> On 8/30/2012 5:38 PM, Josh wrote:
>>> What about the medical procedures on another's body?
>> Huh?
> A medical procedure is performed on the fetus' body. And without their
> permission to boot.
> So the woman gives consent to the procedure. Did the fetus? Clearly
> not. How come?
Because it is foremost a medical procedure on her body (and being a person, her right to liberty prevails over either the life or liberty of the fetus). I do however agree with you that a medical procedure that harms the fetus that does not advance the life or liberty of any person is wrong.
>>>> Also, what is your view concerning non-consensual sex? Isn't the
>>>> fetus a person with the same rights as any other person according to
>>>> you, so the woman's liberty always loses (except when her life is at
>>>> risk), and it makes no difference if she was raped?
>>> All the difference in the world. In the case of rape, the rapist
>>> violated the rights of the mother, and as a consequence of his actions,
>>> a child was created.
>>> The mother, since she never consented to the sex, has every right to
>>> terminate the intruder. If she does, the rapist is also held
>>> accountable for that termination (i.e. murder).
>>>> Ditto for 5
>>>> milliseconds after conception?
>>> My question is first: if the woman doesn't want to accept the
>>> consequences of consensual sex, why did she choose to engage in
>>> consensual sex?
>>> Can you rescind you decision to jump off a cliff 5 milliseconds after
>>> leaping?
>> I take it that means it's murder, punishable to the woman with at least
>> life in prison, even for using a device or drug that prevents
>> implantation into the uterus of the fertilized egg.
> On 8/30/2012 11:31 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>> On 8/30/2012 5:38 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>> What about the medical procedures on another's body?
>>> Huh?
>> A medical procedure is performed on the fetus' body. And without their
>> permission to boot.
>> So the woman gives consent to the procedure. Did the fetus? Clearly
>> not. How come?
> Because it is foremost a medical procedure on her body (and being a
> person, her right to liberty prevails over either the life or liberty of
> the fetus). I do however agree with you that a medical procedure that
> harms the fetus that does not advance the life or liberty of any person
> is wrong.
So there isn't an 'equal exercise of rights'? The rights of one prevail over the rights of another?
How do you reconcile that with what Jefferson calls the 'equal exercise' of rights?
>>>>> Also, what is your view concerning non-consensual sex? Isn't the
>>>>> fetus a person with the same rights as any other person according to
>>>>> you, so the woman's liberty always loses (except when her life is at
>>>>> risk), and it makes no difference if she was raped?
>>>> All the difference in the world. In the case of rape, the rapist
>>>> violated the rights of the mother, and as a consequence of his actions,
>>>> a child was created.
>>>> The mother, since she never consented to the sex, has every right to
>>>> terminate the intruder. If she does, the rapist is also held
>>>> accountable for that termination (i.e. murder).
>>>>> Ditto for 5
>>>>> milliseconds after conception?
>>>> My question is first: if the woman doesn't want to accept the
>>>> consequences of consensual sex, why did she choose to engage in
>>>> consensual sex?
>>>> Can you rescind you decision to jump off a cliff 5 milliseconds after
>>>> leaping?
>>> I take it that means it's murder, punishable to the woman with at least
>>> life in prison, even for using a device or drug that prevents
>>> implantation into the uterus of the fertilized egg.
>> Do you consider the zygote alive?
> Yes, but not a person.
According to what/whose definition?
Are non-person rights always inferior to person rights?
> > On 8/30/2012 11:31 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
> >> On 8/30/2012 5:38 PM, Josh wrote:
> >>>> What about the medical procedures on another's body?
> >>> Huh?
> >> A medical procedure is performed on the fetus' body. And without their
> >> permission to boot.
> >> So the woman gives consent to the procedure. Did the fetus? Clearly
> >> not. How come?
> > Because it is foremost a medical procedure on her body (and being a
> > person, her right to liberty prevails over either the life or liberty of
> > the fetus). I do however agree with you that a medical procedure that
> > harms the fetus that does not advance the life or liberty of any person
> > is wrong.
> So there isn't an 'equal exercise of rights'? The rights of one prevail
> over the rights of another?
How can there be an equal exercise of rights when two rights
conflict? Someone has to win and someone has to lose.
> How do you reconcile that with what Jefferson calls the 'equal exercise'
> of rights?
Citation, and in particular what does Jefferson say when two rights
conflict?
> >>>>> Also, what is your view concerning non-consensual sex? Isn't the
> >>>>> fetus a person with the same rights as any other person according to
> >>>>> you, so the woman's liberty always loses (except when her life is at
> >>>>> risk), and it makes no difference if she was raped?
> >>>> All the difference in the world. In the case of rape, the rapist
> >>>> violated the rights of the mother, and as a consequence of his actions,
> >>>> a child was created.
> >>>> The mother, since she never consented to the sex, has every right to
> >>>> terminate the intruder. If she does, the rapist is also held
> >>>> accountable for that termination (i.e. murder).
> >>>>> Ditto for 5
> >>>>> milliseconds after conception?
> >>>> My question is first: if the woman doesn't want to accept the
> >>>> consequences of consensual sex, why did she choose to engage in
> >>>> consensual sex?
> >>>> Can you rescind you decision to jump off a cliff 5 milliseconds after
> >>>> leaping?
> >>> I take it that means it's murder, punishable to the woman with at least
> >>> life in prison, even for using a device or drug that prevents
> >>> implantation into the uterus of the fertilized egg.
> >> Do you consider the zygote alive?
> > Yes, but not a person.
> According to what/whose definition?
Mine (and others as well). Obviously, you disagree (but then end up
sending a woman to prison for life for using a device or drug that
prevents implantation of a fertilized egg into her womb - and that
strikes me as absurd).
> Are non-person rights always inferior to person rights?
No. Your hypothetical about the endangered species act demonstrated
that. A person's property right does not trump a non-person's right
to life. But in my view a person's right to determine their own
medical treatment trumps a non-person's right to life.
>>> Because it is foremost a medical procedure on her body (and being a
>>> person, her right to liberty prevails over either the life or liberty of
>>> the fetus). I do however agree with you that a medical procedure that
>>> harms the fetus that does not advance the life or liberty of any person
>>> is wrong.
>> So there isn't an 'equal exercise of rights'? The rights of one prevail
>> over the rights of another?
> How can there be an equal exercise of rights when two rights
> conflict? Someone has to win and someone has to lose.
No. They can accommodate. Both win.
Win and lose are terms of war, not terms of equality.
(I'm trying to understand the liberal mind, and I think that I'm seeing that you view things hierarchically where I see things equally.)
>> How do you reconcile that with what Jefferson calls the 'equal exercise'
>> of rights?
> Citation
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
>and in particular what does Jefferson say when two rights
> conflict?
They don't conflict. The rights are bounded by the rights of others.
> Obviously, you disagree (but then end up
> sending a woman to prison for life for using a device or drug that
> prevents implantation of a fertilized egg into her womb - and that
> strikes me as absurd).
I never said that.
>> Are non-person rights always inferior to person rights?
> No. Your hypothetical about the endangered species act demonstrated
> that. A person's property right does not trump a non-person's right
> to life. But in my view a person's right to determine their own
> medical treatment trumps a non-person's right to life.
Can you describe how you determine what right trumps another right?
> On 8/31/2012 9:57 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>> Because it is foremost a medical procedure on her body (and being a
>>>> person, her right to liberty prevails over either the life or
>>>> liberty of
>>>> the fetus). I do however agree with you that a medical procedure that
>>>> harms the fetus that does not advance the life or liberty of any person
>>>> is wrong.
>>> So there isn't an 'equal exercise of rights'? The rights of one prevail
>>> over the rights of another?
>> How can there be an equal exercise of rights when two rights
>> conflict? Someone has to win and someone has to lose.
> On 8/31/2012 9:57 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>> Do you consider the zygote alive?
>>>> Yes, but not a person.
>>> According to what/whose definition?
>> Mine (and others as well).
> What is that definition? Is it arbitrary?
Pretty much. That is the one advantage to those who argue personhood begins at conception (it isn't arbitrary). But, then they are saddled with the absurd conclusion below.
>> Obviously, you disagree (but then end up
>> sending a woman to prison for life for using a device or drug that
>> prevents implantation of a fertilized egg into her womb - and that
>> strikes me as absurd).
> I never said that.
You said the mother should get the same punishment as if "she had hired a hit-man to murder her husband."
>>> Are non-person rights always inferior to person rights?
>> No. Your hypothetical about the endangered species act demonstrated
>> that. A person's property right does not trump a non-person's right
>> to life. But in my view a person's right to determine their own
>> medical treatment trumps a non-person's right to life.
> Can you describe how you determine what right trumps another right?
It's subjective. I am unaware of any objective method that doesn't produce absurd results.
> On 8/31/2012 1:28 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>> On 8/31/2012 9:57 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>> Because it is foremost a medical procedure on her body (and being a
>>>>> person, her right to liberty prevails over either the life or
>>>>> liberty of
>>>>> the fetus). I do however agree with you that a medical procedure that
>>>>> harms the fetus that does not advance the life or liberty of any
>>>>> person
>>>>> is wrong.
>>>> So there isn't an 'equal exercise of rights'? The rights of one
>>>> prevail
>>>> over the rights of another?
>>> How can there be an equal exercise of rights when two rights
>>> conflict? Someone has to win and someone has to lose.
>> No. They can accommodate. Both win.
> How do the woman and fetus both win?
The woman accepts and learns responsibility for her actions and consequences, the fetus lives. Both win.
> On 8/31/2012 1:32 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>> On 8/31/2012 9:57 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>> Do you consider the zygote alive?
>>>>> Yes, but not a person.
>>>> According to what/whose definition?
>>> Mine (and others as well).
>> What is that definition? Is it arbitrary?
> Pretty much. That is the one advantage to those who argue personhood
> begins at conception (it isn't arbitrary). But, then they are saddled
> with the absurd conclusion below.
Why is that absurd? It is only absurd if you don't value human life.
Honestly, the only thing that is absurd is how you can justify the execution of human life.
>>> Obviously, you disagree (but then end up
>>> sending a woman to prison for life for using a device or drug that
>>> prevents implantation of a fertilized egg into her womb - and that
>>> strikes me as absurd).
>> I never said that.
> You said the mother should get the same punishment as if "she had hired
> a hit-man to murder her husband."
I said that in reference to the 5-week case. Don't play games and twist what I say to justify your agenda, Joshua.
>>>> Are non-person rights always inferior to person rights?
>>> No. Your hypothetical about the endangered species act demonstrated
>>> that. A person's property right does not trump a non-person's right
>>> to life. But in my view a person's right to determine their own
>>> medical treatment trumps a non-person's right to life.
>> Can you describe how you determine what right trumps another right?
> It's subjective. I am unaware of any objective method that doesn't
> produce absurd results.
Explain how the concept of the 'exercise of rights are bounded by the rights of others' produces absurd results.
> On 8/31/2012 3:20 PM, Josh wrote:
>> On 8/31/2012 1:32 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>>> On 8/31/2012 9:57 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>> Do you consider the zygote alive?
>>>>>> Yes, but not a person.
>>>>> According to what/whose definition?
>>>> Mine (and others as well).
>>> What is that definition? Is it arbitrary?
>> Pretty much. That is the one advantage to those who argue personhood
>> begins at conception (it isn't arbitrary). But, then they are saddled
>> with the absurd conclusion below.
> Why is that absurd? It is only absurd if you don't value human life.
> Honestly, the only thing that is absurd is how you can justify the
> execution of human life.
>>>> Obviously, you disagree (but then end up
>>>> sending a woman to prison for life for using a device or drug that
>>>> prevents implantation of a fertilized egg into her womb - and that
>>>> strikes me as absurd).
>>> I never said that.
>> You said the mother should get the same punishment as if "she had hired
>> a hit-man to murder her husband."
> I said that in reference to the 5-week case. Don't play games and twist
> what I say to justify your agenda, Joshua.
What is your view regarding after conception and before implantation? Just above you implied it wasn't absurd ("it is only absurd if you don't value human life") to send a woman to prison for life in that circumstance.
>>>>> Are non-person rights always inferior to person rights?
>>>> No. Your hypothetical about the endangered species act demonstrated
>>>> that. A person's property right does not trump a non-person's right
>>>> to life. But in my view a person's right to determine their own
>>>> medical treatment trumps a non-person's right to life.
>>> Can you describe how you determine what right trumps another right?
>> It's subjective. I am unaware of any objective method that doesn't
>> produce absurd results.
> Explain how the concept of the 'exercise of rights are bounded by the
> rights of others' produces absurd results.
One such result is sending a woman to prison for life for using a device or drug that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg into her womb. We are going to have to agree to disagree that this result is absurd.
> On 8/31/2012 3:13 PM, Josh wrote:
>> On 8/31/2012 1:28 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>>> On 8/31/2012 9:57 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>> Because it is foremost a medical procedure on her body (and being a
>>>>>> person, her right to liberty prevails over either the life or
>>>>>> liberty of
>>>>>> the fetus). I do however agree with you that a medical procedure
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> harms the fetus that does not advance the life or liberty of any
>>>>>> person
>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>> So there isn't an 'equal exercise of rights'? The rights of one
>>>>> prevail
>>>>> over the rights of another?
>>>> How can there be an equal exercise of rights when two rights
>>>> conflict? Someone has to win and someone has to lose.
>>> No. They can accommodate. Both win.
>> How do the woman and fetus both win?
> The woman accepts and learns responsibility for her actions and
> consequences, the fetus lives. Both win.
"Accepts and learns" is your projection of what the woman should do. Winning and losing - *her* liberty - is from her perspective, not yours.
>>> "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
>>> limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
>>>> and in particular what does Jefferson say when two rights
>>>> conflict?
>>> They don't conflict. The rights are bounded by the rights of others.
>> Sounds like conflict to me.
> Why is it conflict? Does your property line imply conflict with your
> neighbor?
What happens when we disagree where the line should be drawn?
On Sunday, September 2, 2012 8:32:49 AM UTC-4, Josh wrote:
> On 9/2/2012 12:15 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
> > On 8/31/2012 3:20 PM, Josh wrote:
> >> On 8/31/2012 1:32 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
> >>> On 8/31/2012 9:57 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >>>>>>> Do you consider the zygote alive?
> >>>>>> Yes, but not a person.
> >>>>> According to what/whose definition?
> >>>> Mine (and others as well).
> >>> What is that definition? Is it arbitrary?
> >> Pretty much. That is the one advantage to those who argue personhood
> >> begins at conception (it isn't arbitrary). But, then they are saddled
> >> with the absurd conclusion below.
> > Why is that absurd? It is only absurd if you don't value human life.
> > Honestly, the only thing that is absurd is how you can justify the
> > execution of human life.
> >>>> Obviously, you disagree (but then end up
> >>>> sending a woman to prison for life for using a device or drug that
> >>>> prevents implantation of a fertilized egg into her womb - and that
> >>>> strikes me as absurd).
> >>> I never said that.
> >> You said the mother should get the same punishment as if "she had hired
> >> a hit-man to murder her husband."
> > I said that in reference to the 5-week case. Don't play games and twist
> > what I say to justify your agenda, Joshua.
> What is your view regarding after conception and before implantation?
> Just above you implied it wasn't absurd ("it is only absurd if you don't
> value human life") to send a woman to prison for life in that circumstance.
> >>>>> Are non-person rights always inferior to person rights?
> >>>> No. Your hypothetical about the endangered species act demonstrated
> >>>> that. A person's property right does not trump a non-person's right
> >>>> to life. But in my view a person's right to determine their own
> >>>> medical treatment trumps a non-person's right to life.
> >>> Can you describe how you determine what right trumps another right?
> >> It's subjective. I am unaware of any objective method that doesn't
> >> produce absurd results.
> > Explain how the concept of the 'exercise of rights are bounded by the
> > rights of others' produces absurd results.
> One such result is sending a woman to prison for life for using a device
> or drug that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg into her womb.
> We are going to have to agree to disagree that this result is absurd.
I must have missed the court ruling where a woman was sent "woman to prison for life for using a device or drug that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg into her womb." Or is this just based on your "absurd" assertion?
Peter can answer for himself but once conception has occurred it's not just all about the mother's "liberty" anymore.
> I must have missed the court ruling where a woman was sent "woman to
> prison for life for using a device or drug that prevents implantation
> of a fertilized egg into her womb." Or is this just based on your
> "absurd" assertion?
This discussion has nothing to do with court rulings. Peter argues a woman should be punished for an abortion at 5 weeks the same as "if she had hired a hit-man to murder her husband." To Peter, the life taken in both circumstances has a right to life that trumps the liberty rights of the woman. I was trying to get clarification on the yet-to-be-implanted zygote in Peter's argument.
> Peter can answer for himself but once conception has occurred it's
> not just all about the mother's "liberty" anymore.
I agree with you abortion is not just about the woman's liberty. We have conflicting rights (*): her liberty and the right to life of a zygote/blastocyst/embryo/non-viable fetus/viable fetus. In my view, her liberty trumps the right to life up through viability. Perhaps you disagree.
(*) As to your other reply where you criticized me for answering a question with a question, I was merely giving an example (which I guess I could have done in statement form) of how Jefferson's principle doesn't solve cases of conflict.
>> I must have missed the court ruling where a woman was sent "woman to
>> prison for life for using a device or drug that prevents implantation
>> of a fertilized egg into her womb." Or is this just based on your
>> "absurd" assertion?
> This discussion has nothing to do with court rulings. Peter argues a
> woman should be punished for an abortion at 5 weeks the same as "if she
> had hired a hit-man to murder her husband." To Peter, the life taken in
> both circumstances has a right to life that trumps the liberty rights of
> the woman.
A Judge already says late term abortions can be banned.... so the baby
in the uterus has a life that can trump the woman's freedom for the last
12 weeks, Now the question is why only 12 week why NOT the entire time
the baby is alive in the uterus.
It's NOT about forcing a woman to do anything, it's about a human life,
a baby that is alive and need not be murdered. The baby need not exist
thanks to contraception and condoms and all types of birth control.
When the baby is born the man is held liable for the child's expenses...
isn't that also about the rights of the baby to live over the rights of
the father? And doesn't the father lose that battle every time and in so
doing he becomes a slave to the State that confiscates his pay that he
worked for? We are making a father a slave for a baby to live, why NOT
do the same for the mother, the mother carries the baby for 9 months and
can give it way after that but the father can't give the baby away, he
pays for 23 years. So which gets the better deal?
Seems like the baby always gets the shitty end of the stick.
--
*Rumination*
#27 - Liberalism is an intellectual blackhole.
> On 8/30/2012 2:04 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 8/30/2012 4:34 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>>> On 8/30/2012 12:30 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>> On Aug 30, 8:58 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/29/2012 11:56 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/29/2012 9:34 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/29/2012 5:56 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> How should the woman be punished for hiring a doctor to murder?
>>>>>>>>> Same as if she had hired a hit-man to murder her husband. No new
>>>>>>>>> laws
>>>>>>>>> are needed.
>>>>>>>> A woman chooses an abortion in the 5th week of pregnancy, or even a
>>>>>>>> millisecond after conception. She gets life in prison (or maybe
>>>>>>>> death).
>>>>>>>> Amazing!
>>>>>>> What do you recommend? Take the easy case first (5th week), we can
>>>>>>> discuss the other cases later.
>>>>>> I recommend that it be legal. Although the non-viable fetus (or
>>>>>> zygote
>>>>>> or embryo) is a life, it is not a person in my view, and the
>>>>>> liberty of
>>>>>> a person trumps the life of a non person when the two conflict.
>>>>> So, you are rewriting "right to life" to "right to personhood".
>>>> I am arguing a person has a greater right to life than a non person.
>>> Really? The right to life is graduated? I wasn't aware.
>>> I was aware that there are different levels of protections, but not the
>>> rights themselves. Please elaborate!
>>>>> Just exactly how did you go about doing that?
>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>> Do you understand that a person can voluntarily forfeit or suspend
>>>>> (partially or entirely) their rights? Do you not agree that a woman
>>>>> partially suspends her claim to liberty when she engages in consensual
>>>>> sex? She knows the consequences, but refuses to accept them? At the
>>>>> expense of the life of someone else?
>>>> I believe her liberty to control her body is of paramount importance,
>>>> and is not forfeited by having consensual sex.
>>> Of course liberty is (partially) suspended. Consider the non-murderous
>>> mother that willingly carries to term. Is her liberty not affected? Of
>>> course it is!
>>> So clearly her liberty is suspended as a consequence of consensual sex.
>>> Try another tack.
>>>> This is what
>>>> distinguishes the landowner in the case of endangered species. In my
>>>> view, property rights do not rise to the same level as control of
>>>> one's choice of medical procedures on one's body.
>>> What about the medical procedures on another's body?
>>>> Also, what is your view concerning non-consensual sex? Isn't the
>>>> fetus a person with the same rights as any other person according to
>>>> you, so the woman's liberty always loses (except when her life is at
>>>> risk), and it makes no difference if she was raped?
>>> All the difference in the world. In the case of rape, the rapist
>>> violated the rights of the mother, and as a consequence of his actions,
>>> a child was created.
>>> The mother, since she never consented to the sex, has every right to
>>> terminate the intruder. If she does, the rapist is also held
>>> accountable for that termination (i.e. murder).
>>>> Ditto for 5
>>>> milliseconds after conception?
>>> My question is first: if the woman doesn't want to accept the
>>> consequences of consensual sex, why did she choose to engage in
>>> consensual sex?
>>> Can you rescind you decision to jump off a cliff 5 milliseconds after
>>> leaping?
>> All you need to ask is what moment is the human life in the uterus a
>> live person....
>> If they can't definitively answer that then they have no business
>> killing any human in a uterus.
>> A man recently was charged with killing his wife but she was in a
>> vegetative state from which doctors said there was no return, the
>> question is that if a court can rule here dead and turn the machines off
>> then did that man kill a dead person?
>> When is the moment that she became dead?
> For me: brainwaves is the indicator.
Then brain wave is when life begins?
And if so.... what millisecond moment does that happen in the uterus, I
mean so we don't murder that "fetus" or it would be a baby with a brain
wave wouldn't it.
Our society has yet to define life so how can we define when to force a
human body to end it's progression toward death.
--
*Rumination*
#6 - Society is a virtual world that we create.
On Sunday, September 2, 2012 9:57:20 AM UTC-4, Josh wrote:
> On 9/2/2012 9:09 AM, Info Junkie wrote:
> > I must have missed the court ruling where a woman was sent "woman to
> > prison for life for using a device or drug that prevents implantation
> > of a fertilized egg into her womb." Or is this just based on your
> > "absurd" assertion?
> This discussion has nothing to do with court rulings. Peter argues a
> woman should be punished for an abortion at 5 weeks the same as "if she
> had hired a hit-man to murder her husband." To Peter, the life taken in
> both circumstances has a right to life that trumps the liberty rights of
> the woman. I was trying to get clarification on the yet-to-be-implanted
> zygote in Peter's argument.
I would agree with Peter wrt abortion being murder. Beyond being inconveinienced, one might ask the obvious in light of your satated view(s):
a. Has the woman's status of freedom changed to that of slavery? If so, to whom would be her master?
b. When did the woman lose her "liberty right" to enjoy social, political, or economic rights and privileges, upon conception, during her pregnancy or after birth?
Weigh that "liberty right" of incoveinience* against the right-to-live.
*Except in the case of incest, rape and the life of the mother.
> > Peter can answer for himself but once conception has occurred it's
> > not just all about the mother's "liberty" anymore.
> I agree with you abortion is not just about the woman's liberty. We
> have conflicting rights (*): her liberty and the right to life of a
We've had a similar discussion on this issue, where:
“a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on the question: When does human life begin? The following doctors testified: Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, said: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."
Dr. McCarthy de Mere, a medical doctor and law professor at the University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
In 1990, Dr. Jerome Lejeune, The Father of Modern Genetics, testified that human life begins at conception before the Louisiana Legislature's House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice…
“Dr. Lejeune explained that within three to seven days after fertilization we can determine if the new human being is a boy or a girl. "At no time," Dr. Lejeune said, "is the human being a blob of protoplasm. As far as your nature is concerned, I see no difference between the early person that you were at conception and the late person which you are now. You were, and are, a human being." http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=22621&posts=1
> In my view, her
> liberty trumps the right to life up through viability. Perhaps you
> disagree.
I do disagree with that claim and explain why above. WRT "viability", SCOTUS defined that term soley through judical fiat.
> (*) As to your other reply where you criticized me for answering a
> question with a question, I was merely giving an example (which I guess
> I could have done in statement form) of how Jefferson's principle
> doesn't solve cases of conflict.
Thanks for admitting what you should have done. Per Peter's example, there is no conflict.
> On Sunday, September 2, 2012 9:57:20 AM UTC-4, Josh wrote:
>> On 9/2/2012 9:09 AM, Info Junkie wrote:
>>> I must have missed the court ruling where a woman was sent "woman
>>> to
>>> prison for life for using a device or drug that prevents
>>> implantation
>>> of a fertilized egg into her womb." Or is this just based on
>>> your
>>> "absurd" assertion?
>> This discussion has nothing to do with court rulings. Peter argues
>> a
>> woman should be punished for an abortion at 5 weeks the same as "if
>> she
>> had hired a hit-man to murder her husband." To Peter, the life
>> taken in
>> both circumstances has a right to life that trumps the liberty
>> rights of
>> the woman. I was trying to get clarification on the
>> yet-to-be-implanted
>> zygote in Peter's argument.
> I would agree with Peter wrt abortion being murder. Beyond being
> inconveinienced, one might ask the obvious in light of your satated
> view(s):
> a. Has the woman's status of freedom changed to that of slavery? If
> so, to whom would be her master?
> b. When did the woman lose her "liberty right" to enjoy social,
> political, or economic rights and privileges, upon conception, during
> her pregnancy or after birth?
> Weigh that "liberty right" of incoveinience* against the
> right-to-live.
> *Except in the case of incest, rape and the life of the mother.
>>> Peter can answer for himself but once conception has occurred
>>> it's
>>> not just all about the mother's "liberty" anymore.
>> I agree with you abortion is not just about the woman's liberty.
>> We
>> have conflicting rights (*): her liberty and the right to life of
>> a
> We've had a similar discussion on this issue, where: �a Senate
> Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on the question: When does human
> life begin? The following doctors testified: Dr. Hymie Gordon,
> Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, said: "By
> all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from
> the moment of conception."
> Dr. McCarthy de Mere, a medical doctor and law professor at the
> University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the
> beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of
> conception."
> In 1990, Dr. Jerome Lejeune, The Father of Modern Genetics, testified
> that human life begins at conception before the Louisiana
> Legislature's House Committee on the Administration of Criminal
> Justice�
> �Dr. Lejeune explained that within three to seven days after
> fertilization we can determine if the new human being is a boy or a
> girl. "At no time," Dr. Lejeune said, "is the human being a blob of
> protoplasm. As far as your nature is concerned, I see no difference
> between the early person that you were at conception and the late
> person which you are now. You were, and are, a human being."
> http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=22621&posts=1
>> In my view, her
>> liberty trumps the right to life up through viability. Perhaps
>> you
>> disagree.
> I do disagree with that claim and explain why above. WRT "viability",
> SCOTUS defined that term soley through judical fiat.
>> (*) As to your other reply where you criticized me for answering a
>> question with a question, I was merely giving an example (which I
>> guess
>> I could have done in statement form) of how Jefferson's principle
>> doesn't solve cases of conflict.
> Thanks for admitting what you should have done. Per Peter's example,
> there is no conflict.
As with Peter, we will have to agree to disagree on both when the woman's liberty right yields and to whether there is conflict.
But to clarify your position, since you agree with Peter, then the woman who has an elective abortion at 5 weeks should get the same punishment as if she hired a hit-man to murder her husband? And what about a woman who uses a device or a drug to prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted in her uterus? Or who uses a drug to abort milliseconds after implantation?
> >> liberty trumps the right to life up through viability. Perhaps
> >> you
> >> disagree.
> > I do disagree with that claim and explain why above. WRT "viability",
> > SCOTUS defined that term soley through judical fiat.
> >> (*) As to your other reply where you criticized me for answering a
> >> question with a question, I was merely giving an example (which I
> >> guess
> >> I could have done in statement form) of how Jefferson's principle
> >> doesn't solve cases of conflict.
> > Thanks for admitting what you should have done. Per Peter's example,
> > there is no conflict.
> As with Peter, we will have to agree to disagree on both when the
> woman's liberty right yields and to whether there is conflict.
Ok
> But to clarify your position, since you agree with Peter, then the woman
> who has an elective abortion at 5 weeks should get the same punishment
> as if she hired a hit-man to murder her husband?
I've already said I would agree with Peter wrt abortion being murder.
> And what about a woman
> who uses a device or a drug to prevent a fertilized egg from being
> implanted in her uterus? Or who uses a drug to abort milliseconds after
> implantation?
It would be impolite for me to answer your questions while you ignored answering my questioons to you, so let me ask again;
Regarding the woman's "liberty right", beyond being inconveinienced, one might ask the obvious in light of your stated view(s):
a. Has the woman's status of freedom changed to that of slavery? If
so, to whom would be her master?
b. When did the woman lose her "liberty right" to enjoy social,
political, or economic rights and privileges, upon conception, during
her pregnancy or after birth?
>> As with Peter, we will have to agree to disagree on both when the
>> woman's liberty right yields and to whether there is conflict.
> Ok
>> But to clarify your position, since you agree with Peter, then the
>> woman
>> who has an elective abortion at 5 weeks should get the same
>> punishment
>> as if she hired a hit-man to murder her husband?
> I've already said I would agree with Peter wrt abortion being
> murder.
>> And what about a woman
>> who uses a device or a drug to prevent a fertilized egg from being
>> implanted in her uterus? Or who uses a drug to abort milliseconds
>> after
>> implantation?
> It would be impolite for me to answer your questions while you
> ignored answering my questioons to you, so let me ask again;
> Regarding the woman's "liberty right", beyond being inconveinienced,
> one might ask the obvious in light of your stated view(s):
> a. Has the woman's status of freedom changed to that of slavery? If
> so, to whom would be her master?
No, she is not a slave. But, her liberty has been restricted by the state in a manner that while it falls well short of slavery, it is nonetheless unjustified in my view.
> b. When did the woman lose her "liberty right" to enjoy social,
> political, or economic rights and privileges, upon conception,
> during her pregnancy or after birth?
She never loses that much liberty (if she did, she *would* be a slave). Instead, if Peter and you got your way, she would lose upon conception (or maybe sometime shortly after - I'm still unclear as to Peter's or your argument) the liberty right to control her body through choosing a medical procedure. I believe she should lose that same liberty right at fetal viability.
On Monday, September 3, 2012 8:03:54 AM UTC-4, Josh wrote:
> On 9/3/2012 6:36 AM, Info Junkie wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 2, 2012 10:09:56 PM UTC-4, Josh wrote:
> {snip}
> >> As with Peter, we will have to agree to disagree on both when the
> >> woman's liberty right yields and to whether there is conflict.
> > Ok
> >> But to clarify your position, since you agree with Peter, then the
> >> woman
> >> who has an elective abortion at 5 weeks should get the same
> >> punishment
> >> as if she hired a hit-man to murder her husband?
> > I've already said I would agree with Peter wrt abortion being
> > murder.
> >> And what about a woman
> >> who uses a device or a drug to prevent a fertilized egg from being
> >> implanted in her uterus? Or who uses a drug to abort milliseconds
> >> after
> >> implantation?
> > It would be impolite for me to answer your questions while you
> > ignored answering my questioons to you, so let me ask again;
> > Regarding the woman's "liberty right", beyond being inconveinienced,
> > one might ask the obvious in light of your stated view(s):
> > a. Has the woman's status of freedom changed to that of slavery? If
> > so, to whom would be her master?
> No, she is not a slave.
So she's not lost her "liberty right".
> But, her liberty has been restricted by the
> state in a manner that while it falls well short of slavery, it is
IOW, she's inconvenienced* for her irresponsible actions.
*Except in the case of incest, rape and the life of the mother
> nonetheless unjustified in my view.
You're entitled to your (flawed) opinion
> > b. When did the woman lose her "liberty right" to enjoy social,
> > political, or economic rights and privileges, upon conception,
> > during her pregnancy or after birth?
> She never loses that much liberty (if she did, she *would* be a slave).
An analogy (albeit a poor one) could be drunk driving. Should you be irresponsible and kill someone while driving drunk, your "liberty right" is "restricted" as you'll probably lose your driver's license.
> Instead, if Peter and you got your way, she would lose upon conception
> (or maybe sometime shortly after - I'm still unclear as to Peter's or > your argument) the liberty right to control her body through choosing a > medical procedure.
She has the right to "control her body through choosing a medical procedure" BEFORE being irresponsible. If she does want to have kids then she can have her ovaries/fallopian tubes removed. She might want kids at a future time? So she doesn't wnat to be "inconvenienced" right now.
TWO people participate in the act for her to conceive. BOTH have the "right" to insist on using those things which prevents her from becoming pregnant ....including abstinence.
IOW, once conception occurs the "right-to-life" trumps the "right" of being inconvenienced through their own irresponsible actions. Adults should become responsible as it's no longer just about either of them anymore.
> I believe she should lose that same liberty right at > fetal viability.
How does the woman lose her "liberty right" after the birth of a child? Does she no longer enjoy social, political, or economic rights and privileges?
ITM, if you're correct about the woman's "liberty right", why aren’t women using that same argument (successfully) when they've been arrested/convicted for using/having drugs/drug paraphernalia when in her own home*?
*Not performing activities beyond her legal property lines and for personal use
On Monday, September 3, 2012 8:58:13 AM UTC-4, Info Junkie wrote:
Typo.
That should've been:
"If she does NOT want to have kids then she can have her ovaries/fallopian tubes removed. She might want kids at a future time? So she doesn't WANT to be "inconvenienced" right now.
> On Monday, September 3, 2012 8:03:54 AM UTC-4, Josh wrote:
>> On 9/3/2012 6:36 AM, Info Junkie wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 2, 2012 10:09:56 PM UTC-4, Josh wrote:
>> {snip}
>>> one might ask the obvious in light of your stated view(s):
>>> a. Has the woman's status of freedom changed to that of slavery?
>>> If
>>> so, to whom would be her master?
>> No, she is not a slave.
> So she's not lost her "liberty right".
>> But, her liberty has been restricted by the state in a manner that
>> while it falls well short of slavery, it is
> IOW, she's inconvenienced* for her irresponsible actions. *Except in
> the case of incest, rape and the life of the mother
We are going to have to agree to disagree on whether an abortion is a woman controlling what medical procedures are available to her and thus is an exercise of liberty (me) or just an exercise of convenience (you).
>>> b. When did the woman lose her "liberty right" to enjoy social,
>>> political, or economic rights and privileges, upon conception,
>>> during her pregnancy or after birth?
>> She never loses that much liberty (if she did, she *would* be a
>> slave).
> An analogy (albeit a poor one) could be drunk driving. Should you be
> irresponsible and kill someone while driving drunk, your "liberty
> right" is "restricted" as you'll probably lose your driver's
> license.
I don't think the analogy works for two reasons: 1) the life lost is that of a person in your analogy and 2) driving isn't as strong an exercise of liberty (not all exercises of liberty are equal) as controlling medical procedures on your own body.
If I felt the fetus was a person, then I would agree with you. Or, if I felt abortion wasn't controlling a medical procedure on your own body, I would agree you. But, on both these points, we again have an honest disagreement.
>> Instead, if Peter and you got your way, she would lose upon
>> conception
>> (or maybe sometime shortly after - I'm still unclear as to Peter's
>> or your argument) the liberty right to control her body through
>> choosing a medical procedure.
> She has the right to "control her body through choosing a medical
> procedure" BEFORE being irresponsible. If she does want to have kids
> then she can have her ovaries/fallopian tubes removed. She might
> want kids at a future time? So she doesn't wnat to be
> "inconvenienced" right now.
> TWO people participate in the act for her to conceive. BOTH have the
> "right" to insist on using those things which prevents her from
> becoming pregnant ....including abstinence.
> IOW, once conception occurs the "right-to-life" trumps the "right" of
> being inconvenienced through their own irresponsible actions. Adults
> should become responsible as it's no longer just about either of them
> anymore.
>> I believe she should lose that same liberty right at fetal
>> viability.
> How does the woman lose her "liberty right" after the birth of a
> child? Does she no longer enjoy social, political, or economic rights
> and privileges?
> ITM, if you're correct about the woman's "liberty right", why aren�t
> women using that same argument (successfully) when they've been
> arrested/convicted for using/having drugs/drug paraphernalia when in
> her own home*?
Because using drugs isn't viewed as strong an exercise of liberty as controlling medical procedures on one's body.
> *Not performing activities beyond her legal property lines and for
> personal use
>> Your turn to answer my questions.
> Done
You didn't directly answer whether the woman should get the same punishment as if she hired a hit man to murder her husband if she 1) uses a device or drug that prevents a fertilized egg from being implanted in her uterus or 2) uses a drug to kill the zygote milliseconds after implantation.
> On 9/3/2012 6:36 AM, Info Junkie wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 2, 2012 10:09:56 PM UTC-4, Josh wrote:
> {snip}
>>> As with Peter, we will have to agree to disagree on both when the
>>> woman's liberty right yields and to whether there is conflict.
>> Ok
>>> But to clarify your position, since you agree with Peter, then the
>>> woman
>>> who has an elective abortion at 5 weeks should get the same
>>> punishment
>>> as if she hired a hit-man to murder her husband?
>> I've already said I would agree with Peter wrt abortion being
>> murder.
>>> And what about a woman
>>> who uses a device or a drug to prevent a fertilized egg from being
>>> implanted in her uterus? Or who uses a drug to abort milliseconds
>>> after
>>> implantation?
>> It would be impolite for me to answer your questions while you
>> ignored answering my questioons to you, so let me ask again;
>> Regarding the woman's "liberty right", beyond being inconveinienced,
>> one might ask the obvious in light of your stated view(s):
>> a. Has the woman's status of freedom changed to that of slavery? If
>> so, to whom would be her master?
The same Master she has today telling her what to do with her body, it's
ObamaCare and the Bureaucrats are the ones that care for the slaves and
tell what they "shall" do and what they can't do.
