Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I would argue that protection of a living being is a compelling public safety interest.

Um, that sort of leaves an unresolved issue . . .

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Great. Will you allow the rest of us a chance to vote on the framework, or do we continue to have a Court make up interpretations as we go along as long as they support the end that you want?

I'm pretty sure that it's already there in the Constitution. And I'm also fairly certain that I took the position that such matters are beyond the purview of a legislature.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You forgot the "--Jean Cocteau" line.

it was a reasonalbe answer to your bullshit explaination. and you know i don't have socks other than puriTY and since you let me be robbed of my Juan sock.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Don't tell the sperm. They're alive, they're human, and they're full of hope.

A human being has 46 chromosomes. A sperm only has 23. AT least the normal sperm only have 23. Every now and then one has 24 and the child that results is way fucked up. Trisomies are something I would classify as a severe birth defect.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Enter stage right - Not Me, with a bagful of polygamy.

And a mouth full of Santorum.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
it was a reasonalbe answer to your bullshit explaination. and you know i don't have socks other than puriTY and since you let me be robbed of my Juan sock.

I have no idea what you're talking about re the Juan sock. Whatever it is, my condolences. As for the abortion stuff, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the Cocteau quotations page.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
A human being has 46 chromosomes. A sperm only has 23. AT least the normal sperm only have 23. Every now and then one has 24 and the child that results is way fucked up. Trisomies are something I would classify as a severe birth defect.

When Holmes wrote that the Constitution does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics, he might also have referred to particular definitions of what is human based on the number of chromosomes, except that the science you describing hadn't come along yet.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
Um, that sort of leaves an unresolved issue . . .

Exactly. Roe is correct because it said a fetus isn't alive so its not, and since its not alive Roe is okay!

the result of Roe strikes me as right because I don't see how I can tell a woman what to do for the next 9 months. on the other hand the arguments tonight, being won by the pro-lifers hands-down, show that the rationale of Roe is BS.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Aside from the fact that pregnant women aren't, as a rule, criminals, there are a number of reasons this is not a parallel. For starters, and I'm doing this while tired and hungry, criminals have the option of choosing to have a jury. There's also not an inherent short time limitation on prosecuting a criminal.

I think juries would be less likely to allow abortions than judges and appellate courts would.

When I want to get a TRO against a person, I am not a criminal either, but I have to go to a judge to get one. Whenever you want to do something that would limit another's rights, you have to go to a judge to be able to do that. You want to end another person's life.

[bilmore]

Always proud of our Democratic Senator from the Great State of Minnesota . . . .

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in648878.shtml

Fucking loon.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Exactly. Roe is correct because it said a fetus isn't alive so its not, and since its not alive Roe is okay!

the result of Roe strikes me as right because I don't see how I can tell a woman what to do for the next 9 months. on the other hand the arguments tonight, being won by the pro-lifers hands-down, show that the rationale of Roe is BS.

That isn't what the court in Roe said. Roe balanced the rights of the mother against the state's interest in unborn human life. The Roe court did not get into whether the unborn human life is a person entitled to legal rights.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me
That isn't what the court in Roe said. Roe balanced the rights of the mother against the state's interest in unborn human life. The Roe court did not get into whether the unborn human life is a person entitled to legal rights.

I wasn't summarizing Roe, I was commenting on another's sentiments with regard to my question of why killing your mom for $$ wasn't a "private family decison" that is none of my GD business.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I'm pretty sure that it's already there in the Constitution. And I'm also fairly certain that I took the position that such matters are beyond the purview of a legislature.

Funny how the Supreme Court has already expressed doubts on that. Do y'all have a second-best Constitutional argument, or did you blow your whole wad with Roe?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When Holmes wrote that the Constitution does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics, he might also have referred to particular definitions of what is human based on the number of chromosomes, except that the science you describing hadn't come along yet.

I wouldn't base it simply on the number of chromosomes. Down's syndrome people have 47 chromosomes, that is why they have the problems that they do. Yet they are human beings. But there are no human beings with only 23 chromosomes. My kidneys have 46 chromosomes and the chromatin is human chromatin. But my kidney is not a human being. So I would treat the number of chromosomes as one piece of evidence that helps to determine whether a living being is a human or not.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
I wouldn't base it simply on the number of chromosomes. Down's syndrome people have 47 chromosomes, that is why they have the problems that they do. Yet they are human beings. But there are no human beings with only 23 chromosomes. My kidneys have 46 chromosomes and the chromatin is human chromatin. But my kidney is not a human being. So I would treat the number of chromosomes as one piece of evidence that helps to determine whether a living being is a human or not.

Sperm is human. Is sperm a human? I don't think so. But like a fetus, sperm can -- under favorable conditions -- become a baby. I'm not hearing an explanation for why it is that women are generally obliged to help fertilized eggs become babies, but not obliged to help sperm become babies. Maybe it's just "intuitive."