Those extreme Conservative Republicans

[Jeff Strickland]

I'm listening to campaign ads that suggest -- charge, really --
conservatives with extremist positions because we think that birth control
is something that should be paid for privately by the people involved, and
not provided through the public trough. That does not sound extreme to me,
it sounds like common sense.

These same people that say birth control for some should be paid by all also
support the idea that a baby that survives an abortion can be killed because
the whole point of the abortion is to kill the baby. If the abortion goes
awry, and the baby happens to survive the ordeal, the party that thinks
birth control should be paid by all of us also thinks that it is okay to go
ahead and kill the baby.

Which of these is the extremist position -- pay for your own birth control,
or kill a baby that survives a late-term abortion.

Let's assume for the moment -- an assumption I do not hold, but will
entertain for the sake of this discussion -- that the late term abortion is
required for the health and safety of the mother. She elects to abort at a
time when the baby could survive in a neonatal care facility, and the baby
she elected to abort manages to survive the procedure.

Barack Obama supported legislation that allows such a baby to be killed EVEN
THOUGH the health and safety of the mother are already improved because she
has aborted the baby. If the mother's health and safety are in good standing
as the result of the abortion AND the baby survives the procedure, what's
the point of legislation that calls for killing the baby? The only point of
such legislation must be that aborting the baby has little, if anything, to
do with the health and safety of the mother, and rests entirely on the fact
that the baby is an inconvenience that must be eliminated.

Which party is the more extreme, the one that calls on women to pay for
birth control privately, or the one that supports killing a baby that is
inconvenient?

[Josh]

On 8/29/2012 12:14 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
> I'm listening to campaign ads that suggest -- charge, really --
> conservatives with extremist positions because we think that birth
> control is something that should be paid for privately by the people
> involved, and not provided through the public trough. That does not
> sound extreme to me, it sounds like common sense.
>
> These same people that say birth control for some should be paid by all
> also support the idea that a baby that survives an abortion can be
> killed because the whole point of the abortion is to kill the baby. If
> the abortion goes awry, and the baby happens to survive the ordeal, the
> party that thinks birth control should be paid by all of us also thinks
> that it is okay to go ahead and kill the baby.

Nonsense.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/09/bornalivetruth-org/abortion-survivor-would-have-been-protected-under-/

[Peter Franks]

"Illinois already had a law on its books from 1975 that said if a doctor
suspected an abortion was scheduled for a viable fetus — meaning able to
survive outside of the mother's body — then the child must receive
medical care if it survives the abortion. "

I find it difficult to fathom such a barbaric and utter disregard for
human life. Abortion scheduled for a viable fetus?!

Abortion is murder. Plain and simple. It is the most reprehensible
form of murder that exists!

ANYONE that supports abortion, political party or otherwise, is a
bloodthirsty savage and morally bankrupt.

[Josh]

On 8/29/2012 11:12 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
> On 8/29/2012 4:21 AM, Josh wrote:
>> On 8/29/2012 12:14 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>> I'm listening to campaign ads that suggest -- charge, really --
>>> conservatives with extremist positions because we think that birth
>>> control is something that should be paid for privately by the people
>>> involved, and not provided through the public trough. That does not
>>> sound extreme to me, it sounds like common sense.
>>>
>>> These same people that say birth control for some should be paid by all
>>> also support the idea that a baby that survives an abortion can be
>>> killed because the whole point of the abortion is to kill the baby. If
>>> the abortion goes awry, and the baby happens to survive the ordeal, the
>>> party that thinks birth control should be paid by all of us also thinks
>>> that it is okay to go ahead and kill the baby.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/09/bornalivetruth-org/abortion-survivor-would-have-been-protected-under-/
>>
>
> "Illinois already had a law on its books from 1975 that said if a doctor
> suspected an abortion was scheduled for a viable fetus — meaning able to
> survive outside of the mother's body — then the child must receive
> medical care if it survives the abortion. "
>
> I find it difficult to fathom such a barbaric and utter disregard for
> human life. Abortion scheduled for a viable fetus?!

It is possible the woman would die or suffer some grievous harm (e.g.,
be disabled or not be able to have children) otherwise.

> Abortion is murder. Plain and simple. It is the most reprehensible
> form of murder that exists!

How should the woman be punished for hiring a doctor to murder?

[Peter Franks]

Are we talking about those situations? I thought the legislation
applied universally.

>> Abortion is murder. Plain and simple. It is the most reprehensible
>> form of murder that exists!
>
> 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.

[Josh]

It does - but other legislation restricts when post-viable abortions are
permitted. So, taken together the law greatly restricts when
post-viable abortions can occur at all, and requires that the fetus be
saved if at all possible in those few cases where the abortion is
allowed in the first place.

>>> Abortion is murder. Plain and simple. It is the most reprehensible
>>> form of murder that exists!
>>
>> 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!

[Peter Franks]

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.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

I wonder if we should allow all puppy owners to kill their puppy "if
they feel like it"?


A woman chooses to kill her 5 year old, and in that millisecond that she
drives the car into the lake, she gets prison for life.



Why do we do that to them?


They all tell you the child is better off now than before.



When women start making those decisions, it never ends.....


5 weeks 5 years or 5 milliseconds, dead is always dead, and life "well"
it's NOT dead.


--

*Rumination*
#50 - Negotiating with Liberals is like trying to negotiate with a
serial child molester, you have to ask where is middle ground with a
child molester, will you allow them 100 free molestings before they pay
the penalty? Where is middle ground with abortion, do the Liberals
just kill the dark ones or the dumb ones or the ugly ones in the uterus?
Isn't all violence against children inside a uterus and outside equally
disgusting and sick?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

That sounds like a medical problem NOT a moral problem..... Politicians
are NOT doctors, but the doctors are NOT executioners either so, they
should each do their own job.

The doctor is an advocate for life and the politicians are an advocate
for individual RIGHTS.

[Peter Franks]

On 8/29/2012 7:09 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> That sounds like a medical problem NOT a moral problem..... Politicians
> are NOT doctors, but the doctors are NOT executioners either so, they
> should each do their own job.
>
> The doctor is an advocate for life and the politicians are an advocate
> for individual RIGHTS.

It is really quite a simple question: is the fetus alive?

[Josh]

On 8/29/2012 9:34 PM, Peter Franks wrote:

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.

[Peter Franks]

So, you are rewriting "right to life" to "right to personhood".

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?

[Peter Franks]

On 8/29/2012 11:56 PM, Josh wrote:

So I guess that you are now against endangered species protections,
wetland protections, etc. They ALL affect my liberty on my various
properties, and endangered species and wetlands are most DEFINITELY non
persons.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

And no Liberal will admit that life is human and alive in a uterus.

They kill a human life. I have no religion and don't care why a life
is saved, just that evil people will kill another human, when it's
avoidable.

By convincing the poor to abort their babies, aren't Liberals just
killing Democrat voters, given that Liberals believe that no poor ever
work hard and get wealthy. If the economic strata are fixed and we don't
see poor getting rich and rich getting poor as Liberals believe, then
they are targeting the poor and only the poor babies in the uterus.



*Rumination*
#13 - Being Liberal means, never knowing that, you are your own worst enemy.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

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.

> 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. 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.

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? Ditto for 5
milliseconds after conception?

[Peter Franks]

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?

[Peter Franks]

On 8/30/2012 12:19 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 8/30/2012 12:42 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
>> On 8/29/2012 7:09 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> That sounds like a medical problem NOT a moral problem..... Politicians
>>> are NOT doctors, but the doctors are NOT executioners either so, they
>>> should each do their own job.
>>>
>>> The doctor is an advocate for life and the politicians are an advocate
>>> for individual RIGHTS.
>>
>> It is really quite a simple question: is the fetus alive?
>
> And no Liberal will admit that life is human and alive in a uterus.

But they have to accept that it is alive. They can't possibly argue
otherwise.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

They say the baby is a cancer blob... NOT a human life.


It's like cutting out their heart and calling it a hang nail.


But you have to start from the fact that Liberals lie, they don't
respect reality.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

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?

[Peter Franks]

For me: brainwaves is the indicator.

[Peter Franks]

On 8/30/2012 1:57 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 8/30/2012 4:36 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>> On 8/30/2012 12:19 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On 8/30/2012 12:42 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
>>>> On 8/29/2012 7:09 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>> That sounds like a medical problem NOT a moral problem.....
>>>>> Politicians
>>>>> are NOT doctors, but the doctors are NOT executioners either so, they
>>>>> should each do their own job.
>>>>>
>>>>> The doctor is an advocate for life and the politicians are an advocate
>>>>> for individual RIGHTS.
>>>>
>>>> It is really quite a simple question: is the fetus alive?
>>>
>>> And no Liberal will admit that life is human and alive in a uterus.
>>
>> But they have to accept that it is alive. They can't possibly argue
>> otherwise.
>>
> They say the baby is a cancer blob... NOT a human life.

Ignoring the creation of liberals, have you ever seen a cancer blob turn
into a person? I haven't. Have you ever seen a fetus turn into a
person? I have. There is obviously something different, and it takes 2
brain cells to determine that.

> It's like cutting out their heart and calling it a hang nail.
>
>
> But you have to start from the fact that Liberals lie, they don't
> respect reality.

They don't call it lying. There is just no right and wrong.

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Those extreme Conservative Republicans

Group: alt.politics.usa.constitution Date: Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 2:41pm
(EDT-3) From: no...@none.com (Peter Franks)

==============================

Not really; a Canadian doctor once wired up a bowl of lime Jell-O and
got brainwaves.

--
"We the unwilling, led by the unknowing, doing the unnoticed for the
ungrateful, have done so much for so long with so little that we can now
do almost anything with virtually nothing."--

Unknown

[Peter Franks]

On 8/30/2012 3:26 PM, Padraigh ProAmerica wrote:
> For me: brainwaves is the indicator.
>
> ==============================
>
> Not really; a Canadian doctor once wired up a bowl of lime Jell-O and
> got brainwaves.

Figures they'd find that. They have socialized medicine.

[Josh]

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!

OK. The protection of the right to life is greater for persons than
non-persons. That is, when there is a competing right the non-person
may lose when the person wins.

>>> 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!

She has *chosen* to carry it to term. That choice - one way or the
other - is an exercise in liberty.

> 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?

Huh?

>> 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.

[Peter Franks]

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?

>>> 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?

[Josh]

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.

>>>> 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.

[Peter Franks]

On 8/31/2012 4:30 AM, Josh wrote:
> 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?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On Aug 31, 11:45 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> On 8/31/2012 4:30 AM, Josh wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.

[Peter Franks]

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.

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.

[Peter Franks]

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?

> 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?

[Josh]

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?

> 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.

Sounds like conflict to me.

[Josh]

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.

>> 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.

[Peter Franks]

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.

>> 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.
>
> Sounds like conflict to me.

Why is it conflict? Does your property line imply conflict with your
neighbor?

[Peter Franks]

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.

>>>> 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.

[Blame It On Bush]

If he had wired a turd it would have had more brain waves than most
Canadian doctors.....

[Josh]

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.

[Josh]

On 9/2/2012 12:11 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
> 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?

[Info Junkie]

Answering a question with a question is not an answer

[Info Junkie]

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.

[Josh]

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.

> 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.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 9/2/2012 9:57 AM, 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.

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.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

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.

[Info Junkie]

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
>
> zygote/blastocyst/embryo/non-viable fetus/viable fetus.

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.

[Josh]

> 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?

[Info Junkie]

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):

[Josh]

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. 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.

Your turn to answer my questions.

[Info Junkie]

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

> Your turn to answer my questions.

Done

[Info Junkie]

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.

[Josh]

On 9/3/2012 8:58 AM, Info Junkie wrote:
> 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).

>> 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.

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.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

> 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.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 9/2/2012 7:19 PM, Info Junkie wrote:

> 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?

The woman is already a slave to ObamaCare so there is NO change in status.

--

*Rumination*
#43 - ObamaCare is slavery and that violates the 13th Amendment.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,.... shall exist within the
United States...

[Info Junkie]

On Monday, September 3, 2012 11:39:48 AM UTC-4, Josh wrote:
> On 9/3/2012 8:58 AM, Info Junkie wrote:
>
> > 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).

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, there should be no disagreement that women have medical procedures available to them to alter their ability to conceive.

I suspect our (and Peter’s with you) disagreement is two-fold:
1. Medical procedures
a. Pre-conception vs post conception
b. Who foots the bill

2. Motivation
a. Purpose.
b. Life of the child
c. Involvement of the father

> >> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.

I admitted it was poor analogy  but it remains a viable one. To address your points:
1. If a fetus is NOT a person, why do…
a. Drs Gordon, de Mere and Lejeune (below) disagree with that claim?
b. A “least 38 states have fetal homicide laws”?
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

2. Driving is not as strong an “exercise of liberty” as abortion? According to…?

> If I felt the fetus was a person, then I would agree with you.

Once again I'll remind you of those far more qualified that disagree with your flawed opinion:
“…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

> 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.

A medical procedure for abortion serves only to absolve the responsibility of one becoming a mother. It does so by destroying life while ignoring and responsibilities (and possible wishes) of the father.

A “controlling a medical procedure on your own body” would be to remove/treat an unnatural growth/disease or add tattoos. Neither of which involves destroying the life of another.

>
> >> 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.

ROTFLMHO. It’s because non-proscribed drugs* are ILLEGAL and abortion (currently) is NOT illegal…wit the latter based on a judicial fiat.
*Excluding OTC drugs

> > *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.

Just as you didn’t “directly answer the question” posed to you:

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?

Follow-up to a previous question:
Between conception and birth, what "liberty right" was lost to where the woman could no longer enjoy social, political, or economic rights and privileges?

Once answered, I’ll be happy to address your two-part request regarding punishment of a woman.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On Sep 4, 8:19 am, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, September 3, 2012 11:39:48 AM UTC-4, Josh wrote:

{snip}

>
> 1. If a fetus is NOT a person, why do…
>    a. Drs Gordon, de Mere and Lejeune (below) disagree with that claim?

>    b. A “least 38 states have fetal homicide laws”?http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws....

When personhood begins (which is not the same as when life begins)
isn't a medically objective standard in my view (when life begins is
medically objective), so I don't give credence to your links that
argue personhood is objectively determined (some of your links speak
of "life" which I agree with).

Different states have different definitions. Some define the fetus as
a person from conception, some during the pregnancy, some not at all.
Just like with us, there is disagreement.

> 2. Driving is not as strong an “exercise of liberty” as abortion? According to…?

... my opinion (again, we will have to agree to disagree).

{snip}

> > 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.
>
> Just as you didn’t “directly answer the question” posed to you:
> 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?
>
> Follow-up to a previous question:
> Between conception and birth, what "liberty right" was lost to where the woman  could no longer enjoy social, political, or economic rights and privileges?

Perhaps you didn't understand my answer. I will try again. The woman
never loses a "liberty right" as *you* define it (enjoying social,
political, or economic rights and privileges) - that is your direct
answer to both questions.

But, we don't define "liberty rights" the same way. To me, "liberty
rights" include controlling medical procedures on your own body
including abortion (again we simply disagree).

> Once answered, I’ll be happy to address your two-part request regarding punishment of a woman.

Please, go ahead.

[Peter Franks]

Yes, my view is that brainwaves indicate life.

> 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.

I find abortion objectionable at any time. I feel that aborting a fetus
with brainwaves is equivalent to premeditated murder.

> 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.

Compulsion is repugnant in any form.

[Peter Franks]

On 9/2/2012 5:40 AM, Josh wrote:
> On 9/2/2012 12:11 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
>> 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.

Liberty is not freedom to do what you want when you want. Individually,
it is bounded and influenced by choice and consequence.

She made the choice to engage in consensual sex. If that results in
conception, whether desired or not, she has to accept that consequence.
Part of that consequence does in fact impact her liberty.

You are advocating that she DOES NOT have to accept the consequence of
her choices. You advocate irresponsibility.

>>>> "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?

Then you resolve through equity. Not conflict. Well, that is unless
you are the warring type. Are you?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

No. But regarding abortion, I don't see an equitable solution.

If you assume (as you do, but I don't) the woman has forfeited her
liberty by choosing to have sex, then there is no rightful liberty in
the first place - so the issue doesn't arise at all. If instead we
assume she hasn't forfeited her liberty, what is the equitable
solution?

[Peter Franks]

On 9/4/2012 9:56 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On Sep 4, 11:36 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> On 9/2/2012 5:40 AM, Josh wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> "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?
>>
>> Then you resolve through equity. Not conflict. Well, that is unless
>> you are the warring type. Are you?
>
> No. But regarding abortion, I don't see an equitable solution.
>
> If you assume (as you do, but I don't) the woman has forfeited her
> liberty by choosing to have sex

First off, do you understand that choice has consequence?

She made a choice. There are consequences.

Second, she hasn't forfeit anything. Her liberty has been /limited/,
not forfeit.

>, then there is no rightful liberty in

> the first place- so the issue doesn't arise at all. If instead we

> assume she hasn't forfeited her liberty, what is the equitable
> solution?

Equitable solution is that she accepts responsibility for her choices
(i.e. consequences) and the fetus lives.

Her liberty is limited.

The baby's is born into an irresponsible family.

They both have consequences to deal with.

Execution isn't a choice any more than I can execute you if I decide
that the terms of our contract are no longer desirable to me.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On Sep 4, 1:28 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 9:56 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>
>
> > On Sep 4, 11:36 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >> On 9/2/2012 5:40 AM, Josh wrote:
>
> >>>>>> "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?
>
> >> Then you resolve through equity.  Not conflict.  Well, that is unless
> >> you are the warring type.  Are you?
>
> > No.  But regarding abortion, I don't see an equitable solution.
>
> > If you assume (as you do, but I don't) the woman has forfeited her
> > liberty by choosing to have sex
>
> First off, do you understand that choice has consequence?
>
> She made a choice.  There are consequences.
>
> Second, she hasn't forfeit anything.  Her liberty has been /limited/,
> not forfeit.

We disagree that her choice to have sex should limit her liberty prior
to fetal viability.

> >, then there is no rightful liberty in
> > the first place- so the issue doesn't arise at all.  If instead we
> > assume she hasn't forfeited her liberty, what is the equitable
> > solution?
>
> Equitable solution is that she accepts responsibility for her choices
> (i.e. consequences) and the fetus lives.
>
> Her liberty is limited.
>
> The baby's is born into an irresponsible family.
>
> They both have consequences to deal with.

And we also disagree as to that being an equitable solution.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 9/4/2012 12:56 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On Sep 4, 11:36 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> On 9/2/2012 5:40 AM, Josh wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> "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?
>>
>> Then you resolve through equity. Not conflict. Well, that is unless
>> you are the warring type. Are you?
>
> No. But regarding abortion, I don't see an equitable solution.
>

When in doubt, DON'T.

[Peter Franks]

She can acquire any number of STDs as a consequence of (casual)
consensual sex. Those all limit her liberty and happiness. Or do you
disagree.

>>> , then there is no rightful liberty in
>>> the first place- so the issue doesn't arise at all. If instead we
>>> assume she hasn't forfeited her liberty, what is the equitable
>>> solution?
>>
>> Equitable solution is that she accepts responsibility for her choices
>> (i.e. consequences) and the fetus lives.
>>
>> Her liberty is limited.
>>
>> The baby's is born into an irresponsible family.
>>
>> They both have consequences to deal with.
>
> And we also disagree as to that being an equitable solution.

It is equitable. Both parties are somewhat impacted by the choice of
one. OK.

Your equitable solution is this: an innocent and uninvolved party is
summarily executed so that the other guilty and involved party can
abdicate their responsibility.

Does that sum up your idea of equity here?

[Peter Franks]

That's the conservative approach.

The liberal approach is the polar opposite.

[Peter Franks]

On 9/2/2012 5:32 AM, Josh wrote:
> What is your view regarding after conception and before implantation?

It is morally and socially reprehensible.

In terms of legality, I think that an equitable solution can be found
that is well defined in terms of (sentient) life in general.

Define: when does life end (e.g. absence of brainwaves). The opposite
then defines when life starts (e.g. presence of brainwaves). The laws
protecting the right to life can then be clearly and precisely applied.

[Peter Franks]

On 9/2/2012 8:40 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 9/2/2012 9:57 AM, 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.
>
> 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.

Arbitrary decision.

> 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.

Correct.

> 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.

Yep. Although I'd prefer that stick over getting ripped to shreds in a
bloody mess and then thrown in the nearest garbage can.

[Peter Franks]

On 9/3/2012 5:03 AM, Josh wrote:
> 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.

Viability is relative to technology, and therefore really has no place
in an absolute discussion.

I presume you will disagree.

So then when it becomes possible, technologically, to take a test-tube
baby to term outside of a uterus, you are then at a point where
viability is at the moment of fertilization. Will you view on abortion,
life, and liberty suddenly change at that point?

[Peter Franks]

On 9/4/2012 8:04 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> But, we don't define "liberty rights" the same way. To me, "liberty
> rights" include controlling medical procedures on your own body
> including abortion (again we simply disagree).

There is no disagreement. You are being disingenuous. The procedure is
being performed on her body and the body of another individual.

She still has every liberty to have procedures on her body (e.g. mole
removal), however she NEVER has liberty to force procedures on the body
of another.

Or do you think that the procedure is only on her body?

[Josh]

She can choose amongst medical procedures, so her liberty in that regard
is not limited.

>>>> , then there is no rightful liberty in
>>>> the first place- so the issue doesn't arise at all. If instead we
>>>> assume she hasn't forfeited her liberty, what is the equitable
>>>> solution?
>>>
>>> Equitable solution is that she accepts responsibility for her choices
>>> (i.e. consequences) and the fetus lives.
>>>
>>> Her liberty is limited.
>>>
>>> The baby's is born into an irresponsible family.
>>>
>>> They both have consequences to deal with.
>>
>> And we also disagree as to that being an equitable solution.
>
> It is equitable. Both parties are somewhat impacted by the choice of
> one. OK.
>
> Your equitable solution is this: an innocent and uninvolved party is
> summarily executed so that the other guilty and involved party can
> abdicate their responsibility.
>
> Does that sum up your idea of equity here?

No. I have argued there is no equitable solution.

[Josh]

Yes. A woman can still exercise her liberty to terminate a pregnancy so
long as she makes sure technology keeps the baby alive (and it is a baby
once it is outside her body).

[Josh]

On 9/4/2012 6:28 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 8:04 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> But, we don't define "liberty rights" the same way. To me, "liberty
>> rights" include controlling medical procedures on your own body
>> including abortion (again we simply disagree).
>
> There is no disagreement. You are being disingenuous.

The "you" I am referring to above is Info Junkie not Peter Franks.

> The procedure is
> being performed on her body and the body of another individual.
>
> She still has every liberty to have procedures on her body (e.g. mole
> removal), however she NEVER has liberty to force procedures on the body
> of another.
>
> Or do you think that the procedure is only on her body?

I find it frustrating that you still don't know what my argument is. It
is a procedure on a person (the woman) and a life that is not a person
(fetus). In my view, she does have the liberty to force a procedure on
the body of a non-person if that is necessary to choosingh a procedure
on herself.

[Josh]

So, it's life in prison for the woman after brain waves (about 6 weeks).
And before that, should abortion be legal in your view?

[Info Junkie]

On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:04:02 AM UTC-4, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On Sep 4, 8:19 am, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, September 3, 2012 11:39:48 AM UTC-4, Josh wrote:
>
> {snip}
>
> >
>
> > 1. If a fetus is NOT a person, why do…
>
> > a. Drs Gordon, de Mere and Lejeune (below) disagree with that claim?
>
> > b. A “least 38 states have fetal homicide laws”?http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws....
>
>
>
> When personhood begins (which is not the same as when life begins)
> isn't a medically objective standard in my view (when life begins is
> medically objective), so I don't give credence to your links that
> argue personhood is objectively determined (some of your links speak
> of "life" which I agree with).

You snipped the words of “Dr. McCarthy de Mere, a medical doctor and law professor at the University of Tennessee (when he) , testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

I suspect more people would trust his expertise of the subject over your opinion of a woman's inconvenienced state of pregnancy.

> Different states have different definitions. Some define the fetus as
> a person from conception, some during the pregnancy, some not at all.
> Just like with us, there is disagreement.

While there remains some disagreement, the majority of those states “have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization").

> > 2. Driving is not as strong an “exercise of liberty” as abortion? According to…?
>
> ... my opinion (again, we will have to agree to disagree).

…and unlike those having abortions, millions of people drive every day, acting responsibly for their actions and accepting the consequences if they act irresponsibly while driving.

Tell you what, tell the American citizenry they can:
1. Have abortions at any stage of pregnancy
OR
2. No longer drive their cars.

Let us know if the American citizenry think driving is not as strong an “exercise of liberty” as abortion, eh? LOL

> {snip}
>
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> >
>
> > Just as you didn’t “directly answer the question” posed to you:
>
> > 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?
>
> >
>
> > Follow-up to a previous question:
>
> > Between conception and birth, what "liberty right" was lost to where the woman could no longer enjoy social, political, or economic rights and privileges?
>
>
>
> Perhaps you didn't understand my answer. I will try again. The woman
>
> never loses a "liberty right" as *you* define it (enjoying social,
>
> political, or economic rights and privileges) - that is your direct
>
> answer to both questions.
>
> But, we don't define "liberty rights" the same way. To me, "liberty
>
> rights" include controlling medical procedures on your own body
>
> including abortion (again we simply disagree).

You stated you believe a pregnancy somehow restricts a woman's “liberty right” What “restrictions” prevent her from positively enjoying social, political, or economic rights and privileges?

FWIW, this is not MY definition, but a dictionary definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberty (1d)

What you want is the definition from 1a, Except that definition ONLY affects the individual and no others.

Again, medical procedures are available PRIOR to the killing of another life. Why the need to avoid responsibility for the life of another over the woman’s personal convenience?

> > Once answered, I’ll be happy to address your two-part request regarding punishment of a woman.
>
>
>
> Please, go ahead.

Noted is you’ve snipped several parts of my post in an effort to dismiss them.

The answer to your two-part request is yes.

Unfortunately you left out the part of when RESPONSIBLE adults “uses a device or drug that” PREVENTS an egg from BECOMING fertilized.

[Peter Franks]

On 9/4/2012 3:56 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>> Equitable solution is that she accepts responsibility for her choices
>>>> (i.e. consequences) and the fetus lives.
>>>>
>>>> Her liberty is limited.
>>>>
>>>> The baby's is born into an irresponsible family.
>>>>
>>>> They both have consequences to deal with.
>>>
>>> And we also disagree as to that being an equitable solution.
>>
>> It is equitable. Both parties are somewhat impacted by the choice of
>> one. OK.
>>
>> Your equitable solution is this: an innocent and uninvolved party is
>> summarily executed so that the other guilty and involved party can
>> abdicate their responsibility.
>>
>> Does that sum up your idea of equity here?
>
> No. I have argued there is no equitable solution.

You have /said/ there is no equitable solution, you haven't argued it
though. Now is your chance.

Next explain how my solution isn't equitable (fair).

[Peter Franks]

On 9/4/2012 4:01 PM, Josh wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 6:28 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>> On 9/4/2012 8:04 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> But, we don't define "liberty rights" the same way. To me, "liberty
>>> rights" include controlling medical procedures on your own body
>>> including abortion (again we simply disagree).
>>
>> There is no disagreement. You are being disingenuous.
>
> The "you" I am referring to above is Info Junkie not Peter Franks.
>
>> The procedure is
>> being performed on her body and the body of another individual.
>>
>> She still has every liberty to have procedures on her body (e.g. mole
>> removal), however she NEVER has liberty to force procedures on the body
>> of another.
>>
>> Or do you think that the procedure is only on her body?
>
> I find it frustrating that you still don't know what my argument is.

I know what your argument is, you just don't like looking at the
totality. You are picking and choosing what to examine and then use
arbitrary definitions to support your claim.

I find it frustrating how someone that is as intelligent as you has to
resort to arbitrary relativism to justify your position. But we've come
to this conclusion before, you argue from a relative standpoint, I argue
from an absolute one.

> It
> is a procedure on a person (the woman) and a life that is not a person
> (fetus).

Person: A living human being. (AHD 3rd ed.)

We've previously agreed that a fetus is alive.

A fetus is clearly human.

And a being is the "state or quality of having existence" (AHD 3rd ed.)
of which the fetus certainly has.

Therefore the logical conclusion is that a fetus IS a person as defined.
Your conclusion, however, differs on this one salient and oft used
point: it isn't a /legal/ person. As such, it isn't therefore subject
to legal protections (read: open season). In your view, someone defines
the term to be whatever they arbitrarily choose. In my view, the
fundamental terms are logically defined and then /applied/ to reality.

> In my view, she does have the liberty to force a procedure on
> the body of a non-person if that is necessary to choosingh a procedure
> on herself.

Not necessary, nor proper. Does she still have that liberty to force
the procedure on another?

[Josh]

What constitutes being a person is a matter of great controversy in both
law and ethics (as demonstrated in this debate).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

> We've previously agreed that a fetus is alive.
>
> A fetus is clearly human.
>
> And a being is the "state or quality of having existence" (AHD 3rd ed.)
> of which the fetus certainly has.
>
> Therefore the logical conclusion is that a fetus IS a person as defined.
> Your conclusion, however, differs on this one salient and oft used
> point: it isn't a /legal/ person. As such, it isn't therefore subject
> to legal protections (read: open season). In your view, someone defines
> the term to be whatever they arbitrarily choose. In my view, the
> fundamental terms are logically defined and then /applied/ to reality.
>
>> In my view, she does have the liberty to force a procedure on
>> the body of a non-person if that is necessary to choosingh a procedure
>> on herself.
>
> Not necessary, nor proper. Does she still have that liberty to force
> the procedure on another?

I disagree with your premise that it is not necessary or proper. That's
for her to decide.

[Josh]

The woman gets nothing of what she wanted. The fetus gets something.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

And when you have a controversy the best thing is to murder the subject
of that controversy.

[Peter Franks]

She wanted sex and got it.

[Peter Franks]

Really? Why is that? Seriously, why should there be ANY controversy
over what defines a person. The ONLY people that make this
controversial are those that have NO concept of consequence, and no
desire to accept responsibility.

If you understand choice, consequence, and are responsible, there is no
controversy. Period.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person
>
>> We've previously agreed that a fetus is alive.
>>
>> A fetus is clearly human.
>>
>> And a being is the "state or quality of having existence" (AHD 3rd ed.)
>> of which the fetus certainly has.
>>
>> Therefore the logical conclusion is that a fetus IS a person as defined.
>> Your conclusion, however, differs on this one salient and oft used
>> point: it isn't a /legal/ person. As such, it isn't therefore subject
>> to legal protections (read: open season). In your view, someone defines
>> the term to be whatever they arbitrarily choose. In my view, the
>> fundamental terms are logically defined and then /applied/ to reality.
>>
>>> In my view, she does have the liberty to force a procedure on
>>> the body of a non-person if that is necessary to choosingh a procedure
>>> on herself.
>>
>> Not necessary, nor proper. Does she still have that liberty to force
>> the procedure on another?
>
> I disagree with your premise that it is not necessary or proper. That's
> for her to decide.

Can I infer then that you believe that exclusively congress decides what
is necessary and proper for legislative issues?

How about this: is it within her exclusive purview to commit suicide?

Or this: how come it isn't within my necessary and proper powers to be
able to decide what I want to do w/ the low-lying areas in the back 40?
(hint: navigable waters)? Obviously you have a say in what I can do w/
some dirt, but I have no say in the execution of a fetus? You obviously
believe that dirt is more valuable than human life. Or you are a
hypocrite. Or your model is a jumbled incomprehensible mess. You
choose, but let me know, OK?

[Peter Franks]

On 9/4/2012 3:59 PM, Josh wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 6:24 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>> On 9/3/2012 5:03 AM, Josh wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Viability is relative to technology, and therefore really has no place
>> in an absolute discussion.
>>
>> I presume you will disagree.
>>
>> So then when it becomes possible, technologically, to take a test-tube
>> baby to term outside of a uterus, you are then at a point where
>> viability is at the moment of fertilization. Will you view on abortion,
>> life, and liberty suddenly change at that point?
>
> Yes.

So rights are based on technology, according to your model?

> A woman can still exercise her liberty to terminate a pregnancy so
> long as she makes sure technology keeps the baby alive (and it is a baby
> once it is outside her body).

So IVF creates a baby that is then implanted?

[Peter Franks]

I'm for capital punishment for cases of murder.

> And before that, should abortion be legal in your view?

My view is crystal clear (It is morally and socially reprehensible).

I think that an equitable solution CAN be found between those that value
human life and those that don't. I mentioned one possible solution.

What are you getting at?

[Peter Franks]

Well you have to admit that ends the controversy.

[Josh]

On 9/5/2012 9:04 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 7:50 PM, Josh wrote:
>> On 9/4/2012 8:57 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>>>
>>>> In my view, she does have the liberty to force a procedure on
>>>> the body of a non-person if that is necessary to choosingh a procedure
>>>> on herself.
>>>
>>> Not necessary, nor proper. Does she still have that liberty to force
>>> the procedure on another?
>>
>> I disagree with your premise that it is not necessary or proper. That's
>> for her to decide.
>
> Can I infer then that you believe that exclusively congress decides what
> is necessary and proper for legislative issues?

That's a switch. We weren't debating court rulings or the Constitution
for once. We were debating our opinions on abortion.

> How about this: is it within her exclusive purview to commit suicide?
>
> Or this: how come it isn't within my necessary and proper powers to be
> able to decide what I want to do w/ the low-lying areas in the back 40?
> (hint: navigable waters)? Obviously you have a say in what I can do w/
> some dirt, but I have no say in the execution of a fetus? You obviously
> believe that dirt is more valuable than human life. Or you are a
> hypocrite. Or your model is a jumbled incomprehensible mess. You
> choose, but let me know, OK?

Once again, you have misrepresented my argument even though I have
presented it multiple times.

[Josh]

On 9/5/2012 9:07 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 3:59 PM, Josh wrote:
>> On 9/4/2012 6:24 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2012 5:03 AM, Josh wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Viability is relative to technology, and therefore really has no place
>>> in an absolute discussion.
>>>
>>> I presume you will disagree.
>>>
>>> So then when it becomes possible, technologically, to take a test-tube
>>> baby to term outside of a uterus, you are then at a point where
>>> viability is at the moment of fertilization. Will you view on abortion,
>>> life, and liberty suddenly change at that point?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> So rights are based on technology, according to your model?

Who prevails in the conflict between rights depends on technology in
this case because the woman gets to exercise her liberty without killing
the fetus (indeed, technology might some day get us to this truly fair
result).

>> A woman can still exercise her liberty to terminate a pregnancy so
>> long as she makes sure technology keeps the baby alive (and it is a baby
>> once it is outside her body).
>
> So IVF creates a baby that is then implanted?

I'm not following your point.

[Josh]

On 9/5/2012 9:12 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 4:03 PM, Josh wrote:
>> On 9/4/2012 6:17 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>>> On 9/2/2012 5:32 AM, Josh wrote:
>>>> What is your view regarding after conception and before implantation?
>>>
>>> It is morally and socially reprehensible.
>>>
>>> In terms of legality, I think that an equitable solution can be found
>>> that is well defined in terms of (sentient) life in general.
>>>
>>> Define: when does life end (e.g. absence of brainwaves). The opposite
>>> then defines when life starts (e.g. presence of brainwaves). The laws
>>> protecting the right to life can then be clearly and precisely applied.
>>
>> So, it's life in prison for the woman after brain waves (about 6 weeks).
>
> I'm for capital punishment for cases of murder.
>
>> And before that, should abortion be legal in your view?

Wow! The death penalty for a woman who gets an abortion after 6 weeks.

> My view is crystal clear (It is morally and socially reprehensible).
>
> I think that an equitable solution CAN be found between those that value
> human life and those that don't. I mentioned one possible solution.
>
> What are you getting at?

I am trying to understand what you think the law should be. Your
equitable solution did not permit the woman to have an abortion. So,
does that mean abortion should be illegal prior to brain waves? And if
so, what should the woman's punishment be in that case for having an
abortion?

[Josh]

On 9/5/2012 10:35 PM, Josh wrote:
>>> A woman can still exercise her liberty to terminate a pregnancy so
>>> long as she makes sure technology keeps the baby alive (and it is a baby
>>> once it is outside her body).
>>
>> So IVF creates a baby that is then implanted?
>
> I'm not following your point.

I reread this morning and now get your point. It's a baby (i.e., a
person) when it is viable outside the womb. So, no for IVF - but
*potentially* yes if technology changes.

[Peter Franks]

IVF is outside her body. Therefore, according to your rule, IVF creates
a baby that is then implanted.

What's magical about being inside or outside the body that creates a
person/baby?

[Peter Franks]

So, your definition of baby (and therefore inferring person) is
dependent on technology.

You don't see a problem with that?

[Peter Franks]

On 9/5/2012 7:38 PM, Josh wrote:
> On 9/5/2012 9:12 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>> On 9/4/2012 4:03 PM, Josh wrote:
>>> On 9/4/2012 6:17 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>>>> On 9/2/2012 5:32 AM, Josh wrote:
>>>>> What is your view regarding after conception and before implantation?
>>>>
>>>> It is morally and socially reprehensible.
>>>>
>>>> In terms of legality, I think that an equitable solution can be found
>>>> that is well defined in terms of (sentient) life in general.
>>>>
>>>> Define: when does life end (e.g. absence of brainwaves). The opposite
>>>> then defines when life starts (e.g. presence of brainwaves). The laws
>>>> protecting the right to life can then be clearly and precisely applied.
>>>
>>> So, it's life in prison for the woman after brain waves (about 6 weeks).
>>
>> I'm for capital punishment for cases of murder.
>>
>>> And before that, should abortion be legal in your view?
>
> Wow! The death penalty for a woman who gets an abortion after 6 weeks.

The death penalty for a woman that commits murder. If abortion after 6
weeks is murder, then you connect the dots.

You do understand that an innocent, even the most innocent of all life
is being summarily executed here, right? That doesn't appear to faze
you in the least. Wow at that, my good friend.

>> My view is crystal clear (It is morally and socially reprehensible).
>>
>> I think that an equitable solution CAN be found between those that value
>> human life and those that don't. I mentioned one possible solution.
>>
>> What are you getting at?
>
> I am trying to understand what you think the law should be.

I think that the law should be that any procedure that terminates an
implanted embryo (certain cases excepted) should be prohibited.

Unfortunately far too many in our society and world do not value
precious life, and such a law will be the source of too much contention
and strife.

Therefore I'd counter that an equitable solution would be to prohibit
any procedure that terminates a live being (definition of what qualifies
as live TBD, but I've posited one).

> Your
> equitable solution did not permit the woman to have an abortion.

Wrong. The equitable solution allows for abortion prior to human life.

> So,
> does that mean abortion should be illegal prior to brain waves?

No.

> And if
> so, what should the woman's punishment be in that case for having an
> abortion?

Clear?

[Peter Franks]

On 9/5/2012 7:32 PM, Josh wrote:
> On 9/5/2012 9:04 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>> On 9/4/2012 7:50 PM, Josh wrote:
>>> On 9/4/2012 8:57 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In my view, she does have the liberty to force a procedure on
>>>>> the body of a non-person if that is necessary to choosingh a procedure
>>>>> on herself.
>>>>
>>>> Not necessary, nor proper. Does she still have that liberty to force
>>>> the procedure on another?
>>>
>>> I disagree with your premise that it is not necessary or proper. That's
>>> for her to decide.
>>
>> Can I infer then that you believe that exclusively congress decides what
>> is necessary and proper for legislative issues?
>
> That's a switch. We weren't debating court rulings or the Constitution
> for once. We were debating our opinions on abortion.

Necessary and Proper bro. There can be a unified model here. After
all, the constitution shouldn't be novel, but rather a application of
everyday life and respect, generalized.

>> How about this: is it within her exclusive purview to commit suicide?
>>
>> Or this: how come it isn't within my necessary and proper powers to be
>> able to decide what I want to do w/ the low-lying areas in the back 40?
>> (hint: navigable waters)? Obviously you have a say in what I can do w/
>> some dirt, but I have no say in the execution of a fetus? You obviously
>> believe that dirt is more valuable than human life. Or you are a
>> hypocrite. Or your model is a jumbled incomprehensible mess. You
>> choose, but let me know, OK?
>
> Once again, you have misrepresented my argument even though I have
> presented it multiple times.

No, not misrepresenting. Presenting. You value dirt above human life.
That's your prerogative, but at least come clean.

[Josh]

Nope.

[Josh]

You said "the law should be that any procedure that terminates an
implanted embryo should be prohibited," but also that abortion should be
legal prior to brain waves. That sounds contradictory.

[Josh]

On 9/6/2012 8:39 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>>> Or this: how come it isn't within my necessary and proper powers to be
>>> able to decide what I want to do w/ the low-lying areas in the back 40?
>>> (hint: navigable waters)? Obviously you have a say in what I can do w/
>>> some dirt, but I have no say in the execution of a fetus? You obviously
>>> believe that dirt is more valuable than human life. Or you are a
>>> hypocrite. Or your model is a jumbled incomprehensible mess. You
>>> choose, but let me know, OK?
>>
>> Once again, you have misrepresented my argument even though I have
>> presented it multiple times.
>
> No, not misrepresenting. Presenting. You value dirt above human life.
> That's your prerogative, but at least come clean.

No, that is not my argument which is that controlling medical decisions
over your own body is more valuable than what you want to do with
low-lying areas. My pecking order is:

1) controlling medical decisions over your own body
2) the life of a non-person
3) protecting the environment (dirt)
4) doing what you want with low-lying areas

Please do not present anymore distortions of my argument.

[Info Junkie]

On Thursday, September 6, 2012 9:48:39 PM UTC-4, Josh wrote:
> On 9/6/2012 8:39 PM, Peter Franks wrote:

(snip)

> > No, not misrepresenting. Presenting. You value dirt above human life.
>
> > That's your prerogative, but at least come clean.
>
>
>
> No, that is not my argument which is that controlling medical decisions
>
> over your own body is more valuable than what you want to do with
>
> low-lying areas. My pecking order is:
>
>
>
> 1) controlling medical decisions over your own body

Seems a new study shows an increased risk for women that choose to use your "controlling medical decision", e.g., death by abortion:

Risk of death increases after abortion: Danish study
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/risk-of-death-increases-after-abortion-danish-study

So for living beings, you're not just ok with the death of unborn, you're also ok with the increased risk of death for women as well?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 9/6/2012 8:37 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
> On 9/5/2012 7:38 PM, Josh wrote:
>> On 9/5/2012 9:12 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>>> On 9/4/2012 4:03 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>> On 9/4/2012 6:17 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>>>>> On 9/2/2012 5:32 AM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>> What is your view regarding after conception and before implantation?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is morally and socially reprehensible.
>>>>>
>>>>> In terms of legality, I think that an equitable solution can be found
>>>>> that is well defined in terms of (sentient) life in general.
>>>>>
>>>>> Define: when does life end (e.g. absence of brainwaves). The opposite
>>>>> then defines when life starts (e.g. presence of brainwaves). The laws
>>>>> protecting the right to life can then be clearly and precisely
>>>>> applied.
>>>>
>>>> So, it's life in prison for the woman after brain waves (about 6
>>>> weeks).
>>>
>>> I'm for capital punishment for cases of murder.
>>>
>>>> And before that, should abortion be legal in your view?
>>
>> Wow! The death penalty for a woman who gets an abortion after 6 weeks.
>
> The death penalty for a woman that commits murder. If abortion after 6
> weeks is murder, then you connect the dots.
>
> You do understand that an innocent, even the most innocent of all life
> is being summarily executed here, right? That doesn't appear to faze
> you in the least. Wow at that, my good friend.
>

Will the Federal government kill a woman on death row that's pregnant?


Since Liberals feel the baby is irrelevant, it means that if a Liberal
is in charge they will absolutely kill the mother and the baby and while
the government will do what they did to McVeigh and at the same time say
they hate the death penalty, they will cheer the death of the baby and
mourn the death of the murdering woman.

What kind of twisted logic is that?

[Peter Franks]

Lol. OK, but at least you stop distorting your position, specifically
(1). That is the controlling of medical decisions over your body AND
THE BODY OF ANOTHER.

All better now?

[Peter Franks]

So, your model: rights are relative.

My model: rights are absolute.

Agree?

[Peter Franks]

I'll type slower this time:

I THINK that the law SHOULD be that any procedure that terminates an

implanted embryo (certain cases excepted) should be prohibited.

Unfortunately far too many in our society and world do not value
precious life, and such a law will be the source of too much contention
and strife.

THEREFORE I'D COUNTER that an EQUITABLE SOLUTION would be to prohibit
any procedure that terminates a live being.

Come on Joshie -- this is crystal clear. You are familiar w/
negotiation, right?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

If spanking a child is such a mental trauma that they become damaged,
what do you think abandoning that child in a surgery would do to the
child's mental development?


Liberals hate children don't they?


And they hate old people too....



--

*Rumination*
#55 - The most important thing in life is showing-up.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

[Peter Franks]

Methinks the core issue is that they hate themselves.

[Josh]

Whether abortion should be avoided because it increases death is up to
the woman and her doctor.