of war, empire and reduced social services is truly lethal with abundant choices for death instead of life.

Be an absolutist about war. How about caring for one's neighbor or even the alien living in your land? How about putting kids first in reality instead of rhetoric? Empty moral posturing about abortion and when the fetus is "viable" in a society as child hostile as ours does not impress positively.

If you don't want to feel abused, accept your differences with others instead of whining about it. You have the right to choose to be an "absolutist" and to think it means what you think it means. But don't expect others to be convinced this time when you have run into the same thing over and over. Logical Positivists do want absolutes and clear definitions instead of relativism and ambiguity. Being committed to something does not require making it more 'absolute' than it is. I am pretty darn close on war, but there is a right to self-defense and the failure of politics tends to be felt by those who had little part in the exercise of power. What is their recourse?

Real life rarely presents clear absolutes, and when it does you don't have to split hairs to know it.

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

Thanks for that, DRC. You're good at demonstrating respectful dialogue. We had given up on that, obviously, though I meant to return this morning to make a couple of comments about the word absolute, since Kerry's main issue seems to center on the absoluteness of rights, despite his agreement that due process can deny a person's supposed absolute right. (a contradiction)

It seems to me the only persons to have absolute rights in this world are autocrats and dictators, in governments that rule by men, not justice or law. No dictatorship of rights exist, or should exist, as long as people and circumstances are as complex as they are. I would rather speak of rights and responsibilities, or of fundamental or significant rights, human rights. To use the word absolute to describe rights, for me, places a burden on the word it cannot sustain. The concept will inevitably prove vulnerable to vitiation.

Kerry, you seem especially perturbed by the notion of viability. You want to know what and who decides viability. I admit it's a valid question, a difficult one. But, as far as I know, in practice, whether to abort past any legal boundary is determined by the woman in consultation with her doctor; essentially, it is a medical decision, not one made by courts or panels:

Roe stressed the central role of the pregnant woman's doctor, emphasizing that "the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision." 48

Similar themes were stressed in Danforth, in which a Missouri law, which defined viability as "that stage of fetal development when the life of the unborn child may be continued indefinitely outside the womb by natural or artificial life support systems", was attacked as an attempt to advance the point of viability to an earlier stage of gestation. The Court disagreed, finding the statutory definition consistent with Roe. It reemphasized that viability is "a matter of medical judgment, skill, and technical ability" and that Roe meant to preserve the flexibility of the term. 49 Moreover, the Danforth Court held that "it is not the proper function of the legislature or the courts to place viability, which is essentially a medical concept, at a specific point in the gestation period. The time when viability is achieved may vary with each pregnancy, and the determination of whether a particular fetus is viable is, and must be, a matter for the judgment of the attending physician." 50 The physician's central role in determining viability, and the lack of such definitional authority in the legislatures and courts, was reaffirmed by the Court in Colautti v. Franklin. 51 http://www.policyalmanac.org/culture/archive/crs_abortion_overview.shtml

I hope that explains it.

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

And just to address a few points briefly; women and men should be free and equal partners in every respect! If I implied otherwise, I apologize (though I still stand by my original statement).

Well, I guess I'm just a hardass or a dummy if I fail to understand how women can be "free and equal partners in every respect" while simultaneously giving men inordinate say and literal control over their physical bodies and their choices to bear or not bear children. Silly of me, I know, but that's how I am, and I guess I'm just stuck with my dumb old hardass self.

"Yay!" said the cheering section. ;-)

It reminds me of the Promise Keepers' mind-set: "Honor your wife, but take back your role as head and master of your household." It's the same sort of oxymoronic thinking (emphasis on "moronic"), where no discomfort with the obvious contradiction in terms ever arises.

PJ wants a "sane conversation," while posing an inherently insane proposition: "Let's make women slaves to zygotes, but don't anybody get pissed over it." Oye!

What she said

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 11:43 pm
Quote Semi permeable memebrain:

Even at it's most devolved, however, this forum is harmless.\

Then why be upset about it?

Am I upset? Once I log off, Kerry doesn't cross my mind. Besides, I hold no animosity toward him. Some people can't see the big picture. So what?

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

The "Life begins at conception" argument is a ridiculous one. Every living organism on earth is part of a continum that goes back to when life began on this planet. If you are alive then every sperm, egg, parent, sperm, eggs, granparents, sperm, eggs, great gradparents, sperm, eggs, great great grandparents and on and on going back to before humans were humans in our lineage have continuously been alive and had the chain of our existence at any stage been broken at any time we would not be alive here today. Therefore the Catholics have a better argument that every sperm and egg are sacred but do we really want to forbid all sex with the "waste" of eggs and sperm without procreation? Just stop the stupid, stupid claim that life "begins" at conception.

Mark Pasternak's picture
Mark Pasternak
Joined:
Dec. 9, 2011 1:39 pm
Quote DRC:

While there are ethicists who continue to argue for "the absolute" and hold the opinion you do about "relativizing truth," the reason "contextual ethics" came to the fore was that ethical relevance and ethical reality does not show up in those neat packages.

'Contextual ethics'. You say that like you have some idea of what that means and how that plays out--especially in this situation of elective abortions. What really is 'contextual ethics'--and what does 'contextual ethics' mean in the case of elective abortions, DRC? And, as is typical every time we talk of this 'community interest' perspective, who gets to decide? These aren't just 'sophitisticated and intellectualized' perspectives that can be pontificated upon without some resolve as to how you see them working if this 'contextual ethics' really is to have a form in reality that plays out anything like 'justice'--especially from a politically authorized position. How do you see this 'contextual ethics' working?

I have put forth many examples in this discussion--if there is some idea on how this is to work out in a 'contextual ethical' manner, there were many opportunities for someone to come in and explain (even you)--but, I didn't see that happening. Before we get to the nature on how 'contextual ethics' is to work in the context of elective abortions, one example that I put out there as one involving the real world was the issue of two drunks presenting to the same hospital. One left on his own volition to get hit by a car and killed--and the family sued (and won). The same doctor, remembering that particular case, had another drunk wanting to leave--but, this time, the drunk was tied down and drugged against his will to prevent that possibility--and the drunk sued (and won). The doctor gets furious over those conditions because, of course, there is no rational way out of 'preventing being sued' when it comes to drunks leaving and getting killed or drunks being forced to stay against their will--and, when the doctor expressed his exasperation (apparently, somewhat emotionally in that 'context') over being positioned in this manner that he has no way of containing, or controlling, but is responsible for, anyway, he was made to go to anger management classes. Can you walk me through the 'contextually ethical' aspect of this that justifies these circumstances? From the viewpoint of the one being 'judged either way' (like my mother's 'two halves against the middle'), its irrational directives leave no valid option for those directly responsible to take--they are 'damned if they do and damned if they don't'. And, as I said, the only pertinent political option to take in such situations is to be able to put yourself in the position to be able to be the one damning--and, by going either way, ignore any rational pretext to its conclusions. Is there a 'contextual ethical' consideration that I'm missing here, DRC? And, if there is, can you explain it?

Rational pretexts. For us to discuss political aspects in a rational way (or is that, again, necessary in 'contextual ethics'?), like any rational discussion made in any context, we do have to start out with whatever 'we' can agree upon are the 'facts' to consider. The 'A' that begins the logical progression of 'if A=B and B=C, then A=C' sort of thing. Now, we can try to take the rather nihilistic philosophical perspective that 'nothing is absolute'--not even 'facts' (but, remember, I see this position coming from those like Ulysses that like to claim that 'statistical trends' are 'official facts'--with all the political authority so directed)--however, as most in history who take that philosophical perspective show to me, if the political environment is that malleable, then, the 'shape' it takes will be whoever can force (or coerce) it into whatever shape they can--and, since they don't have to rationalize their motives and their methods, it can be done under any pretense. And, without pretexting that with 'individual rights' initiatives as its main political motive, I think that anything that gains the power to force (or coerce) also will have the capacity to oppress. So, from a politically authorizing perspective, the closest thing that comes to a 'factual rational pretext' (to any just end that I can see) is 'individual rights'--its closest ethical ally is 'autonomy'--its most competent logical endpoint is 'mutual autonomy'. What does 'contextual ethical' matters offer in its stead? 'Community interest'? Is that a 'community interested in individuality'--or, like a dog, a 'community interest' that can vary between being a family companion--or the next meal (and who or what gets to decide that?)? And, if it is a 'community interested in individuality' how does that differ in any true contextual manner from one 'granting individual rights as much as acquiring them for oneself'?

If an 'unalienable right' is not the closest thing to a political 'fact', an 'absolute condition', that can be removed by any 'contextual ethical manner', then, rationally, it is not 'unalienable' (and, again, when it does come to 'contextual ethics', who or what gets the power to 'determine its context'?)--and a 'contextual ethical' perspective without it puts us in a world when there will be no logical progression to its political ends. And, as DRC knows, I agree with the entire point that the entire spectrum of the human condition is not all rational or logical--however, if this is what DRC is saying is the content of 'contextual ethics', I absolutely disagree that any political authority to impose on another should have anything less than a full rational context as to its motives--primarily based on the very 'fact' of 'individual rights objectives' to be absolutely prioritized in politics (against any legal impositions to the contrary supposedly based on 'community interests') when such 'unalienable rights' are determined to exist (and I see that is exactly how the Supreme Court decisions on such issues as what Loving vs. Virginia, Griswald vs. Connecticut, Roe vs. Wade, and Lawrence vs. Texas entailed--unalienable rights that no imposition for 'community interest's sake' could intervene with, or interfere upon--absolutely).

So, how is 'contextual ethics' to work out in this issue of elective abortions? We have a context to place that in. I've been all for the absolute expression of rights in this situation--I've claimed from the onset that the only condition to consider here is when does a human life with rights begin. Have I said at any point in this discussion that 'it begins at conception'? But, also, I am in total disagreement with anyone here that claims that there is a 'contextual ethical' context to the 'right to life' that takes away its absolute character once it has been determined to exist. Or, once again, describe a 'context' that removes that 'right to life' for a human like it does for a dog depending upon which 'community interest' you are prioritizing--family companion vs. the next meal. Now, you can play up with all this posturing and pontificating on how 'mature, sophitisticated, and intellectualized' all of you are that make all rights conditional--but, I would like for you to explain your position against real life examples--and it doesn't get any more 'real life' than elective abortions when you're in the position to crush that skull in and suck the brains out for the absolute right of the mother to decide to do so (before the fetus gains 'the right to life' against that 'right to choose').

I will at least hand it to D_NATURED in that respect, if you are going to take that position, be accountable for it in every aspect of its potential--make it become a part of YOUR BEING. In that way, from every position that affects other people, just like Jefferson promoted, the 'rights of conscience' always carry the 'obligation of personal responsibility'--or, just like the so-called 'mature, sophiticated, intellectualizing' posturers on this board, you can 'take either side' but still not 'make a stand' (to me, preferably a 'rational stand' with its emphasis on political authorizations being based on the 'political facts' of 'individual, and unalienable, rights'--with its logical ethical end as 'mutual autonomy'). But, you know what, from a political perspective, as, again, I believe history has proven, those that 'take either side'--despite how 'mature, sophiticated, and intellectualized' they claim to be--will always succumb to those that 'make a stand'. Like John Cougar Mellencamp sings, 'If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything...' And, Mississippi just voted on trying to change their state constitution to 'life begins at conception'. Are those who claim that the human 'right to life' is 'conditional' and relative under any circumstance (as a 'contextual ethical' perspective) really think that's going to champion this contention? No, I think you better get a good idea on when you think a human life with rights begins....absolutely....and when you let the 'right to choose' for the mother deciding under any pretext against the fetus being born--absolutely.....or let those who claim 'contextual ethics' (but not actually tell you who can determine such 'contexts'--or how and why they do so) take all your rights away....absolutely.....but, feel 'mature, sophitisticated, and intellectualizing' in doing so....you don't mind if I say 'BULLSHIT' to such a 'mature, sophitisticated, intellectualized' possibility, do you, DRC? Absolutely....

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

Now, we can try to take the rather nihilistic philosophical perspective that 'nothing is absolute'--not even 'facts'

Who said "nothing is absolute?" Nobody!!!! I said rights cannot be absolute. I said nothing about facts! Why do you extrapolate toward nonsense? Well, perhaps it is in order to miss the point, so that you do not have to deal with the validity of rights not being absolute?!

Quote Kerry:

I've claimed from the onset that the only condition to consider here is when does a human life with rights begin.

So, let's say you're right: the only issue to consider is "when does a human life with rights begin." I don't agree, but just for discussion sake, let's consider it, ignoring as you did my posting of the law on this subject (it is a medical decision and different, depending on the pregnancy). So what? So, let's say we determine that a human life with rights begins at a certain time, at a certain moment, for all pregnancies on the planet (which is impossible, but let's consider it.) What then? Do we disregard the compelling fact of the human life with rights that is the mother who carries that now other human life with rights? Does the graduation and promotion of the once human life without rights (fetus, before viability) to human life with rights suddenly mean the obliteration of the mother as a human life with fundamental rights? That is to ask, Kerry, do you mean to imply that once a fetus becomes a human life with rights, its rights will supersede the rights of the mother, and no person should consider any other factor other than the now supreme rights of the fetus?

Do you not see how your supposition implies inordinate rights and importance to be granted to your fetus with rights? Do you not see how you imply the insignificance of the rights and lives of women, at the point when a fetus reaches viability? And how could you support such a conclusion, without disregarding women as human lives with rights? For, a person who values women and their lives could never insist that the only issue to consider is "when does a human life with rights begin."

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

Who said "nothing is absolute?" Nobody!!!! I said rights cannot be absolute. I said nothing about facts! Why do you extrapolate toward nonsense? Well, perhaps it is in order to miss the point, so that you do not have to deal with the validity of rights not being absolute?!

What was that claim on you having your points ignored as a restriction against 'mutual communication'? Did you miss this from me:

If an 'unalienable right' is not the closest thing to a political 'fact', an 'absolute condition', that can be removed by any 'contextual ethical manner', then, rationally, it is not 'unalienable' (and, again, when it does come to 'contextual ethics', who or what gets the power to 'determine its context'?)--and a 'contextual ethical' perspective without it puts us in a world when there will be no logical progression to its political ends.

Or, let me put it this way, in its political context, if 'rights' aren't about as absolute as it can be up against any other political concept that you can come up with, then, those rights aren't 'unalienable'. And, just to be sure you understand this point, that is up against any written (positivist) law that can claim a 'community interest' against it....I'm not quite sure how else that can be said especially up against the real world contentions of 'elective abortions' (as I thought my explanations about such 'contention of rights' indicated in the political maneuvering of 'elective abortions'--but, I guess that is, also, to be ignored)....but, I'll surge forth in your diatribe against my position to what can be made of this in 'mutually communicating'....

Quote Zenzoe:
Quote Kerry:

I've claimed from the onset that the only condition to consider here is when does a human life with rights begin.

So, let's say you're right: the only issue to consider is "when does a human life with rights begin." I don't agree, but just for discussion sake, let's consider it, ignoring as you did my posting of the law on this subject (it is a medical decision and different, depending on the pregnancy).....

Well, that made me look up your quote on this that you are referring to and I considered this point on it:

Roe stressed the central role of the pregnant woman's doctor, emphasizing that "the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision." 48

While I am not disagreeing with the right to privacy aspect of that point, I don't really see that point addressing the unalienable rights issue that I think is at the center of this controversy because, if that were the case, then, why did the decision of Roe vs. Wade stop at 12 weeks gestation for the woman to have this absolute right to decide the outcome of her pregnancy anywhere in the nation? Making the only unalienable right aspect of this for the mother being 'prior to 12 weeks' gestation--and, then, giving any state the capacity to intervene for the interest of the fetus anytime after that. When unalienable rights are not involved, 'community interests' can intervene and/or impose upon them. Supreme Courts have been making those decisions for decades (and, sometimes, 'reversing itself'--look at Bowers vs. Hardwick against Lawrence vs. Texas). Now, if you are reading into the rest of that statement on the 'variability of viability' indicating that the Supreme Court is allowing a 'community interest' to intervene on an unalienable right, you are forgetting another point made in the Roe vs. Wade decision, the fetus was not given the unalienable 'right to life' until birth--it did leave whatever 'variance' there was to be imposed by the state against the mother who may wish to abort that child after 12 weeks up to each state. Like California and New York did at the time, it was still until birth. In Utah's case, it was only until 12 weeks. In Texas' case, it was until the earliest gestation that a fetus survived outside of the uterus--20 weeks. No unalienable 'right to life' for the fetus was established by Roe vs. Wade until birth--and no unalienableness to any fetal right before birth was established until the federal government passed a law (that was subsequently supported by the Supreme Court) that banned 'partial birth abortions' throughout the nation. At that point, even D_NATURED's 'crushing the fetal skull in and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it' has been declared illegal--due now to the established fetal 'right to life' before birth preventing 'partial birth abortions'....

So, I think your connection is taking all of this out of context (is that what 'contextual ethics' is all about?). But, we'll press on....

Quote Zenzoe:

So, let's say we determine that a human life with rights begins at a certain time,

When it has been determined that the developing organism in the mother has a 'right to life' despite any contention against it (community, state, federal, or even mother--without 'due process'--and, by the way, some medical interventions do have a 'due process' indication for them when it comes to having to decide against 'opposing rights to life' in this), that is 'the time' that a human life with rights begins....Roe vs. Wade did not make that an unalienable right until birth--but did give the pregnant mother an unalienable right to abort only until 12 weeks--and, then, left the rest up to the impositions of the state 'for any perceived benefit of the fetus' as a 'community interest'. That has been what I've been saying all along--but, typically ignored as others seem to have a claim against me on 'mutual communication'--as they continue to pontificate irrationally on the 'conditionalities of all rights' against any concern for their 'absoluteness' in content and extent (Is that also to 'make conditional' the mother's 'right to choose' here, Zenzoe? As someone who claims to know words really well, you reallly need to parse your words more extensively unless you mean to 'condition the mother's right' in a way that is supposedly to 'be consistent' in this ploy that the 'mature, sophiticated, and intellectualizing' have in 'conditioning all rights' so that 'no right is absolute'--but, I guess those who 'condition everything' don't have to be 'consistent' as a rational pretext, do they? We're into a 'new paradigm' supposedly--maybe it's one where drunks can leave and be injured or be forced to stay against their will and successfully sue 'either way' despite the irrational impositions made on those directly responsible for the actions involved....and, then, if anyone complains too much about such contradictory and irrational impositions made upon them, be made to go to 'anger management classes'....)....an irrational consistency that claims, as Zenzoe insists, 'rights' not be considered 'absolute' because the 'mature, sophisticated, intellectualizing' people on this board don't see them that way (implying, of course, that no 'mature, sophisticated, intellectualizing' person should see them that way).....Why, I have no earthly idea....I do have my suspicions that such 'mature, sophisticated, intellectualizing' people have no idea what they are talking about when they claim 'conditioning all rights'--but, since 'rational discussions' aren't what this seems to be all about (DRC claims this 'new paradigm' that doesn't have to be 'rational'), anyway, apparently they don't have to know....I wish that position wasn't able to gain any 'political authority' for what I think are obvious reasons--but, again, that may just be me....

Quote Zenzoe:

.....at a certain moment, for all pregnancies on the planet (which is impossible, but let's consider it.)

Impossible? You don't think that BIRTH is certain enough? Or, is that 'relative' to you, also? 20 weeks can be 'certain enough' if that is what is established. In fact, I think it is rationally impossible NOT to consider this as decisions upon when to exert unalienable rights in their absolute political context--when that is is THE POINT OF CONTENTION. Ignoring that for some 'conditional' position doesn't make that go away--and shouldn't as far as I'm concerned. What you don't seem to understand yet is that the Roe vs. Wade decision made two aspects of this ABSOLUTE with respect to 'rights'--the mother deciding to abort is an absolute right (against any contention) prior to 12 weeks (anywhere in the nation)--the fetus obtains the absolute 'right to life' at birth. Between that, NO unalienable right exists on either part--in which case, each state has the ability to intervene at any point in time--but, they do have to determine that point....or, claim who has such an authority to determine that point (such as 'the physician and the mother')--but, nonetheless, NOT have any restrictions to it prior to 12 weeks and NOT allow any impositions against the fetus once 'right to life' has been determined--even if that is at birth....do you really disagree with that in your 'conditional' sense?

Quote Zenzoe:

What then? Do we disregard the compelling fact of the human life with rights that is the mother who carries that now other human life with rights? Does the graduation and promotion of the once human life without rights (fetus, before viability) to human life with rights suddenly mean the obliteration of the mother as a human life with fundamental rights?

No, we recognize it for what it has always been even as the Roe vs. Wade decision has always acknowledged--it IS a contention between 'rights'. From a political (and ethical) perspective, when the fetus has gained the 'right to life', the mother has lost the 'right to choose' against it. The whole political and ethical issue of abortion deals directly with when that is to take place. And, I'm not sure how any of you who seem to claim some 'mature, sophisticated, intellectualized' position that wants to, for some reason, 'make all rights conditional' and 'no rights absolute' (to what, you never say) don't see that....the 'right to life' preempts the 'right to choose' against it...when there is no ABSOLUTE 'right to life', there can be an ABSOLUTE 'right to choose' in elective abortions...but, you cannot politically, ethically, or morally have it the other way around....an absolute 'right to choose' cannot be used against an 'absolute right to life'...so, it's when a human life with rights begins that is the ABSOLUTE contention....deal with it....otherwise, self-righteously claim that 'all rights are conditional' and ignore this responsibility--but, others in the political panoply of power-motives won't....I can almost be absolutely sure of that....in fact, that's my whole point, as far as how to decide this issue of 'elective abortions', whoever is deciding this SHOULDN'T IGNORE ITS 'CONTENTION OF RIGHTS'....and resolve this as straightforwardly as it deserves....after all, we are talking about the lives of humans.....not dogs.....

Quote Zenzoe:

That is to ask, Kerry, do you mean to imply that once a fetus becomes a human life with rights, its rights will supersede the rights of the mother, and no person should consider any other factor other than the now supreme rights of the fetus?

ABSOLUTELY. But, you seem to have a problem with that. Let's see why....

Quote Zenzoe:

Do you not see how your supposition implies inordinate rights and importance to be granted to your fetus with rights? Do you not see how you imply the insignificance of the rights and lives of women, at the point when a fetus reaches viability? And how could you support such a conclusion, without disregarding women as human lives with rights? For, a person who values women and their lives could never insist that the only issue to consider is "when does a human life with rights begin."

'Inordinate rights'? It's not that 'I' am 'inordinately giving the fetus more rights than the mother' here when the fetus doesn't have the 'right to life', Zenzoe. It is that I recognize that the 'right to life' preempts the 'right to choose' against it when that 'right to life' exists. I am in agreement with Roe vs. Wade that the mother has the 'right to choose' against the fetus' life before 12 weeks. I am even in agreement with the state of Texas that the mother has the 'right to choose' against the fetus' life before the gestational age of earliest viability--20 weeks. Am I for D_NATURED's position of 'allowing the fetal skull to be crushed and the brains sucked out' right before birth? No. Are you? But, that's now because I agree that, at that stage, the fetus has the 'right to life'....and the mother's 'right to choose' cannot go against that....and, I think that even D_NATURED wasn't going to let the mother have someone 'crush the skull and suck out the brains' once that fetus has taken that first breath and is now a newborn. Or, are you 'conditioning' the 'right to life' even at that point, Zenzoe? No 'right' is 'absolute'? At that point, I think that all you who claim a 'mature, sophisticated, intellectualizing' posturing against 'all rights being absolute' have just made a very irrational and, in a real world sense, unjustifiable posturing in a rationally vain attempt at trying to be 'consistent' with your 'conditioning of all rights'.....if you don't, or can't, see it that way because you 'don't like me as a libertarian', that's really a sad place for you to be....but, don't blame me for that....

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

From a political (and ethical) perspective, when the fetus has gained the 'right to life', the mother has lost the 'right to choose' against it.

Wrong. If the pregnancy poses a threat to the life and health of the mother, her interests outweigh that of the fetus. That's the law everywhere. And, she and her doctor make the decision, at least initially, and that's the law too. (Don't forget, abortions past viability represent something like .04% of abortions—thus, we can assume that most women who choose to have abortions for circumstantial reasons, have their abortion before viability; the rest who have their abortions after viability have those abortions for damn good reasons, such as that the pregnancy is posing a threat to their life and health.)

Also, you have a rather narrow view of women's rights surrounding abortion. You define it as a "right to choose," and "right to privacy," compared to a right to life for the fetus, when so much more is involved. (you set up a comparison where you think any rational mind would see the ethically inferior character of women's rights over those of the fetus' right to life.) It is also not only those rights, but also her right to life, her right to the ownership, the sovereignty, of her own body and life.

Thus, I must rest my case, Kerry. Your pitting the rights of women against that of the fetus, in such a way as to describe women's interests as less important, proves your misogyny, your sexist mind-set. It is such a mind-set that allows you to insist on "right to life" as paramount in the first place.

Quote Kerry:

It is that I recognize that the 'right to life' preempts the 'right to choose' against it when that 'right to life' exists.

You see? "Right to choose" vs. "right to life." Trivialize the former; exalt the latter, and you have your sexist conclusion.

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

Wrong. If the pregnancy poses a threat to the life and health of the mother, her interests outweigh that of the fetus. That's the law everywhere. And, she and her doctor make the decision, at least initially, and that's the law too. (Don't forget, abortions past viability represent something like .04% of abortions—thus, we can assume that most women who choose to have abortions for circumstantial reasons, have their abortion before viability; the rest who have their abortions after viability have those abortions for damn good reasons, such as that the pregnancy is posing a threat to their life and health.)

Do you actually have any examples that make this point for you? Any circumstance where 'the life of the fetus' (that has been determined to have an unalienable 'right to life' at that point) does really threaten the life of the mother--and they then, without concern for any rights, have 'sacrificed the fetus' accordingly as a 'condition' against any unalienable fetal 'right to life'? If the pregnancy does, indeed, pose a 'threat to the life of the mother', more often than not, it's going to be because the mother has a condition that pregnancy can make worse. And, in almost every case that I can think of, the mother will know that from the beginning of her pregnancy--not the end. And, in almost every case that I can think of, even with that threat to the mother's life, the mother will decide to keep the pregnancy (even sometimes against the doctor's advice). This issue on 'the life of the mother vs. the life of the fetus' is basically a scam when it comes to trying to 'condition' any 'right to life' of the fetus (because, of course, Zenzoe seems to want to 'condition all rights'--but doesn't seem to address it as 'conditioning the right to choose' on the mother's part as being a 'right that can be conditioned')--and, once again, if 'the life of the mother' is really at risk, the 'life of the fetus' is also at risk. If you 'don't save the life of the mother', you 'don't save the life of the fetus'. All of this 'concern over the life of the mother vs. the life of the fetus' as a condition against the 'absolute rights' this issue contains is primarily a posturing that poses a false dichotomy. And, it may be an attempt to sway the personal responsibility of the one 'allowing such a fetal death' by not claiming it as an 'absolute right' by explaining it as a 'medical necessity'. But, if you actually think about it (come on, Zenzoe, you're the expert on words), if there really, really is a 'medical necessity' being involved, IT'S NOT AN ELECTIVE ABORTION. 'Rights of conscience' should carry the 'obligation of personal responsibility'--'crushing the skull and sucking out the brains' and all....

And, besides that, Zenzoe, are you just going to ignore the entire point that Roe vs. Wade does not give the fetus an unalienable 'right to life' until birth--which hasn't been changed until the federal government passed laws against all partial birth abortions? Are you now going to tell me that, if it has to come down to 'the mother living' or 'the fetus getting its skull crushed and brains sucked out' right at birth, there isn't going to be a problem with a 'contention of rights' here? Have you ever really been in that situation? The answer will be an emergency C-section--not 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains'.

Quote Zenzoe:

Also, you have a rather narrow view of women's rights surrounding abortion. You define it as a "right to choose," and "right to privacy," compared to a right to life for the fetus, when so much more is involved. (you set up a comparison where you think any rational mind would see the ethically inferior character of women's rights over those of the fetus' right to life.) It is also not only those rights, but also her right to life, her right to the ownership, the sovereignty, of her own body and life.

It's interesting coming from someone that says, from its political context, 'rights are to be conditioned' and not 'seen as absolute' claiming that it is 'I' who has the narrow view on this--apparently not realizing that if you are 'conditioning a right' that, in and of itself, narrows the options of the one who was to have such a 'right' to the 'conditions' being imposed upon them. And, in order not to narrow this argument on 'right to life' vs. 'right to choose' too much, I am NOT saying that I see an 'ethically inferior character' of 'the woman's rights over the fetus's right to life', I am seeing an 'ethically superior character' over anyone who has a 'right to life' over anyone who has a 'right to choose' against it once that 'right to life' has been determined to exist--IN EVERY CONTEXT. Is that 'broad enough' for you, Zenzoe?

Quote Zenzoe:

Thus, I must rest my case, Kerry. Your pitting the rights of women against that of the fetus, in such a way as to describe women's interests as less important, proves your misogyny, your sexist mind-set. It is such a mind-set that allows you to insist on "right to life" as paramount in the first place.

Are you going to claim that 'I' am an anti-Semite too, Zenzoe? Do you really think that it is 'sexist' to claim that the 'right to life' holds precedence over the 'right to choose' against it once the 'right to life' exists? Really? Can you explain that in this context in a better way for me to see it? How about these questions, Zenzoe, can you answer these:

'Inordinate rights'? It's not that 'I' am 'inordinately giving the fetus more rights than the mother' here when the fetus doesn't have the 'right to life', Zenzoe. It is that I recognize that the 'right to life' preempts the 'right to choose' against it when that 'right to life' exists. I am in agreement with Roe vs. Wade that the mother has the 'right to choose' against the fetus' life before 12 weeks. I am even in agreement with the state of Texas that the mother has the 'right to choose' against the fetus' life before the gestational age of earliest viability--20 weeks. Am I for D_NATURED's position of 'allowing the fetal skull to be crushed and the brains sucked out' right before birth? No. Are you? But, that's now because I agree that, at that stage, the fetus has the 'right to life'....and the mother's 'right to choose' cannot go against that....and, I think that even D_NATURED wasn't going to let the mother have someone 'crush the skull and suck out the brains' once that fetus has taken that first breath and is now a newborn. Or, are you 'conditioning' the 'right to life' even at that point, Zenzoe? No 'right' is 'absolute'? At that point, I think that all you who claim a 'mature, sophisticated, intellectualizing' posturing against 'all rights being absolute' have just made a very irrational and, in a real world sense, unjustifiable posturing in a rationally vain attempt at trying to be 'consistent' with your 'conditioning of all rights'.....if you don't, or can't, see it that way because you 'don't like me as a libertarian', that's really a sad place for you to be....but, don't blame me for that....

And, if you are claiming that 'I' am misogynist, are you, in your claiming that 'all rights are conditional' also belittling the 'right to choose' for the woman by stating 'something (not of the woman involved) can condition it'? Or is that 'right' absolute? I say it's absolute when no 'right to life' of the fetus is involved--which can absolutely (not 'conditionally') supercede it once it has been determined to have 'rights'. What do you say? That that is not really the case? Then why are you restricting, with any 'condition', anything of the 'mother's rights to choose' even for any proposed 'care and concern of fetal viability'? Your restrictions aren't misogynist--but mine are? And, that's because of what, Zenzoe? By your 'conditioning of all rights', is the 'mother's right to choose to abort' to be 'conditioned' or to be 'absolute'? And, if 'conditioned', what is it to be 'conditioned' for? And, if it is 'conditioned' for anything related to the fetus, what is the difference between that and my claim on the fetal 'right to life' superceding the otherwise ABSOLUTE maternal 'right to choose' in ELECTIVE ABORTIONS?

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

Do you actually have any examples that make this point for you? Any circumstance where 'the life of the fetus' (that has been determined to have an unalienable 'right to life' at that point) does really threaten the life of the mother--and they then, without concern for any rights, have 'sacrificed the fetus' accordingly as a 'condition' against any unalienable fetal 'right to life'? If the pregnancy does, indeed, pose a 'threat to the life of the mother', more often than not, it's going to be because the mother has a condition that pregnancy can make worse. And, in almost every case that I can think of, the mother will know that from the beginning of her pregnancy--not the end. And, in almost every case that I can think of, even with that threat to the mother's life, the mother will decide to keep the pregnancy (even sometimes against the doctor's advice). This issue on 'the life of the mother vs. the life of the fetus' is basically a scam...

Okay, Kerry, that does it. Now I'm with Ulysses: I don't think you're a doctor at all.

Quote NY Times:

Patients Pay Tribute to a Murdered Doctor

Flowers are being left outside the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita this week, and at the gated entrance of the Women’s Health Care Services there — all in memory of George Tiller, one of the few doctors in the country who would still help women who needed abortions late in their pregnancies, and who was murdered on Sunday in the foyer of his longtime church.

This being the electronic age, tributes are being left online too, accumulating around the web in virtual gatherings of would-be parents, all of them Dr. Tiller’s patients, who describe his compassion when they faced terminating their wanted and cherished pregnancies because of devastating health news.

Salon.com is one such gathering place. There Susan Hill, the president of the National Women’s Health Foundation, explains that women in Tiller’s care were there mostly because life had dealt them a crippling blow.

“We always sent the really tragic cases to Tiller,” said Hill, who knew the doctor for 20 years. This included women who were newly diagnosed with cancer and who could not start chemotherapy unless they terminated their pregnancies; women whose babies would be born only to suffer from genetic illness and die; women – no girls – who were victims of rape or incest and who were so young that they didn’t know enough to know they were pregnant until they were many months along.

Salon links to Balloon Juice, another place where stories can be found. One commentator there told of learning – in the eighth month of pregnancy, that the twins his wife was carrying were conjoined, and were connected in such a way that “at best only one child would survive the surgery to separate them and the survivor would more than likely live a brief and painful life filled with surgery and organ transplants.” The man and his wife made their way to the Wichita clinic, and, the father wrote, “the nightmare of our decision and the aftermath was only made bearable by the warmth and compassion of Dr. Tiller and his remarkable staff.”

A commenter on Metafilter tells a similar story, writing: “My wife and I spent a week in Dr. Tiller’s care after we learned our 21-week fetus had a severe defect incompatible with life. The laws in our state prevented us from ending the pregnancy there, and Dr. Tiller was one of maybe three choices in the whole nation at that gestational age. He spent over six hours in one-on-one care with my wife when there was concern she had an infection. We’re talking about a physician here. Six hours…”

And American Prospect is collecting tales, as well, including that of a pregnant 14-year-old, developmentally challenged and clinically depressed, who was threatening to kill herself rather than have the baby. The young woman is now 20, has finished high school, and ”has a committed partner and a young child” according to her cousin, who accompanied her to Dr. Tiller’s clinic six years ago, and who told her story to the American Prospect. “I have no idea what would have happened if we had to go back to her and say, ‘Your only option is to have this baby and put this baby up for adoption.’ I don’t know if she would have made it,” the cousin said, adding that she hasn’t yet found a way to break the news of Dr. Tiller’s death.

Over on Awarenessblog.com an anonymous commenter writes:

I don’t believe in aborting a fetus based on a person just not wanting that baby. I’m a Republican, Christian, mother, sister, and daughter. I was dealt a set of cards back in 1998 that were extremely hard. I had a much wanted baby growing inside of me. I found out around 28 weeks that the baby that I adored, wanted, loved and would die for had a condition and sickness that would if she was born died at birth or lived a very complicated life. Who would want that for their child??? I will never forget my baby…the one that was wanted, the one that was loved…NEVER…but I believe I did the right thing and the doctors believe I did the right thing and Dr. Tiller was there to do that thing…that decision…that hard hard decision.

They are gathering at the website A Heartbreaking Choice, in a section called simply “Kansas Stories.” And on the guest book on the Wichita Eagle website, where testimony and thanks are sprinkled among the thousands of condolence messages. Story upon story of the moment when a lava-lamp like image on an ultrasound screen turned joy into pain. Some anonymous, some with names, all of them grateful. Two, on the Wichita Eagle site, have stayed with me over the past few days:

To the Tiller family;
When I was 6, my mom was pregnant with a child she really wanted. The doctors told her, abut 4 or 5 months in, that if she carried the child to term, she had a 90 percent chance of not surviving. She of course, got an abortion, and I got my mom for an extra 14 years. Mom died when I was 20, and I have such gratitude for doctors like your husband who gave me my mom for those 14 extra, precious years. My heart goes out to you. May you find healing and may his memory live on in those that he loved and those that he saved.

And:

In 2002 I found out I was carrying triplets. My husband did not want me to have them. The day of my appointment I was scared and not sure this was the right decision. They took me back and did an ultrasound. I asked if they all had heartbeats and the nurse said yes. I asked if I would have the chance to talk to the doctor and right away she went and got Dr Tiller. He came in and looked at my babies on the screen. Then he looked at me and said “God gave you these babies, it’s not my job to take them away.” He asked if I agreed and I immediately said yes. He told the nurse to take me to the counter and have them give me my money. You know that day was a turning point for me. I ended up having a great pregnancy and three healthy baby girls. I can never thank Dr. Tiller enough for sending me away that day.

Update from Lisa Belkin: Over on the Slate site, DoubleX, there is a discussion going on between Ayelet Waldman, author of Bad Mother, and NY Times Magazine contributing writer Elizabeth Weil, about their separate first-hand experiences with late-term abortions.

Weil writes of contracting a virus (CMV) at the end of her second trimester that is known to cause profound birth defects:

My unborn son would most likely be deaf, perhaps also visually impaired, and seriously mentally retarded. A doctor friend told me this prognosis could make a child with Down look nearly special-needs-free. But no one could tell us for sure what our unborn son’s health would be like, partly because no good studies existed. Almost all of the women with CMV and sonograms like mine terminated before reaching term.

We agonized but we did not waver; we decided to abort.

That part of the story makes me sad. The next part makes me angry. Nobody at Kaiser San Francisco would do the procedure. They did all the testing. (And let’s be real: The purpose of prenatal testing is to provide information that might result in terminating a pregnancy.) They supported my decision. But, I was told, to get rid of the baby—and please, hurry before he’s viable—I needed to see a guy up in Santa Rosa. So one day we packed an overnight bag, left Hannah with grandma, and drove the hour north. A doctor with waist-length hair and a hippie I-feel-your-pain style performed the surgery. My last memory, before losing consciousness, is of cold tears streaming down my face.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/06/08/abortion-in-silence-no-longer

Don't make me find more stories for you, Kerry. I can find plenty more, believe me. But I'm not convinced you would comprehend the depth of your wrongheadedness. You have another agenda, apparently, other than comprehending the reproductive lives of women.

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

Zenzoe, it seems that we agree in every important way. As you can see, the bottom line of this debate is whether it is appropriate to restrict the RIGHTS (with an "s") of a woman for the RIGHT (singular) of a fetus. Kerry is arguing that the fetus has the right to risk another's life for its own existence but the woman does not have that same right. He applies rights arbitrarily based upon his own pre-conceived sense of the being's innocence. And, while I realize calling fetuses parasites will turn off a lot of liberals as well as conservatives, it best demonstrates the problem we face.

I think the only way around the problem of when life begins is to resist attempting to define a fetus as a life before it has demonstrated the qualities we associate with living human beings. Existing suspended in an aqueous fluid, within a sack within an organ of another person ain't it. Those are the qualities we associate with larval humans (more offense?).

Kerry has mastered the art of drowning his opponent in seas of senseless argument. He rants effortlessly about rights but can not wrap his mind around what liberty really is. He knows that only the living have rights so assumes that mere life is the most important thing. When you focus on the small, you leave out a lot, though.

Kerry, Kerry quite contrary

For whom is your right to life planned?

When the life that you save

Means its own mother's grave

You better decide where you stand.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
as I recall, for D_NATURED, it was all the way to birth and for any reason--is that a fair assessment, D_NATURED--or, are you still mad at me for calling out your pot-smoking and not even going to agree with me on that because of me being 'libertarian'?

Believe me, Kerry, your libertarianism is not the source of ill-will that you pretend it is... in a most paranoid fashion.Your dismissal of me based upon a recreational activity was an utterly douche baggy thing to interject into this debate. When you did that, you lost me. If you are really a physician, you should know that marijuana does not make someone nonsensical.

I, like you, have argued for an absolute position. I could not and can not consider any point in the pregnancy an absolute with regard to the fetus, however. Why? Because, like I wrote, the fetus can only exercise a single "right"...life. The woman in which it resides, though, can exercise every single right that other humans can. To say that a human who is capable of understanding and applying every single right she has should be sacrificed for a being who exists, completely at her discretion , and who can only be said to have a single right, is nuts. The fetus has nothing to say, no religious beliefs and owns no property. The very womb in which it resides exists by the rights of another. Fetuses die, in unexplained ways, at various points in pregnancy. The only absolute is the point when the fetus pops out of the woman and becomes an individual being. Anything prior to that is counting your chickens while declaring women to be nothing but a baby oven and undeserving of rights while so engaged.

You say that life must be considered the primary right upon which the others rely. That is true. We don't guarantee freedom of speech or religion to the dead. Its a waste of time. Giving rights to fetuses is equally stupid. Fetuses are like Shroedingers cat. They are both alive and dead until they make it out alive. Until then, they can not be guaranteed rights that they are incapable of understanding enjoying or using in any way. Even you seem to agree that they-at most-have a single right they can call their own. Until they are born, they are not a life, though, Kerry, and to give them priority is to choose an irrational system of prioritizing that leaves women at the mercy of beurocrats.

If you still don't understand what I'm saying, I don't give a crap. I shouldn't have even responded to this degree with someone who's main interest was insulting me or dismissing me for something that has no effect on my ability to reason. So, save yourself the carpal tunnel and respond clearly and concisely, or take another two thousand word brain shit on this forum. I dont' care. I won't respond to the latter, though.

PS...Another great Limerick, Zenzoe.

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

No, another great limerick from you, D_NATURED. "...When the life that you save...Means its own mother's grave..." I'm thinking I need to edit mine, though, as to the word "doctor.":

There once was a phony who penned

Some comments he could not amend;

Though ne’er understood

—His head made o’ wood—

Plopped nonsense from out his back end.

I also very much appreciated what you said at #320. Though I probably shy away from describing fetuses as "parasites" and "larval humans" (smile), I think the stand you take, advocating for the lives of women first, has the right balance. I would hope that any doctor charged with performing an abortion would have a good balance too— between common sense, rights, and wisdom. He or she certainly would not come clunking in to discuss things with a pregnant woman, one who had just been diagnosed with cancer in the 28th week of her pregnancy and soon to undergo chemotherapy, spouting nonsense about the "unalienable right of her fetus against any and all interruptions..." and blah blah blah. Oye. What an obscenity that would be.

Kerry, #319, note the examples.

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

No, another great limerick from you, D_NATURED. "...When the life that you save...Means its own mother's grave..." I'm thinking I need to edit mine, though, as to the word "doctor.":

There once was a phony who penned

Some comments he could not amend;

Though ne’er understood

—His head made o’ wood—

Plopped nonsense from out his back end.

I also very much appreciated what you said at #320. Though I probably shy away from describing fetuses as "parasites" and "larval humans" (smile), I think the stand you take, advocating for the lives of women first, has the right balance.

I know my language is harsh, but I feel this subject deserves the most plain and descriptive language possible. Mainly, because in this country, we have a real problem with truth telling. The right always complains about political correctness being demanded by liberals but turn around and demand a religious correctness for themselves.

My stand, harsh or not, does not provide the balance, though. The balance IS what it obviously is. I think the rights of the living should always outweigh the rights of the potentially living. The idea that grown women should be a slave to their womb is crazy. Kerry understands that life precedes rights but doesn't understand that WOMEN precede life. Every one of us popped out of a woman, not a supreme court justice. And, just because he finds life creation magical does not mean that it is. If it is magic, though, it's femenine magic and not legal magic. SCOTUS could not decree that no egg divide into identical twins, for instance, as the inner workings of the female reproductive system do not opperate according to the will of the judicial branch. Thus, there is an inherent arrogance when they try to legislate these things.

I would hope that any doctor charged with performing an abortion would have a good balance too— between common sense, rights, and wisdom. He or she certainly would not come clunking in to discuss things with a pregnant woman, one who had just been diagnosed with cancer in the 28th week of her pregnancy and soon to undergo chemotherapy, spouting nonsense about the "unalienable right of her fetus against any and all interruptions..." and blah blah blah. Oye. What an obscenity that would be.

Kerry, #319, note the examples.

Doctors are not perfect. In fact, as my old man used to say, some of them graduate at the bottom of the class (Kerry). They, despite their advanced education, can still fall prey to the same prejudices and religious biases that others have. We always talk about abortion being between a woman and her doctor, but the truth is, the doctor is there as an adviser, not a decider. The body is hers, the womb is hers and the tad pole is hers to dispose of or nurture as she sees fit. Anything less than that is tyranny.

Kerry, in his adamant defense of abortions as an "elective" act, automatically makes woman's rights something that exists at the will of legislators. After all, he's not for the full electivity that I am. There is a window where he would give women their due rights and a bigger window where he would take them away. It's not a right if it's only part time, though, and I think that outside this context, Kerry would agree with that statement. He doesn't realize that when two humans share a single space, there is a zero sum gain where rights are concerned. They can't both have the full set when one of them is utterly dependent upon the other. He would divide up rights like they are a grilled cheese sandwich. I say, rights divided are not rights at all, but legislative abstractions. If rights are unalienable, then they can't be given or taken away...even if you're pregnant.

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

You write mostly from your sense of the ideal, and much of my position includes both the ideal and the real, i.e., what ought to be —my ideal preferences— and the law we're constrained and protected by. The SCROTUM (Supreme Court Ramrod of the United Madness) has provided a framework, but, ultimately, the decision to have an abortion, as you say, should be left to the woman, ideally; however, the law, in deference to a community's interest in protecting "life," insists that the woman consult with her doctor and that the doctor determine the urgency of the woman's predicament, that is, after viability. Obviously, the woman has the last word—she can decide to carry a dangerous pregnancy to term, if she wants to take the risk. I realize you don't like the law, which puts restrictions on abortion after "viability," but there it is. I don't see it as particularly tyrannical, given that most women who simply wish not to be pregnant, for whatever reason, can have an abortion within the first 20 weeks; and most do. The notion that women seek abortions after viability on a whim, or out of boredom, or a sudden change of heart flies in the face of the truth. That is to say, it's a lie.

As for "harsh language," believe me, I myself might shy away from some politically incorrect language, but, as a fan of George Carlin, there's nothing I love more than telling it like it is, or telling how you feel about a thing in the strongest possible, insulting and "offensive" language. So you can feel free to let it fly, D_NATURED, as far as I'm concerned.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Doctors are not perfect. In fact, as my old man used to say, some of them graduate at the bottom of the class (Kerry). They, despite their advanced education, can still fall prey to the same prejudices and religious biases that others have. We always talk about abortion being between a woman and her doctor, but the truth is, the doctor is there as an adviser, not a decider. The body is hers, the womb is hers and the tad pole is hers to dispose of or nurture as she sees fit. Anything less than that is tyranny.

Happy to see somebody concurs with me that he's living proof of the maxim that half of all doctors graduate in the bottom 50% of their classes -- but I'm still not convinced he is one. Not only can doctors fall prey to the prejudices you mention, they often do, and always have. I've noticed that like specialists in other occupations, they often get one-dimensional. I think some feel inadequate socially and culturally. I think that's why there is, in fact, disproportionately high representation of doctors in the avocations of antiques, art collecting, and general collectables. Anybody who wants to can look up ample documentation of that. Some doctors, even though they're upper middle class but far from wealthy, have better art collections than many of the filty rich.

While I agree with you and Zenzoe, I have to point out that you have stated one inaccuracy. You're right, of course, that in this context, no doctor is a decider. But don't you forget who is! BUSH is "The Decider!" (I mean, he said so, didn't he?...)

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

Zenzoe, I don't have time to go through all these statements now--your first post seems to have disregarded every other point that I made on this issue of 'late term abortions' (and their 'electiveness') and 'medical emergencies'. If it is a 'medical emergency', it is not 'elective'. Do you see that point? It is 'therapeutic'. By 'elective abortion', I do mean the mother having the absolute right to choose to abort. If it is a 'medical emergency', I don't see that mother 'choosing'--I see it as being compelled upon her. Do you see that point? If you don't,

Plus, depending upon how late in the pregnacy you are talking about, it won't be 'crushing the fetus's head in and sucking its brains out'--it will be an emergency C-section. Do you see that point? Whatever this physician did in the name of 'elective abortions', if it was done under some other pretense than the mother's free and open choice, it's not 'elective'.....

And, I will continue to note how many of the condescenders have more to say against me than commenting on what I say. I don't have time to look over ever accusation as to my character but, nonetheless, did you, Zenzoe, or anyone make any specific comments on this:

'Inordinate rights'? It's not that 'I' am 'inordinately giving the fetus more rights than the mother' here when the fetus doesn't have the 'right to life', Zenzoe. It is that I recognize that the 'right to life' preempts the 'right to choose' against it when that 'right to life' exists. I am in agreement with Roe vs. Wade that the mother has the 'right to choose' against the fetus' life before 12 weeks. I am even in agreement with the state of Texas that the mother has the 'right to choose' against the fetus' life before the gestational age of earliest viability--20 weeks. Am I for D_NATURED's position of 'allowing the fetal skull to be crushed and the brains sucked out' right before birth? No. Are you? But, that's now because I agree that, at that stage, the fetus has the 'right to life'....and the mother's 'right to choose' cannot go against that....and, I think that even D_NATURED wasn't going to let the mother have someone 'crush the skull and suck out the brains' once that fetus has taken that first breath and is now a newborn. Or, are you 'conditioning' the 'right to life' even at that point, Zenzoe? No 'right' is 'absolute'? At that point, I think that all you who claim a 'mature, sophisticated, intellectualizing' posturing against 'all rights being absolute' have just made a very irrational and, in a real world sense, unjustifiable posturing in a rationally vain attempt at trying to be 'consistent' with your 'conditioning of all rights'.....if you don't, or can't, see it that way because you 'don't like me as a libertarian', that's really a sad place for you to be....but, don't blame me for that....

I have given up on any of you who claim 'contextual ethics' actually commenting on the issue of two drunks successfully sueing--one for leaving and getting run over and one for being forced to stay against his will--and the doctor who emotionally vocalizing his disdain on being forced to work in such an environment having to go to 'anger management classes'. Many judge--few take responsibility for its specific circumstances and consequences....that is part of the problem with 'conditioning all rights' (and removing the 'obligation of personal responsibility' to the 'rights of conscience')--even in elective abortions case--and D_NATURED not seeing that it is YOU, Zenzoe, that is 'conditioning rights' (by your own statements), not me. I just know that the 'right to life' (once it exists) absolutely supercedes the 'right to choose' against it. It most circumstances, that would be called murder. And, just to be sure, I'm not calling all abortions 'murder'--until the organism growing it that mother has gained the 'right to life'. It appears that the 'contextual ethics' people like to blow a lot of steam--but not acknowledge (even to refute) many of the points. The mother has the ABSOLUTE right to CHOOSE abortion (for whatever reason--'medical emergencies' is not a 'free choice' reason)--untl the organism in her body gains 'the right to life'--in which case, it has an ABSOLUTE right over the 'choices against it'. Do you really, really, disagree with that point? Or, is attacking me the name of this game?

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

Don't forget, abortions past viability represent something like .04% of abortions—thus, we can assume that most women who choose to have abortions for circumstantial reasons, have their abortion before viability; the rest who have their abortions after viability have those abortions for damn good reasons, such as that the pregnancy is posing a threat to their life and health.

Do you actually have any examples that make this point for you?

Note, Kerry, I said "damn good reasons." I didn't say the life and health of the mother was the only reason—but it is one reason, and I gave you many of those damn good reasons, including threats to the life and health of the mother.

But you had also said,

Quote Kerry:

If the pregnancy does, indeed, pose a 'threat to the life of the mother', more often than not, it's going to be because the mother has a condition that pregnancy can make worse. And, in almost every case that I can think of, the mother will know that from the beginning of her pregnancy--not the end. And, in almost every case that I can think of, even with that threat to the mother's life, the mother will decide to keep the pregnancy (even sometimes against the doctor's advice). This issue on 'the life of the mother vs. the life of the fetus' is basically a scam...

That is, you not only ignored all other reasons a pregnancy might need to be terminated, you denied that pregnancies have complications past viability at all!

So, now you show up to back peddle, making finite distinctions between "medical emergency," "elective abortion," "therapeutic," etc., as if you didn't say what you said.

You know, I am also really sick and tired of your reducing the argument to extremes, such as using D_NATURE'S comment about sucking out brains (which he only said to make a point about the rights of women), or whatever it was—again, creating a straw man argument.

I don't comment on all of your writings, Kerry, because they read like meandering mental masturbation. Sorry, but that's how it comes across to me.

Moving on, I think this is a good time to post some of the myths about abortion: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/tp/abortionmyths.htm

This one especially:

"Fetuses become conscious at 8 weeks."

False. Fetuses begin to develop a minimal brain stem at 7 weeks, but are not capable of consciousness until the third trimester and most likely remain unconscious until birth. As one brain scientist puts it: "the fetus and neonate appears incapable of ... experiencing or generating 'true' emotion or any semblance of higher order, forebrain mediated cognitive activity."

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/04/23/10-worst-abortion-myths-and-how-to-refute-them/

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

That is, you not only ignored all other reasons a pregnancy might need to be terminated, you denied that pregnancies have complications past viability at all!

The point, Zenzoe, is that, in late stage pregnancies, if there is an indication to do a 'therapeutic abortion', there is always the option of doing a C-section--unless the mother does not want the child. Now, in Texas, unless there is some very pressing need (and I really cannot think of one) to abort instead of doing a C-section in a late stage pregnancy (at least past 32 weeks in every case), the option will ALWAYS be a C-section if, for some reason, the pregnancy cannot go to term. It won't be up to 'whatever the mother wants'.

Now, I don't like a doctor getting murdered over doing late term abortions any more than you--but, this idea that it 'has to be done for medical reasons' is bogus (and even if it's a rape case or someone of early age that, otherwise, doesn't know what they are getting into, in Texas, they need to make that decision before 20 weeks)--and this idea (I don't care how many sources you quote) that late term pregnancies 'if it is for the life of the mother', is a scam (if there is an indication to do a late term 'therapeutic abortion', there is an indication to do a C-section) that I see is offered by those who don't appear to want to OWN UP to allowing others to 'crush the fetus's skull and suck out the brains' even if right before birth if the mother wants it FOR ANY REASON--or, more to this point of the real meaning of 'elective', when it comes to anyone else, NO REASON AT ALL--that would be, as Jefferson put it, 'between that person and God'--the 'rights of conscience' really do take the 'obligation of personal responsibility'.

Now, my point to you is that, to you, would you, as D_NATURED has put forth, allow a woman to 'crush the fetus's skull and suck out its brains' right before birth if that is what that woman wants (and have a medical person to help) to do FOR ANY REASON--or, even as far as you are concerned, NO REASON AT ALL. If so, then, you are for ELECTIVE abortions all the way to term--even the day before birth if that is, indeed, what the mother wants. In that case, as I've tried to describe from the beginning, that 'right to choose' is therefore ABSOLUTE. Do you really disagree with that point? However, if you claim there is some requirement of 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus' that others have before birth, and such a claim is to be exerted in law, then, as one who wants and allows such 'political authority', you are going to have to determine when that 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus' is to supercede the mother's 'right to choose' for any and all reasons in that pregnancy (and quit pulling this 'conditional' bogus bullshit about 'the life of the mother' when it comes to the pregnancy endangering her, it really doesn't exist as a mandate to abort--there is ALWAYS the option for a C-section if there is an option for a 'therapeutic abortion'--it's just as safe and, actually, probably faster and easier on the mother--and, after all, once again, even if the option is 'therapeutic', it's not 'elective'--ie. 'for any reason' or, as far as you are concerned, NO REASON AT ALL--do you see that point, yet?). And, just to remind you, if you are going to allow such an intervention by law into the pregnancy for the 'care and concern of the viability of the fetus', you have just removed the ABSOLUTE right of the mother to CHOOSE abortion FOR ANY (OR NO) REASON (as the term 'elective' would indicate to me).

Now, as I have asked you all along, how is such a 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus' any different from the fetus having a 'right to life' at that point? Now, if that fetus does have the 'right to life', then, it ABSOLUTELY supercedes the mother's 'right to choose' that was, before that, ABSOLUTE. And, if it doesn't have the 'right to life', why are you using your 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus' to remove the mother's ABSOLUTE right to choose, otherwise? And, when it come to late term abortions, if you are going to pull this bogus bullshit on 'the life of the mother' as a medically compelling need to abort (I can't decide whether you are 'conditioning all rights in abortion' over the 'care for the mother' or the 'care and concern for the fetus'--you seem to be 'conditioning' either 'care' all the way out of real existence--and you are claiming that there should be a 'political authority' involved in that?), then, this issue is not the fetus's 'right to life' up against the mother's 'right to choose', the issue is the fetus's 'right to life' up against the mother's 'right to life'--not 'right to choose'. And, if you are going to claim too early an age or rape or some other reason for late term abortions, why just them? What happened to this 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus' in those cases? And, why didn't someone determine this before it got to this late a stage? In the state of Texas, since the fetus does carry that 'right to life' at that point, they cannot decide at that point. The 'right to life' supercedes any and all 'rights to choose'--and should do so. If not, then it would be a case of murder in any other setting--are you opting for someone's 'right to choose' to intervene in that 'right to life' as also something you claim is a 'condition' that 'makes no right absolute'? Are you so blindly trying to make 'every right conditional' as some 'mature, sophisticated, intellectualizing' stand to take that you cannot even recognize the extent of the consequences of what you are saying (including, by the way, 'conditioning the right to abort' in cases where the mother can choose for any, or no, reason at this time? Anywhere in the nation until 12 weeks despite any and all 'community interests' that could, claiming the 'political authority' to do so, try to impose against it--THAT is what an 'unalienable right' means)--approaching this as if this were a dog's 'right to life' depending upon whether that person chose whether that dog were to be a family companion--or the next meal? Or, you have such a 'care and concern' for a late term fetus in any other uterus to prevent the mother's complete and absolute choice in every case--unless, that uterus happens to belong to a girl that was raped or too young to understand what she was getting into? Really? And, she couldn't have realized that before the pregnancy got so advanced?

You know, at some point, the 'rights of conscience' really do carry 'the obligation of personal responsibility'--and I do believe just laws (and the interpretation of laws in a just society) need to reflect that (or do you really think that a 'political authority' should get to 'pick and choose' as means to 'condition all rights'? But, if so, then, remember, that could include 'the right to choose to abort'...)--and I see as one of the main things that is ruining the very fabric of this country is people trying to 'condition' the 'rights of conscience' away from 'the obligations of personal responsibility' in our 'political authority'....and, once that 'right' is decided for one, it is decided for all and no 'political authority' should be allowed to 'condition that' (so, when you have the 'right to choose' in abortion, don't claim some 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus' unless you mean to have that for every fetus especially from a 'political authority's' viewpoint--and, therefore, if you are going to cringe, and prevent it by the so declared 'political authority', for the 'fetal skull being crushed and the brains sucked out' right before birth just because the mother wants it in any other case--why are you going to not do that and allow the 'fetal skull being crushed and the brains sucked out' right before birth of the woman too young or raped--what happened to this 'care and concern for fetal viability' then?--and why didn't someone decide this sooner?--and, if they didn't, at least in the state of Texas--and, actually, as far as partial birth abortions go now thanks to the federal law, anywhere in the nation, they aren't going to be given that option due to the fetus's 'right to life' at that point....but, what did happen to your 'care and concern for the fetal viability' in those circumstances, anyway? Do you 'condition' that away because, according to you, 'nothing is absolute in rights'?).

Is this really that hard for all you 'mature, sophisticated, intellectualizing' persons to see this point--and my problem with your 'conditions in rights'?--or is just 'being against me' in any way you can the real 'name of the game'? Because, of course, some of you don't like the term 'libertarian' under any pretense--and D_NATURED doesn't like to be called out for D_NATURED's pot smoking although D_NATURED publicly admits it on this very forum.....and D_NATURED doesn't seem to recognize that I have nothing against pot smoking in certain settings.....so, who is pretending here? Especially, claiming that 'all rights are conditional', as if you can have a 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus' only in some cases (what are you 'conditioning' this on?--the whelm of 'political authority' getting to 'pick and choose'? You know, because 'we care', we want this fetus to live against the mother's wishes--or, because 'we care', we want this fetus to die with the mother's wishes? What is it 'we' are caring about then? Who 'we' can claim is 'the bigger victim', and 'condition all rights' accordingly, despite any 'rights of conscience' carrying with it the 'obligations of personal responsibility'? As I said, I see that ruining the very fabric of our country....and I see giving political authority this ability to 'condition all rights' as doing it--especially as to who such 'political authority' can claim is 'the bigger victim' against such 'rights' to 'condition them'--'rights of conscience' really should carry 'obligations of personal responsibility'....)....and you don't seem to acknowledge how 'conditioning all rights' (especially by giving 'political authority' the ability to 'pick and choose' how 'rights' are to be held in claiming 'who is the bigger victim against such rights' as some 'community interest' intervention if it doesn't carry another 'right' with it) can also be used to restrict the 'mother's absolute right to choose to abort' in any other case by such a 'political authority' (who may now claim that 'all aborted fetuses are victims').....(or are you, in your insistence on claiming all 'rights are conditional', now saying that could even be applied to mothers wanting abortions in any stage of pregnancy as any 'political authority' could deem appropriate since 'all rights are conditional anyway'?)

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

You know, I am also really sick and tired of your reducing the argument to extremes, such as using D_NATURE'S comment about sucking out brains (which he only said to make a point about the rights of women), or whatever it was—again, creating a straw man argument.

There comes the 'straw man' claim, once again. No, Zenzoe, D_NATURED's description of 'crushing the fetus's skull and sucking out the brains' right before birth if the mother wants it was a claim on the mother's ABSOLUTE right to choose no matter what the reason--according to D_NATURED, all the way to term. THAT would be the real meaning of the term 'elective'--and the real meaning of the term 'unalienable right'. What 'straw man' argument that is really coming into this is YOUR CLAIM that 'all rights are conditional'--and, then, varying that claim over whether you are 'concerned for the mother' or 'concerned for the viability of the fetus'--and, then, while appearing to allow this 'care and concern for the fetal viability' to intervene against the mother's otherwise ABSOLUTE right to choose, not claiming that is a fetal 'right to life'--because, of course, you want to 'condition all rights'--especially, for some reason, the 'right to life' when it has been determined to exist. Of course, as you try to 'condition all rights', you imply it is all for 'the life of the mother' in 'medically emergent situations' that makes you lose that 'care and concern for the viabiliy of the fetus' that you conditioned the mother's 'right to choose' to begin with (which, if that is it, that is about the mother's 'right to life'--not the mother's 'right to choose'). Or, it's your 'care and concern over women that were raped or too young' that you allow to 'adjust' and 'condition' your otherwise 'care and concern over the viability of the fetus'--again, so you can 'condition all rights' because, what? That's what 'mature, sophisticated, intellectualizing' people do?

Well, in D_NATURED's case, when he claims it as 'absolute', he means it as absolute. Good for D_NATURED. When you claim it, you seem to want to 'condition it' against just about any 'care' you can claim for yourself--apparently in attempts to 'condition all rights' as 'no right being absolute'. You and D_NATURED aren't saying the same thing. Don't claim that my 'straw man argument' is doing that--it's your attempt to 'condition all rights' and 'make no rights absolute' that is doing that....as I've said, I don't want any political authority to be able to 'pick and choose' in that manner--it gets rid of 'rights' in any context I would understand it--and it gets rid of the 'rights of conscience' carrying with it the 'obligations of personal responsibility'--including, by the way, a girl too young or raped (and I can't believe a raped woman would carry a pregnancy that long--unless she wanted the child) deciding what to do with that pregnancy before the fetus gained 'the right to life'....or, is that 'right to life' going to be 'conditional' even at birth if the woman is too young to know?

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

You write mostly from your sense of the ideal, and much of my position includes both the ideal and the real, i.e., what ought to be —my ideal preferences— and the law we're constrained and protected by. The SCROTUM (Supreme Court Ramrod of the United Madness) has provided a framework, but, ultimately, the decision to have an abortion, as you say, should be left to the woman, ideally; however, the law, in deference to a community's interest in protecting "life," insists that the woman consult with her doctor and that the doctor determine the urgency of the woman's predicament, that is, after viability. Obviously, the woman has the last word—she can decide to carry a dangerous pregnancy to term, if she wants to take the risk. I realize you don't like the law, which puts restrictions on abortion after "viability," but there it is. I don't see it as particularly tyrannical, given that most women who simply wish not to be pregnant, for whatever reason, can have an abortion within the first 20 weeks; and most do. The notion that women seek abortions after viability on a whim, or out of boredom, or a sudden change of heart flies in the face of the truth. That is to say, it's a lie.

Yes, they can within the first 20 weeks but I won't tell them that their rights end there (and I know you wouldn't either). Arguments about viability, to me, are a distraction from the real issue, of which I believe you understand my opinion. If we don't make fully grown human beings a priority over an being growing off of or within them, we have an ass-backwards system of justice.

As for "harsh language," believe me, I myself might shy away from some politically incorrect language, but, as a fan of George Carlin, there's nothing I love more than telling it like it is, or telling how you feel about a thing in the strongest possible, insulting and "offensive" language. So you can feel free to let it fly, D_NATURED, as far as I'm concerned.

Thank you. I'll try to keep it "R" rated. I think, though, that when I use words like "parasite" and "larval human", it helps people-who can get over the emotional shock-to understand that there is a difference between a human fetus and a human BEING. Such as, a human being is a being. That word "being" is important because the fetus does not, yet, "be". When it makes that last, hazardous journey into the light of human existence, it too can be called a being. Until then, it does not deserve the inalienable rights of personhood.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote Ulysses:
Doctors are not perfect. In fact, as my old man used to say, some of them graduate at the bottom of the class (Kerry). They, despite their advanced education, can still fall prey to the same prejudices and religious biases that others have. We always talk about abortion being between a woman and her doctor, but the truth is, the doctor is there as an adviser, not a decider. The body is hers, the womb is hers and the tad pole is hers to dispose of or nurture as she sees fit. Anything less than that is tyranny.

Happy to see somebody concurs with me that he's living proof of the maxim that half of all doctors graduate in the bottom 50% of their classes -- but I'm still not convinced he is one. Not only can doctors fall prey to the prejudices you mention, they often do, and always have. I've noticed that like specialists in other occupations, they often get one-dimensional. I think some feel inadequate socially and culturally. I think that's why there is, in fact, disproportionately high representation of doctors in the avocations of antiques, art collecting, and general collectables. Anybody who wants to can look up ample documentation of that. Some doctors, even though they're upper middle class but far from wealthy, have better art collections than many of the filty rich.

You know, I've never thought of that. That is, why so many doctors seem so socially inept. I always thought it was, perhaps, something about medical school that changes them. Maybe, because they focus so much on knowledge of the physical, they lose the ability to apreciate personality in themselves and others.

While I agree with you and Zenzoe, I have to point out that you have stated one inaccuracy. You're right, of course, that in this context, no doctor is a decider. But don't you forget who is! BUSH is "The Decider!" (I mean, he said so, didn't he?...)

Bush was one of those guys who imagined himself to be much smarter than he really was. You could tell by the smug look he'd get on his face when he would attempt to "educate" people. If he was relaying some piece of data-true or fabricated-he would sort of assume a very self-satisfied posture. It's the same sort of thing my uncle would do when he attempted to educate me about the "obvious" connection between the Jews and Satan.

Dumb people don't like being dumb any more than ugly people like being ugly. They know they're dumb-because the conversation of the educated make no sense to them- and want desperately not to be. Bush was the "decider" because he wasn't a very good thinker. Deciding is something any moron can do.

With regard to women, though, their decider-ism, with regard to abortion, is the same as when they decide to eat a Twinkie instead of a head of brocoli. They can decide what happens to their own bodies and nobody should say shit about it. Why? Because I want to be my own decider too.

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

I think the point that's being missed here is that abortion takes away a person's possibility of life. And that is just as bad as taking away life already born. A baby is most certainly going to come from that zygote. So when you have an abortion then, you are most certainly killing a baby. And to comment on the "Women as slaves to zygotes" comment-- How on earth are you a slave to a zygote? It was YOUR DECISION to create the offensive zygote! (In the vast majority of cases, abortion exterminates unwanted babies/zygotes created from consensual sex). So, the truth would be, that you are a slave to your sex drive. And even if the horrific event of rape would occur, as unjust and painful as that would be, abortion would still not be an ethical solution.

ebee12058's picture
ebee12058
Joined:
Dec. 16, 2011 12:43 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

[quote]While I agree with you and Zenzoe, I have to point out that you have stated one inaccuracy. You're right, of course, that in this context, no doctor is a decider. But don't you forget who is! BUSH is "The Decider!" (I mean, he said so, didn't he?...)

Bush was one of those guys who imagined himself to be much smarter than he really was. You could tell by the smug look he'd get on his face when he would attempt to "educate" people. If he was relaying some piece of data-true or fabricated-he would sort of assume a very self-satisfied posture. It's the same sort of thing my uncle would do when he attempted to educate me about the "obvious" connection between the Jews and Satan.

Dumb people don't like being dumb any more than ugly people like being ugly. They know they're dumb-because the conversation of the educated make no sense to them- and want desperately not to be. Bush was the "decider" because he wasn't a very good thinker. Deciding is something any moron can do.

Hilarious, because it's all so true! ROFLMAO!

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

You know, I am also really sick and tired of your reducing the argument to extremes, such as using D_NATURE'S comment about sucking out brains (which he only said to make a point about the rights of women), or whatever it was—again, creating a straw man argument.

There comes the 'straw man' claim, once again. No, Zenzoe, D_NATURED's description of 'crushing the fetus's skull and sucking out the brains' right before birth if the mother wants it was a claim on the mother's ABSOLUTE right to choose no matter what the reason--according to D_NATURED, all the way to term. THAT would be the real meaning of the term 'elective'--and the real meaning of the term 'unalienable right'. What 'straw man' argument that is really coming into this is YOUR CLAIM that 'all rights are conditional'--and, then, varying that claim over whether you are 'concerned for the mother' or 'concerned for the viability of the fetus'--and, then, while appearing to allow this 'care and concern for the fetal viability' to intervene against the mother's otherwise ABSOLUTE right to choose, not claiming that is a fetal 'right to life'--because, of course, you want to 'condition all rights'--especially, for some reason, the 'right to life' when it has been determined to exist. Of course, as you try to 'condition all rights', you imply it is all for 'the life of the mother' in 'medically emergent situations' that makes you lose that 'care and concern for the viabiliy of the fetus' that you conditioned the mother's 'right to choose' to begin with (which, if that is it, that is about the mother's 'right to life'--not the mother's 'right to choose'). Or, it's your 'care and concern over women that were raped or too young' that you allow to 'adjust' and 'condition' your otherwise 'care and concern over the viability of the fetus'--again, so you can 'condition all rights' because, what? That's what 'mature, sophisticated, intellectualizing' people do?

Well, in D_NATURED's case, when he claims it as 'absolute', he means it as absolute. Good for D_NATURED. When you claim it, you seem to want to 'condition it' against just about any 'care' you can claim for yourself--apparently in attempts to 'condition all rights' as 'no right being absolute'. You and D_NATURED aren't saying the same thing. Don't claim that my 'straw man argument' is doing that--it's your attempt to 'condition all rights' and 'make no rights absolute' that is doing that....as I've said, I don't want any political authority to be able to 'pick and choose' in that manner--it gets rid of 'rights' in any context I would understand it--and it gets rid of the 'rights of conscience' carrying with it the 'obligations of personal responsibility'--including, by the way, a girl too young or raped (and I can't believe a raped woman would carry a pregnancy that long--unless she wanted the child) deciding what to do with that pregnancy before the fetus gained 'the right to life'....or, is that 'right to life' going to be 'conditional' even at birth if the woman is too young to know?

Well, Zenzoe, it's up to you, of course, but I think it's a safe surmise that he won't go away unless you stop feeding him...

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ebee12058:

I think the point that's being missed here is that abortion takes away a person's possibility of life. And that is just as bad as taking away life already born. A baby is most certainly going to come from that zygote. So when you have an abortion then, you are most certainly killing a baby. And to comment on the "Women as slaves to zygotes" comment-- How on earth are you a slave to a zygote? It was YOUR DECISION to create the offensive zygote! (In the vast majority of cases, abortion exterminates unwanted babies/zygotes created from consensual sex). So, the truth would be, that you are a slave to your sex drive. And even if the horrific event of rape would occur, as unjust and painful as that would be, abortion would still not be an ethical solution.

Gawd, another one! They're like the Hydra of classical mythology. Cut off one snakehead and multiple new ones arise, through immaculate conception, to take its place. It'll never stop, and, regrettably, they can vote and procreate and indoctrinate their progeny, thus exponentially expanding, so the only solution is to politically neuter them, through any and all means available.

As I've said before, it should be legally mandated that all adults have to go on public record as to whether they're pro-choice or not. If they're not pro-choice, their names should be put into a pool. Then, when unwanted preganancies are carried to term, every one of them should be linked to a name drawn at random from the anti-choice pool. The person drawn should be required, by law, to pay ALL costs of raising that child to adulthood, at a middle class standard of living, just like parents who wanted a child would do. Failure to do so would incur legal sanctions.

That'd thin 'em out -- real fast!

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

You people are too funny (#'s 330, 331, 334, 335). And, yes, this morning, upon scanning the most recent offerings of our relentless sparring partner, I said to myself, "I must be insane, coming back over and over, hoping against hope for a different outcome, hoping he'll take a different tack, maybe write a concise paragraph for once, one that doesn't make my eye balls ache." It was then I realized he won't stop until I do. Like Ulysses says, I have to stop feeding it.

But, truth be known, Kerry, I would agree with you, if I knew what I was agreeing with, and if you were right. I don't really mind being shown the errors of my thinking, if they're really errors. I ain't perfect either.

Eebee, you give me the heebie jeebies (Limerick anyone?). Note: Eebee says, "So, the truth would be, that you are a slave to your sex drive." O dem wabbity wabbits, dem pwomiscwuious twamps an' pwostitutes! How dawe dey pawtake of such diwty, nasty things, as if dey wewe equal human beings?! Dey desewve a dwubbing, fow suwe.

This discussion hasn't touched much upon this aspect, that is, conservative discomfort with the notion that women should have the same freedom to enjoy their sexuality as men; but more, that with birth control and abortion, women liberate themselves from the bonds of traditional gender roles, and thereby, from the control of their lives by men. It must be quite threatening to conservatives, to their entire world view, which loves hierarchy so much.

And I love Ulysses idea about the anti-choice crowd having to pay child support. That definitely would thin them out. Somebody should start a website, where anti-choice advocates can sign up to volunteer their time and money to needy mothers and children who agree to take their pregnancies to term, rather than have an abortion. I can see the ad now: "Pregnant? Poor? Unable to support a child? Don't abort, come to us! We'll pay all costs and obligations through college...Put your trust in Private Hands..." Or something like that. Good luck.

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

But, truth be known, Kerry, I would agree with you, if I knew what I was agreeing with, and if you were right. I don't really mind being shown the errors of my thinking, if they're really errors. I ain't perfect either.

Oh, does that mean that you graduated at the bottom of your class?....8^)....Because, of course, according to the haughty condescensions of Ulysses, those that graduate at the top of their class are 'perfect'.

It sort of reminds me of this issue of people showing up in our (rural) ER--and, then, if something is present that may require hospitalization, they demand to be sent to 'the big city'. (Actually, now that I think of it, since I am on the Texas-Mexican border, many of those that show up in our 'rural' ER had first gone to Mexico to get treated and, then, when told it was something that may need hospitalization, they come to us--and some do have to be sent to 'the big city'--but, that is because 'the big city' may have technology that 'rural hospitals' don't have). Many who make the demands of going to 'the big city' but don't have a situation where that requires what 'the big city' offers are doing that usually because of the old adage that 'familiarity breeds contempt' (along the same lines that the New Testament points out where Jesus, supposedly 'the personification of God', couldn't perform miracles in his hometown--this son of Mary's claims to do such? In medicine, 'faith' and 'fact' oftentimes gets confused)--rural practices are more likely to contain such 'familiarity breeds contempt' aspects as you all are consenting in, once again, 'judging me' based on your own 'familiarity' to who I am--sort of like a band of dogs grouping up on one stray, isn't it? (and none of you, at any point in your condescending remarks about me and my ability as a physician having no basis in fact from what you really know about me as a physician, are realizing that--at least and not acknowledging it to me....)--and, as far as those who demanded to go to the 'big city' from the 'rural ER' (even if they had started 'their treatment' in Mexico--by the way, in Mexico, they demand money up front before they put you in the hospital), they don't appear to realize that they don't know the physicians that they are demanding to be sent to at that point (in other words, they have no basis to judge). And, as I've been known to say in such settings, they don't want to stay here with us heathens--they won't to be sent 'to the Mecca'--to be closer to God.....and, people like you and Ulysses (who claims 'statistical trends'--done by some institution somewhere--as 'official facts') may fall right in line with that form of posturing.....with D_NATURED, the only one who is actually describing and claiming something 'absolute' against the rest of you who want to claim 'contextual ethics', tagging along as if you are in agreement with his 'absoluteness' as you condescend mine....

Quote Zenzoe:

This discussion hasn't touched much upon this aspect, that is, conservative discomfort with the notion that women should have the same freedom to enjoy their sexuality as men...

Wow, it's really something how you all get to judge me and my capacity as a physician specifically without one iota of evidence on your part--and, then, get to clump me into just about any generalization you want to condemn 'for good measure'. You know, how none of you will comment upon what I think are real issues in this discussion concerning 'rights' and 'abortions'--but, you do like to lump it into your own preconceptions of the term 'libertarian' and 'conservative'--even as I have, in the context of the issues that I think we are talking about (apart your condescensions on me personally and professionally), define myself as one intent on 'individual rights' being the closest thing to a 'political fact'--to be rationally used in determining 'political authority'....

Have I at any point in this conversation made any statement that even relates to 'men getting to enjoy sex (as, indeed, completely separate from its childbearing capacity) than women'?

Quote Zenzoe:

And I love Ulysses idea about the anti-choice crowd having to pay child support.

'Anti-choice'? Is that with--or without--your 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus'? Come on, Zenzoe, quit trying to have it both ways--and, along with your other fellow condescenders, claiming some, what, 'mature, sophiticated, intellectualizing' posturing for yourself in doing so?

Quote D_NATURED:

Yes, they can within the first 20 weeks but I won't tell them that their rights end there (and I know you--speaking to Zenzoe--wouldn't either).

Yeah, you used the description of 'crushing the fetal skull in and sucking out its brains right before birth if that is what the mother wants'. Zenzoe, on the other hand, has postured on something to do with 'the care and concern over the fetal viability' (you claimed 'Zenzoe can do whatever Zenzoe wants in her own pregnancy'--but, is that really what Zenzoe is talking about here?)--but, in that posturing over such a 'care and concern over the fetal viability', Zenzoe hasn't actually described what that is to mean if a mother opts to 'crush the fetal skull in and suck out its brains' right before birth if she wants to for any reason. And neither you nor Zenzoe are owning up to that point. But, according to you, 'you agree' on this.

Do you? Why isn't Zenzoe saying that Zenzoe has no problem with the mother opting for 'crushing the fetal skull in and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants to' for any reason--or, to the point of what I see as the meaning of 'elective' in the issue of 'unalienable rights'--as far as any one else is concerned, no reason at all. That, as Jefferson put it, would be 'between you and God'--and 'society', nor anyone claiming a 'community interest' applied with any such 'political authority', should have anything to do with it (just in line with such Supreme Court judgments like Loving vs. Virginia, Griswald vs. Connecticut, Roe vs. Wade, and Lawrence vs. Texas). And, while you each grant yourself the capacity to judge my ability to reason, you don't seem to obligate yourself to any such standard, do you?--that was my point bringing up your pot-smoking as, perhaps, one reason why you don't see that Zenzoe is allowing you to claim that, in, as your description points out, the 'absolute sense' of having the mother be able to have the 'fetal skull crushed and its brains sucked out right before birth if that's what she wants' be your position--but, in Zenzoe's interest of claiming that 'all rights are conditional' (and NONE are absolute), Zenzoe can still claim 'conditioning that' against 'the care and concern for the viability of the fetus'.

You say that Zenzoe 'understands your position'--but, D_NATURED, do you really 'understand Zenzoe's'? Are you going to gloss over Zenzoe's point in 'the care and concern for the viability of the fetus' up against your 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it' as being two points that are NOT rationally coherent (or, again, are we really 'beyond rationality' in such judgments?) in some claim that you both 'agree'? You see why I made the claim that 'something' must be 'clouding your mind' on this? Or, is that you have to be with Ulysses and Zenzoe on this because, of course, 'I' am the outsider--and that doesn't have exactly the same components in it that any prejudicial affront has? Be 'against the person' (as a 'unified group') when you can't 'argue the premise'...prejudicially against the messenger as you ignore addressing the message....and, of course, since you have cohorts that appear to appease your judgment, claim that 'you are right' in doing it.....exactly like any prejudicial set-up in any 'group'--ignoring the plancks in your own eye as you rail against another one's speck in theirs....

Let's break it down a little to see if you can see this--or not, as the case maybe. I've said it before, but, like many statements that I have made on, and about, this issue, much of it went ignored. You, D_NATURED, claim a position that the mother is to have the unalienable right to 'crush the fetal skull in and suck out its brains right before birth if she wants'. Zenzoe, in 'conditioning all rights', claims something that has to do with 'the care and concern over the viabiliy of the fetus'. In the interest of qualifying that description up against everyone's position here, if there is to be a political authority to act in the interest of the 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus' even against the choice of the mother wanting to abort it at that time, how is Zenzoe's 'care and concern for the fetal viability' that, in that case, will restrict the mother's choice before birth any different than my position, D_NATURED?

With respect to Zenzoe's claim on 'the care and concern of the viability of the fetus', the only difference that I offer in the interest of making some of this as absolute, 'unalienable rights' (you know, that priority is how I claim to be 'libertarian'), is defining the line between when a mother can choose to terminate the pregnancy for whatever cause (or, in the case of it really being an 'elective' abortion, with respect to anyone else in 'the community', no reason)--and when it can be determined that there is a 'community interest' to intervene on the fetus's behalf--in that case, I believe the most justifiable intervention against a previously noted 'unalienable right' is that it now can be determined that this 'community interest' is acting on what is now to be determined, and defined, as a 'right to life' of the fetus.

At any rate, if such a restriction is to be done by a 'political authority' against the mother's choice, otherwise, how is any explanation of 'the care and concern of the fetal viability' going to make any difference to that mother wanting to abort--she is still to be restricted by it. I see it as making no difference to that mother--however, from the viewpoint of any justification to act out with 'political authority', I think it makes a whole lot of difference on whether that was just the claim of the 'political authority' to 'care for the fetus'--or the claim that the fetus, like anyone with personhood, has the 'right to life' at that point (with the 'right to life', once determined, having priority over the 'right to choose'--but, again, note this from Zenzoe's position, if it is any other reason for 'political authority' to act against the wishes of that pregnant mother, it is still restricting that mother's 'right to choose'). In fact, if that fetus doesn't have the 'right to life' as the claim to intervene against the mother's choices, I see no intervention justifiable on the behalf of the 'political authority'--unless, you, D_NATURED, are in agreement with Zenzoe that 'rights are to be conditioned'--which, if that is a 'reasonable statement' for you to allow 'political authority' to have against any 'right', then, you are in 'the right group'--but, then, why claim that you are for any absolute right in 'crushing to fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants that' when another claims to 'condition' that 'for the care and concern of the fetus' (and, as you allow the mother that absolute right before, birth, would you allow that mother an absolute right after birth--and, if not, why not?) Allowing political impositions more as a 'care and concern' issue and, especially in abortion's case, not identify it as an issue of 'right to choose' up against 'right to life' just doesn't appear rational to me--and I still believe political impositions (especially against the will of another) should be rational--rationalized primarily against the 'fact' of 'individual, unalienable, rights'.....that is, to me, what makes me 'libertarian'....

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

But, truth be known, Kerry, I would agree with you, if I knew what I was agreeing with, and if you were right. I don't really mind being shown the errors of my thinking, if they're really errors. I ain't perfect either.

Oh, does that mean that you graduated at the bottom of your class?....8^)....Because, of course, according to the haughty condescensions of Ulysses, those that graduate at the top of their class are 'perfect'.

It sort of reminds me of this issue of people showing up in our (rural) ER--and, then, if something is present that may require hospitalization, they demand to be sent to 'the big city'. (Actually, now that I think of it, since I am on the Texas-Mexican border, many of those that show up in our 'rural' ER had first gone to Mexico to get treated and, then, when told it was something that may need hospitalization, they come to us--and some do have to be sent to 'the big city'--but, that is because 'the big city' may have technology that 'rural hospitals' don't have). Many who make the demands of going to 'the big city' but don't have a situation where that requires what 'the big city' offers are doing that usually because of the old adage that 'familiarity breeds contempt' (along the same lines that the New Testament points out where Jesus, supposedly 'the personification of God', couldn't perform miracles in his hometown--this son of Mary's claims to do such? In medicine, 'faith' and 'fact' oftentimes gets confused)--rural practices are more likely to contain such 'familiarity breeds contempt' aspects as you all are consenting in, once again, 'judging me' based on your own 'familiarity' to who I am--sort of like a band of dogs grouping up on one stray, isn't it? (and none of you, at any point in your condescending remarks about me and my ability as a physician having no basis in fact from what you really know about me as a physician, are realizing that--at least and not acknowledging it to me....)--and, as far as those who demanded to go to the 'big city' from the 'rural ER' (even if they had started 'their treatment' in Mexico--by the way, in Mexico, they demand money up front before they put you in the hospital), they don't appear to realize that they don't know the physicians that they are demanding to be sent to at that point (in other words, they have no basis to judge). And, as I've been known to say in such settings, they don't want to stay here with us heathens--they won't to be sent 'to the Mecca'--to be closer to God.....and, people like you and Ulysses (who claims 'statistical trends'--done by some institution somewhere--as 'official facts') may fall right in line with that form of posturing.....with D_NATURED, the only one who is actually describing and claiming something 'absolute' against the rest of you who want to claim 'contextual ethics', tagging along as if you are in agreement with his 'absoluteness' as you condescend mine....

Quote Zenzoe:

This discussion hasn't touched much upon this aspect, that is, conservative discomfort with the notion that women should have the same freedom to enjoy their sexuality as men...

Wow, it's really something how you all get to judge me and my capacity as a physician specifically without one iota of evidence on your part--and, then, get to clump me into just about any generalization you want to condemn 'for good measure'. You know, how none of you will comment upon what I think are real issues in this discussion concerning 'rights' and 'abortions'--but, you do like to lump it into your own preconceptions of the term 'libertarian' and 'conservative'--even as I have, in the context of the issues that I think we are talking about (apart your condescensions on me personally and professionally), define myself as one intent on 'individual rights' being the closest thing to a 'political fact'--to be rationally used in determining 'political authority'....

Have I at any point in this conversation made any statement that even relates to 'men getting to enjoy sex (as, indeed, completely separate from its childbearing capacity) than women'?

Quote Zenzoe:

And I love Ulysses idea about the anti-choice crowd having to pay child support.

'Anti-choice'? Is that with--or without--your 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus'? Come on, Zenzoe, quit trying to have it both ways--and, along with your other fellow condescenders, claiming some, what, 'mature, sophiticated, intellectualizing' posturing for yourself in doing so?

Quote D_NATURED:

Yes, they can within the first 20 weeks but I won't tell them that their rights end there (and I know you--speaking to Zenzoe--wouldn't either).

Yeah, you used the description of 'crushing the fetal skull in and sucking out its brains right before birth if that is what the mother wants'. Zenzoe, on the other hand, has postured on something to do with 'the care and concern over the fetal viability' (you claimed 'Zenzoe can do whatever Zenzoe wants in her own pregnancy'--but, is that really what Zenzoe is talking about here?)--but, in that posturing over such a 'care and concern over the fetal viability', Zenzoe hasn't actually described what that is to mean if a mother opts to 'crush the fetal skull in and suck out its brains' right before birth if she wants to for any reason. And neither you nor Zenzoe are owning up to that point. But, according to you, 'you agree' on this.

Do you? Why isn't Zenzoe saying that Zenzoe has no problem with the mother opting for 'crushing the fetal skull in and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants to' for any reason--or, to the point of what I see as the meaning of 'elective' in the issue of 'unalienable rights'--as far as any one else is concerned, no reason at all. That, as Jefferson put it, would be 'between you and God'--and 'society', nor anyone claiming a 'community interest' applied with any such 'political authority', should have anything to do with it (just in line with such Supreme Court judgments like Loving vs. Virginia, Griswald vs. Connecticut, Roe vs. Wade, and Lawrence vs. Texas). And, while you each grant yourself the capacity to judge my ability to reason, you don't seem to obligate yourself to any such standard, do you?--that was my point bringing up your pot-smoking as, perhaps, one reason why you don't see that Zenzoe is allowing you to claim that, in, as your description points out, the 'absolute sense' of having the mother be able to have the 'fetal skull crushed and its brains sucked out right before birth if that's what she wants' be your position--but, in Zenzoe's interest of claiming that 'all rights are conditional' (and NONE are absolute), Zenzoe can still claim 'conditioning that' against 'the care and concern for the viability of the fetus'.

You say that Zenzoe 'understands your position'--but, D_NATURED, do you really 'understand Zenzoe's'? Are you going to gloss over Zenzoe's point in 'the care and concern for the viability of the fetus' up against your 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it' as being two points that are NOT rationally coherent (or, again, are we really 'beyond rationality' in such judgments?) in some claim that you both 'agree'? You see why I made the claim that 'something' must be 'clouding your mind' on this? Or, is that you have to be with Ulysses and Zenzoe on this because, of course, 'I' am the outsider--and that doesn't have exactly the same components in it that any prejudicial affront has? Be 'against the person' (as a 'unified group') when you can't 'argue the premise'...prejudicially against the messenger as you ignore addressing the message....and, of course, since you have cohorts that appear to appease your judgment, claim that 'you are right' in doing it.....exactly like any prejudicial set-up in any 'group'--ignoring the plancks in your own eye as you rail against another one's speck in theirs....

Let's break it down a little to see if you can see this--or not, as the case maybe. I've said it before, but, like many statements that I have made on, and about, this issue, much of it went ignored. You, D_NATURED, claim a position that the mother is to have the unalienable right to 'crush the fetal skull in and suck out its brains right before birth if she wants'. Zenzoe, in 'conditioning all rights', claims something that has to do with 'the care and concern over the viabiliy of the fetus'. In the interest of qualifying that description up against everyone's position here, if there is to be a political authority to act in the interest of the 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus' even against the choice of the mother wanting to abort it at that time, how is Zenzoe's 'care and concern for the fetal viability' that, in that case, will restrict the mother's choice before birth any different than my position, D_NATURED?

With respect to Zenzoe's claim on 'the care and concern of the viability of the fetus', the only difference that I offer in the interest of making some of this as absolute, 'unalienable rights' (you know, that priority is how I claim to be 'libertarian'), is defining the line between when a mother can choose to terminate the pregnancy for whatever cause (or, in the case of it really being an 'elective' abortion, with respect to anyone else in 'the community', no reason)--and when it can be determined that there is a 'community interest' to intervene on the fetus's behalf--in that case, I believe the most justifiable intervention against a previously noted 'unalienable right' is that it now can be determined that this 'community interest' is acting on what is now to be determined, and defined, as a 'right to life' of the fetus.

At any rate, if such a restriction is to be done by a 'political authority' against the mother's choice, otherwise, how is any explanation of 'the care and concern of the fetal viability' going to make any difference to that mother wanting to abort--she is still to be restricted by it. I see it as making no difference to that mother--however, from the viewpoint of any justification to act out with 'political authority', I think it makes a whole lot of difference on whether that was just the claim of the 'political authority' to 'care for the fetus'--or the claim that the fetus, like anyone with personhood, has the 'right to life' at that point (with the 'right to life', once determined, having priority over the 'right to choose'--but, again, note this from Zenzoe's position, if it is any other reason for 'political authority' to act against the wishes of that pregnant mother, it is still restricting that mother's 'right to choose'). In fact, if that fetus doesn't have the 'right to life' as the claim to intervene against the mother's choices, I see no intervention justifiable on the behalf of the 'political authority'--unless, you, D_NATURED, are in agreement with Zenzoe that 'rights are to be conditioned'--which, if that is a 'reasonable statement' for you to allow 'political authority' to have against any 'right', then, you are in 'the right group'--but, then, why claim that you are for any absolute right in 'crushing to fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants that' when another claims to 'condition' that 'for the care and concern of the fetus' (and, as you allow the mother that absolute right before, birth, would you allow that mother an absolute right after birth--and, if not, why not?) Allowing political impositions more as a 'care and concern' issue and, especially in abortion's case, not identify it as an issue of 'right to choose' up against 'right to life' just doesn't appear rational to me--and I still believe political impositions (especially against the will of another) should be rational--rationalized primarily against the 'fact' of 'individual, unalienable, rights'.....that is, to me, what makes me 'libertarian'....

Yeah. Another encyclical from the tea party of the Mad Hatter. Uh huh. Well, all rightie, then! And innyboddy readin' all the abuv jist better reemember it! Ya got that?!

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

You know the points, Ulysses. Why don't you address them? Are you for rights being absolute--or conditional? And, please, explain yourself in the context of what has already been said. Otherwise, as D_NATURED glosses over this discrepancy, you can do nothing but be a pompous ass that thinks that 'statistical trends' can represent 'official facts' in law and science without recognizing that rather conceited and useless posturing (you know, 'mature, sophiticated, intellectualizing' conceit and posturing) when it comes to what is really an analytical thought (in both science and law).....including this issue of abortion and what 'absolute rights' vs. 'conditioning all rights' means in the rational context of political authority and its justifications to impose.....Any real comments on that issue at hand, Ulysses?

I mean, it's OK to repost my entire post (I'm glad it impressed you that much) but, really, all the comment you can make is just in confirming what a condescending and pompous ass you really are? After all, claims against me is not the same thing as pointing out the discrepancies in the message I am stating.....but, you can get D_NATURED to tag along as having an ABSOLUTE position on this as you and Zenzoe (and DRC) claim that 'nothing is absolute in rights'--not even from a political perspective (all under this guise of 'contextual ethics'). And, maybe you and Zenzoe can fool D_NATURED by you and Zenzoe (and DRC) saying that 'all rights are conditional' (and Zenzoe can have a 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus' in this) as D_NATURED vividly describes the choice of the mother at any stage in her pregnancy as 'absolute' ('crushing the fetal skull in and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it')--but, you haven't fooled me....In my assessment on justifying actions in politics, I'm not giving the political authority any ability to condition an ABSOLUTE right--unless it's over another ABSOLUTE RIGHT--and nothing proves this distinction any better than this issue of abortion and its involved rights. It is one of those situations that does 'separate the wheat from the chaff'....on either side of this issue of 'abortion and its rights', by the way.....

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

Oh for crap sake, Kerry. Cut it out.

Calperson posted an article by Christopher Hitchens in Vanity Fair on the subject of abortion, falsely claiming Hitchens to be against abortion. The trouble is, he failed to read the entire article, apparently, nor did he comprehend what Hitchens wrote. I loved Hitchens, and will miss him, even though I didn't always agree with him. And in this article, he is his usual thoughtful, articulate self, considering many aspects of the subject.

Quote Christopher Hitchens:

Having for so long been the territory of this draining and exhausting argument, America may well be the place of its resolution. The quest to enlarge the span and quality of life is itself a struggle for mastery over nature, which left to itself would have us dying toothless and smelly and malnourished after about three decades. And the impulse to have a say in how many children we have, and how, is an indissoluble part of that ambition. In consequence, we have to shoulder decisions that would once have been made by fate. (Shall the terminally ill be taken off the drip-feed? Shall we resuscitate the comatose? Shall we bring the hopeless fetus to full term? Shall we, or can we, push back abortion techniques so that they pre-empt any definition of viability?) It doesn’t seem to me that we have become any less human by confronting these decisions and finally accepting our responsibility for them. In the same way, I might have been better off as a younger brother than an older one, and I always did wish for a big sister, as opposed to the baby brother I did get, but if my mother had the heart and soul of a double-murderess, you couldn’t prove it by me. [his mother had admitted to having had abortions. Zenzoe note and bolds.]

By rightly expanding our definition of what is alive and what is human, we have also accepted that there may be a conflict of rights between a potential human and an actual one. The only moral losers in this argument are those who say that there is no conflict, and nothing to argue about. The irresoluble conflict of right with right was Hegel’s definition of tragedy, and tragedy is inseparable from human life, and no advance in science or medicine is ever going to enable us to evade that.

Top of the class, no doubt.

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

This discussion hasn't touched much upon this aspect, that is, conservative discomfort with the notion that women should have the same freedom to enjoy their sexuality as men...

Wow, it's really something how you all get to judge me and my capacity as a physician specifically without one iota of evidence on your part--and, then, get to clump me into just about any generalization you want to condemn 'for good measure'. .....

Have I at any point in this conversation made any statement that even relates to 'men getting to enjoy sex (as, indeed, completely separate from its childbearing capacity) than women'?

I wasn't referring to you, necessarily, Kerry. My comment was a response to what Ebee had said; though his/her disdain for female sexuality doesn't apply to all conservatives, it applies to many, especially those on the religious right. Did I mention your name? No. I never had you in mind. I mean, if you're truly a libertarian, then you're big on sex for everybody, right?

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

You know the points, Ulysses. Why don't you address them? Are you for rights being absolute--or conditional? And, please, explain yourself in the context of what has already been said. Otherwise, as D_NATURED glosses over this discrepancy, you can do nothing but be a pompous ass that thinks that 'statistical trends' can represent 'official facts' in law and science without recognizing that rather conceited and useless posturing (you know, 'mature, sophiticated, intellectualizing' conceit and posturing) when it comes to what is really an analytical thought (in both science and law).....including this issue of abortion and what 'absolute rights' vs. 'conditioning all rights' means in the rational context of political authority and its justifications to impose.....Any real comments on that issue at hand, Ulysses?

I mean, it's OK to repost my entire post (I'm glad it impressed you that much) but, really, all the comment you can make is just in confirming what a condescending and pompous ass you really are? After all, claims against me is not the same thing as pointing out the discrepancies in the message I am stating.....but, you can get D_NATURED to tag along as having an ABSOLUTE position on this as you and Zenzoe (and DRC) claim that 'nothing is absolute in rights'--not even from a political perspective (all under this guise of 'contextual ethics'). And, maybe you and Zenzoe can fool D_NATURED by you and Zenzoe (and DRC) saying that 'all rights are conditional' (and Zenzoe can have a 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus' in this) as D_NATURED vividly describes the choice of the mother at any stage in her pregnancy as 'absolute' ('crushing the fetal skull in and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it')--but, you haven't fooled me....In my assessment on justifying actions in politics, I'm not giving the political authority any ability to condition an ABSOLUTE right--unless it's over another ABSOLUTE RIGHT--and nothing proves this distinction any better than this issue of abortion and its involved rights. It is one of those situations that does 'separate the wheat from the chaff'....on either side of this issue of 'abortion and its rights', by the way.....

Thus Kerry did captiously cavil;

His words were as numerous as gravel.

Horizons quite narrow,

Words by the wheelbarrow,

Make the learned away from him travel.

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

This discussion hasn't touched much upon this aspect, that is, conservative discomfort with the notion that women should have the same freedom to enjoy their sexuality as men...

Wow, it's really something how you all get to judge me and my capacity as a physician specifically without one iota of evidence on your part--and, then, get to clump me into just about any generalization you want to condemn 'for good measure'. .....

Have I at any point in this conversation made any statement that even relates to 'men getting to enjoy sex (as, indeed, completely separate from its childbearing capacity) than women'?

I wasn't referring to you, necessarily, Kerry. My comment was a response to what Ebee had said; though his/her disdain for female sexuality doesn't apply to all conservatives, it applies to many, especially those on the religious right. Did I mention your name? No. I never had you in mind. I mean, if you're truly a libertarian, then you're big on sex for everybody, right?

He needs to learn and master that ancient and oft-quoted saw of the erstwhile Woodstock Nation which gave us great comfort in the 60s: "If ya get paranoia, don't let it destroy ya!"

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

Oh for crap sake, Kerry. Cut it out.

Cut what out, Zenzoe? You, Ulysses, and DRC, (under the pretense of something that DRC calls 'contextual ethics') is claiming that 'rights' are 'conditional' (you even want the 'right to life' to be 'conditional'). Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you have used the historical excuse that such 'rights' have changed throughout history--starting only with a band of 'propertied white men'. But, what I don't see you acknowledging in that is the point that I made--up until recent times, the issue of 'unalienable rights' has been expanded by the legislative and judicial process to include both sexes and all races--and, more recently in Supreme Court judgments (Loving vs. Virginia, Griswald vs. Connecticut, Roe vs. Wade, and Lawrence vs. Texas) to include other conditions of human conduct (who to marry, when to use birth control, when to have a pregnancy go all the way to term, and who to have sexual relations between consenting adults, respectively) that are beyond the reach of 'community interest' impositions by law as 'unalienable rights'.

Now, here comes you, Ulysses, and DRC, to claim that 'we' are in a 'new paradigm' in thought (or, maybe more to the condescending posturing of Ulysses, and by implicit agreement, you, D_NATURED and DRC, as assertions against me and my libertarianism, that's if one is 'mature, sophisticated, and intellectualizing' enough to 'see it')--something on the order of a 'amalgamation of conduct' based on whatever it is you all say is in the 'community interest'. When it comes to 'individual rights', I think that such 'community interest' impositions could 'condition rights' right out of existence--and take the order of the 'rights for dogs'--ie. dependent upon what priority the 'community interest' is, that 'right' may be at the whelm of whatever the political authority deems--to the point of seeing the dog as a family companion or the next meal--but 'we' in this 'new paradigm' are 'mature, sophisticated, and intellectualizing' enough to not only allow this--but 'want it' for 'political authority'....

But, see, maybe it is just me, but I'm not quite ready to give up the UN-alienable-ness of 'individual rights' in any politically authorizing perspective for 'community interest's' sake. Now, I know how you, Ulysses, and DRC, don't seem to want to claim that such 'rights to persons' should be considered as 'absolute'--but, in order to avoid the oppressive and prejudicial impositions of such political authorities, I think they have to be. D_NATURED at least agrees with respect to the mother's 'right to choose' right up to the moment before birth if that is what the mother wants--that is absolute--but I know how you, Zenzoe, want to temper that with 'the care and concern for the viability of the fetus'--yet, still not have that be as if an 'unalienable right'. I think that is dangerous territory to allow such political authorizations against unalienable rights that aren't, otherwise, based on other unalienable rights--but, maybe that's just me not seeing all of y'all's 'mature, sophisticated, intellectualizing' posturing with 'community interest's' sake (and, of course, 'against libertarianism'--such a 'selfish principle').

And, as I keep asking, who gets to claim this interest 'for the community'? Perhaps, those in position to do so can hold any American citizen suspected as a terrorist indefinitely without charging them (which would previously have violated a whole lot of constitutional and 'unalienable rights' in such 'conditions') and claim to be doing it for the 'community interest of safety' (a big one claimed by the political authority of today--but, even in early American days, Benjamin Franklin did point out that if we are to opt for safety instead of freedom, we deserve neither safety nor freedom--my example of the two drunks wanting to leave the ER comes to mind--and the doctor, ostensibly the one 'responsible' in that situation, seeing the oppressive irrrationality and incongruity of being 'judged' and imposed upon by those who want to capitalize on 'having it both ways'--perhaps as a 'contextual ethical' posture--and, after getting angry over being so confined, being made to go to 'anger management classes' as another 'contextual ethical' matter--maybe that's how 'mature, sophiticated, and intellectualizing' people may see it--especially if it doesn't involve them).

And, I'm really not quite sure why D_NATURED is even in this group because D_NATURED is making the mother's choice for abortion absolute as all of the rest of you want to 'condition all rights'. Maybe D_NATURED wants to be in the 'in group' and not called names--like 'libertarian'. But, if D_NATURED hasn't gotten this point, yet, let me repost some stuff that you, Zenzoe, and I stated between each other on the third page of this thread.

Zenzoe (post #121):

As of now, I'd like to know where we differ on the basics.

1) At what point in a pregnancy do you believe, in your personal perspective (morally, ethically), abortion should be unrestricted? At what point in a pregnancy should restrictions apply? (Please be very brief. I'm not interested in a long bit about what is law now, in how many states, or the history of it, etc. I'm only after your own feeling on it.) (and sorry if I don't know this already—it got lost in the course of the discussion.)

Kerry (post #130):

You mean I get a personal opinion here? How 'selfish'!....8^)......

I've stated it. I feel comfortable with the Texas law cutting the right to elective abortions off at 20 weeks as being the earliest any gestation has survived outside of the womb--sounds reasonable and rational to me with respect to any potential of a 'right to life' for the fetus as well as recognizing the 'right to abort' of the mother since it is generally understood in our society and culture that 'life' starts at birth ('we' don't celebrate 'conception days'--'we' celebrate 'birthdays').

Zenzoe (post #132):

Oh. my. god. We agree. And we agree to "generally understood," and we agree to a balancing of rights. Why are we arguing?

Kerry (post #133):

Perhaps it's not what we agree to--it's how each of us gets to that conclusion that appears to be so 'judged'. I know that is why Ulysses has a problem with me because I'm a libertarian--and many here don't believe it's possible to be 'leftist' in that approach....

Remember that? The distinction appears to be how to use it as 'rights'--you seem to want to 'condition all rigihts' (even the 'right to life' when it HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO EXIST). I don't. At whatever stage in pregnancy in which the conceived entity has not been determined to have the 'right to life', I give the mother full and complete 'rights to choose'. However, at which point the conceived entity has been determined the 'right to life', the mother loses the full and complete 'right to choose'. The line may been drawn differently in the issues when the rights aren't unalienable--such as what Roe vs. Wade allowed each state to do between the unalienable right of the mother to choose up to 12 weeks gestation to the point of the unalienable right to life of the fetus at birth--but, the point is, the line has to be drawn. To avoid oppression and prejudice in political authority, there has to be the recognition of when it's a 'right to choose' without a 'right to life', it's an absolute right (that no political authority can intervene in)--but, when there is a 'right to life' in existence, to avoid that same oppression and prejudice in political authority, there has to be the recognition now that such a 'right to life' supercedes a 'right to choose'--and I see that as the only justification for anything that claims or has a political authority to impose, otherwise, on the 'right to choose'--in the interest of another 'unalienable right'. And, that line must be drawn to avoid such oppressive and prejudicial interventions in the name of any 'political authority'--when does that 'right to life' start to prevent the otherwise absolute 'right to choose' in elective abortion cases....when does a human life with rights begin.....no one has made that 'at conception' in this discussion--I surely haven't.

However, if you keep up with the mealy mouthed posturing that the 'mature, sophisticated, intellectualizing' condescenders do here and claim something of a 'care and concern for fetal viability'--but not specify that as a 'right to life' for the fetus at that point and define it as such--then, don't be too surprised when someone takes your 'care and concern for fetal viability' and defines it for you (perhaps even right at conception)--or worse yet, decides on a 'case by case basis' when to intervene as 'political authority' and when to let the mother decide for any reason for everyone directly involved....that's what I wish you would 'cut out'....I don't want any political authority to have that kind of capacity to 'pick and choose' up against an 'unalienable right'....and I don't really know why you don't see that....

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

Quoting from Zenzoe's post of Christopher Hitchens:

By rightly expanding our definition of what is alive and what is human, we have also accepted that there may be a conflict of rights between a potential human and an actual one. The only moral losers in this argument are those who say that there is no conflict, and nothing to argue about. The irresoluble conflict of right with right was Hegel’s definition of tragedy, and tragedy is inseparable from human life, and no advance in science or medicine is ever going to enable us to evade that.

Is this 'moral conflict of rights' your (and Hitchen's and Hegel's) excuse to get rid of the absolute 'rights to persons' (as 'unalienable rights'), Zenzoe? And, in its place, what do you (or Hegel or Christopher Hitchens or anyone) offer in its place? The 'political authority' to intervene when its convenient for the authority to claim a 'care and concern of fetal viability' without defining that as intervening on behalf of a conflicting 'right'? Does that really 'resolve' this conflict?

The whole point in making these rights as absolute in the context in which they can be used is to have the mother directly involved in such a moral conflict with the unwanted pregnancy be the one to decide that on her own--since she does carry the weight of the responsibility for the care of that offspring, it should be her decision--'conflicts' and all (and anything that claims a 'political authority' needs to stay out of it and give her free rein). But, the main point involved in such 'moral conflicts' that I think I have tried to bring out in this discussion is that it has to be a decision and she has to take that decision because, at some point, there is a life there that she cannot decide against (and, when that happens, 'political authority' can impose against her for that life's behalf as its ONLY rational and true justification to impose)--and, at that point (whatever line is drawn to make that point), there will have to be a reckoning to that life from that mother as, now, the only way to resolve such a 'conflict' and keep all rights involved as 'absolute', 'unalienable'.

And, certainly, no 'political authority' should have the capacity to 'pick and choose' any order of conduct for any reason against such rights as it may deem for itself in some attempt to 'remove conflict'--or 'placate conflict'--that, by such impositions, could harbor oppression and prejudice even if claiming for the 'best of reasons' against the will of someone that isn't involving an infringement on any one else's 'absolute right'.....eventually, in the long run, due to what 'I' think is at the heart of the human will, its impositions in the interest of any 'formal appeasement' will just make things worse for everyone involved.....let those in the heart of the 'moral conflicts' decide them as much as they can--but, let them know that it IS a 'moral conflict' to decide.....'Rights of conscience' really should, and actually do, carry 'obligations of personal responsibility'--no excuse against the 'tragedy of the conflict of rights' can really get rid of that--and no political authority imposing upon it for any form of 'appeasement of conflict' will make 'the tragedy' any less--and, can certainly make it worse with its oppressing and prejudicing potential imposing without basing it on the support of another's 'unalienable right'.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
When it comes to 'individual rights', I think that such 'community interest' impositions could 'condition rights' right out of existence--and take the order of the 'rights for dogs'--ie. dependent upon what priority the 'community interest' is, that 'right' may be at the whelm of whatever the political authority deems--to the point of seeing the dog as a family companion or the next meal--but 'we' in this 'new paradigm' are 'mature, sophisticated, and intellectualizing' enough to not only allow this--but 'want it' for 'political authority'....

The sentence above is run-on, indeed, rambling. Alas, it's also a non sequitur. To "whelm" is a verb; it shows action. It means to engulf or submerge, or to overwhelm. It's not a noun, as it's been used by this individual. For that reason, this post is not "mature, sophisticated, and intellectualizing" enough to be understood by literate people. It is, therefore, summarily dismissed, without a response.

But, see, maybe it is just me

Who?!

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

Quoting from Zenzoe's post of Christopher Hitchens:

By rightly expanding our definition of what is alive and what is human, we have also accepted that there may be a conflict of rights between a potential human and an actual one. The only moral losers in this argument are those who say that there is no conflict, and nothing to argue about. The irresoluble conflict of right with right was Hegel’s definition of tragedy, and tragedy is inseparable from human life, and no advance in science or medicine is ever going to enable us to evade that.

Is this 'moral conflict of rights' your (and Hitchen's and Hegel's) excuse to get rid of the absolute 'rights to persons' (as 'unalienable rights'), Zenzoe? And, in its place, what do you (or Hegel or Christopher Hitchens or anyone) offer in its place? The 'political authority' to intervene when its convenient for the authority to claim a 'care and concern of fetal viability' without defining that as intervening on behalf of a conflicting 'right'? Does that really 'resolve' this conflict?

The whole point in making these rights as absolute in the context in which they can be used is to have the mother directly involved in such a moral conflict with the unwanted pregnancy be the one to decide that on her own--since she does carry the weight of the responsibility for the care of that offspring, it should be her decision--'conflicts' and all (and anything that claims a 'political authority' needs to stay out of it and give her free rein). But, the main point involved in such 'moral conflicts' that I think I have tried to bring out in this discussion is that it has to be a decision and she has to take that decision because, at some point, there is a life there that she cannot decide against (and, when that happens, 'political authority' can impose against her for that life's behalf as its ONLY rational and true justification to impose)--and, at that point (whatever line is drawn to make that point), there will have to be a reckoning to that life from that mother as, now, the only way to resolve such a 'conflict' and keep all rights involved as 'absolute', 'unalienable'.

And, certainly, no 'political authority' should have the capacity to 'pick and choose' any order of conduct for any reason against such rights as it may deem for itself in some attempt to 'remove conflict'--or 'placate conflict'--that, by such impositions, could harbor oppression and prejudice even if claiming for the 'best of reasons' against the will of someone that isn't involving an infringement on any one else's 'absolute right'.....eventually, in the long run, due to what 'I' think is at the heart of the human will, its impositions in the interest of any 'formal appeasement' will just make things worse for everyone involved.....let those in the heart of the 'moral conflicts' decide them as much as they can--but, let them know that it IS a 'moral conflict' to decide.....'Rights of conscience' really should, and actually do, carry 'obligations of personal responsibility'--no excuse against the 'tragedy of the conflict of rights' can really get rid of that--and no political authority imposing upon it for any form of 'appeasement of conflict' will make 'the tragedy' any less--and, can certainly make it worse with its oppressing and prejudicing potential imposing without basing it on the support of another's 'unalienable right'.....

When those lost in the desert refuse to acknowledge that the sun rises in the east and sets in the West, they're tragically destined to wander around in circles. Failure to understand the Human Condition is tragic; failure to acknowledge it is denial and repression, which, like water, seek their own level in the personality and surface in aberrant form somewhere else in the psyche.

Sigh.

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

...And it came to pass that Ulysses easily controlled the bull-like rushes of Kerry.

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

Once again, let me point out that Ulysses does NOTHING to progress this conversation--and has not in quite some time even made a semblance of a remark that deals with the issues at hand other than to chastise me. Like so many do here in thomland, Ulysses likes to 'condition autonomy' (certainly away from 'mutual autonomy', right, Ulysses?) because that distracts away any requirement of Ulysses to be consistent to Ulysses remarks about any of this--again, being 'too smart' to do so.

But, of course, that posturing is only possible if Ulysses actually does nothing directly with such people that requires a responsible and consistent position from Ulysses (who loves to feign--or is it 'fein', Ulysses?--that 'consistency' is decided by 'statistical trends' as if 'official facts' in a rational determination of science and law, anyway). In that respect, Ulysses could claim to be for 'both' as a 'reasonable position'--the drunk's family suing for the ER allowing the drunk to leave and get injured or killed and the drunk suing for the ER forcing him to stay--that makes all so much self-righteous 'sense' (perhaps in this 'contextual ethical' manner)--as long as Ulysses isn't the one being sued.....just like Zenzoe allowing D_NATURED to believe Zenzoe is 'in agreement' with D_NATURED's position of 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if that is what the mother wants' as Zenzoe claims something of 'care and concern for the fetal viability'.....yeah, all of that passes rational critiquing--and this is coming from those who claim to be 'first in their class'?

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

Once again, let me point out that Ulysses does NOTHING to progress this conversation--and has not in quite some time even made a semblance of a remark that deals with the issues at hand other than to chastise me. Like so many do here in thomland, Ulysses likes to 'condition autonomy' (certainly away from 'mutual autonomy', right, Ulysses?) because that distracts away any requirement of Ulysses to be consistent to Ulysses remarks about any of this--again, being 'too smart' to do so.

But, of course, that posturing is only possible if Ulysses actually does nothing directly with such people that requires a responsible and consistent position from Ulysses (who loves to feign--or is it 'fein', Ulysses?--that 'consistency' is decided by 'statistical trends' as if 'official facts' in a rational determination of science and law, anyway). In that respect, Ulysses could claim to be for 'both' as a 'reasonable position'--the drunk's family suing for the ER allowing the drunk to leave and get injured or killed and the drunk suing for the ER forcing him to stay--that makes all so much self-righteous 'sense' (perhaps in this 'contextual ethical' manner)--as long as Ulysses isn't the one being sued.....just like Zenzoe allowing D_NATURED to believe Zenzoe is 'in agreement' with D_NATURED's position of 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if that is what the mother wants' as Zenzoe claims something of 'care and concern for the fetal viability'.....yeah, all of that passes rational critiquing--and this is coming from those who claim to be 'first in their class'?

Let's see now, was that "imposing" or "condescending?"

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

Again, absolutely no response pertinent to the issue at hand--but Ulysses does grant Ulysses the position of judging my statements without comment, otherwise. However, again, reposting my entire post in the very next post in doing so. I guess I should be flattered by such......

Later...

Kerry's picture
Kerry
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