Politics: A new beginning

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Not Me
I cannot think of one in recent times, but I might just need more caffeine. I am open to suggestions.

I guess if pressed I'd say that I didn't see Dukakis poking fun at himself for the photo op in the tank. But then again in '88 I was still believing that I would be the next starting forward for the Celtics, so I may not have been paying close attention.

There aren't a whole bunch of pols out there who have been in Dean's exact position here (somewhat embarassing film clip, but no actual scandal). Unlike some in the press I am reluctant to assume I know what someone "would" do in a situation based on their public persona.

In other words, I thought Dean would have ignored this and just kept on campaigning. He didn't. I was impressed by that.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Is that your position, that because viability has been extended to a fetus just 24 weeks old, that viability itself is an inherently flawed dividing line?

I started talking about this because someone (I think it was GGG) said something along the lines of he couldn't believe how both sides of the abortion debate have become so extreme. My point was that the fundamental dividing line is whether the fetus is a human being or not, and that is what dictates that the positions taken are extreme.

So I was not arguing whether abortion is right or wrong. I was just discussing why it is that the abortion debate is so polarized.

I think many people involved on both sides of this debate have come to see the viability line as an unworkable defintion given its fluid and subjective nature. Drawing a line at viability makes no sense from the pro-choice standpoint, either - if it is the mother's right to choose whether to be pregnant and have a baby, why is that right somehow different because the baby is now viable?

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
To put it another way, if RvW was updated to be keyed to current medicine's ability to make fetuseses viable, would it still be intellectually dishonest?

Intellectual dishonesty are your words, not mine. I think. My words were focused on why it is that both sides of the abortion debate take such extreme positions.

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Why is it a "hard choice" for the pro-lifers but "intellectually dishonest" when the pro-choicers draw a similarly difficult line?

I don't think I said that.

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I don't think it's dishonest to take note of the vast numbers of children in poverty in this country and to say to oneself that we're not going to add to those numbers by forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child (subject to certain limitations).

First, whether we do a good job taking care of the people who are already here isn't relevant to whether a woman has dominion over her own body or whether some other human being has the right to life. You cannot seriously be telling me that a justification for abortion is that we don't do a good job feeding those mouths already here, therefore abortion is justified because it prevents even more mouths from being born. While that is an appropriate justification for the Human Society to euthanize animals, it is not an appropriate justification for abortion.

Second, if you check the CDC's stats, you will find that the overwhelming majority of abortions in this country are performed on middle class white women in their 20's. (If you need a cite for that, I will provide it.) So the "there are too many mouths to feed already and we don't do a good job at feeding them so don't make the problem worse" justification has no basis in reality.

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Please note that I too find those that see abortion as just another form of birth control as totally beyond the pale. Just as I hope you see those that would send letter bombs to abortion docs the same way.

Agreed that both are beyond the pale, but there are differences between the two. The former act out of irresponsibility and unwillingness to accept the consequences of their own actions. The latter act because they believe they are preventing a horrific tragedy from occuring. Not saying either is right; just noting the different motivations for the behaviors.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Unlike some in the press I am reluctant to assume I know what someone "would" do in a situation based on their public persona.

And unlike Ty, too.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
It frustrates me to no end that I cannot watch such events because broadcast TV doesn't carry them here.

I think broadcast TV does carry them where you live, but it is that the feedback from your ventilator interferes with the signal.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
I think broadcast TV does carry them where you live, but it is that the feedback from your ventilator interferes with the signal.

Or, I guess it could simply be that the Demorol caused me to believe that I was watching a Three Stooges movie instead.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm happy to talk about abortion, but first you'll have to tell me what facets I can and cannot talk about.

Whiff.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Aside from the fact that we're talking (I think) about two separate issues, I'm not sure what you mean here.

A month ago you were saying that overturning RvW would simply return the issue to the states, the laboratories of democracy. Now we're arguing about whether NARAL is the KKK of the late 20th century.

I think the libertarian wing of the GOP has neither the power nor the inclination to defend states' rights on this issue if RvW is overturned. It will simply be a matter of which side wins the legislative debate over the personhood of American fetuses. So I'd like the GOP leadership to stop lying about its intentions in this regard. They* want to federalize abortion law; they just want the law to go their way on it.

*Please note use of pronoun that allows you to distance yourself from this view without the need for a non-responsive meta-argument post.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
sure, if your principle is viability, that's completely consistent. If the fetus could be born today and survive, that makes it sufficiently human to be protected; if not, then not.

But what do you base this "sufficiently human" concept on? I know what Ty bases it on. You are sufficiently human if you do not depend on a PARTICULAR person to live.

What makes someone magically turn sufficiently human the very second that they could be removed from a uterus and not die (albeit perhaps requiring extracorporal oxygenation, which means the child is hooked up to an artificial placenta because its lungs aren't developed enough to breath air)*? How does that define a human being?

Help me on this because I don't get it. What is it about viability that makes someone a human or sufficiently (your words) a human?

*http://www.choa.org/library/ecmo/default.shtml

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Not a direct comparison, but we've changed the drinking age and the voting age (only one in the right direction), as well as, in many states, teh statutory rape age. Why should we feel bound to retain the old ages when we believe that in current society the revised age is more appropriate?

Bad analogy. Nuff said.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure, but there are some intractable arguments in life. Abortion is one of them. MOst of what gets argued about here otherwise is not.

The intractability of the argument has nothing to do with the thrill I get from my words being published here for the entire world to read.

Plus, I believe I have changed some of your minds on this topic. Nothing you say will stop me from believing that, though.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
Grandma's kind of a pain, too, and her meds are getting expensive, and the kids really want that new four-wheeler . . .

I expected you to end this with "so that's when I decided it was OK to eat old people."

Yeah, I know that's facile, but I don't think it's dissimilar from that particular justification. I think there does need to be some bright-line test, not subject to whim or vaguary. I have no idea what that test should be, of course.

LDE translator: "(subject to certain limitations)" = we need a test.

I wasn't making a justification for abortion as a concept. I was trying to point out that it wasn't intellectually dishonest to set the test at viability.

I don't support a person's right to abort just because they forgot to use a condom. I do support the right of a woman to abort a not-yet-viable unplanned fetus because it would cause severe social and economic distress if the woman was forced to carry to term. I base that, in part (please note, Not Me), on the fact that we as a society do a crappy job of addressing the problems of kids born into poor and broken homes.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
A month ago you were saying that overturning RvW would simply return the issue to the states, the laboratories of democracy.

Representative Republic, whatever that means.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Now we're arguing about whether NARAL is the KKK of the late 20th century.

And the early 21st century.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I think the libertarian wing of the GOP has neither the power nor the inclination to defend states' rights on this issue if RvW is overturned.

I am not sure what you mean. If RvW is overturned, why would they need to defend state's rights? The issue would automatically return to the states without anyone having to do anything.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
It will simply be a matter of which side wins the legislative debate over the personhood of American fetuses.

Yes but in the STATE legislatures.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
A month ago you were saying that overturning RvW would simply return the issue to the states, the laboratories of democracy. Now we're arguing about whether NARAL is the KKK of the late 20th century.

Both true. Each a separate and unconnected argument. I guess I'm still not getting it - are you saying there's a contradiction between these two concepts?

(And then, a quick question before I can go on with the rest, because once you enter into my particular field, you never ever think of Con Law again: Do you see any chance this new Act you were speaking of yesterday could be constitutional? I don't, but the idea that it wouldn't be provides the justification for my position that I will get into once I figure out if I remember anything about CON law and I'd hate to find out that I'm wrong and that it would be constitutionally acceptable . . . )

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Not Me
Intellectual dishonesty are your words, not mine. I think. My words were focused on why it is that both sides of the abortion debate take such extreme positions.

Really? Am I misinterpreting "Anyone else see the intellectual dishonesty in a society that would spend $600,000 to save the life of one 24 week old fetus in the neonatal intensive care unit but would dispose of another in a red bag labeled "biohazardus waste" and bases its distinction between the two simply on the whether the mother wants the child?"

I saw this as part of your argument against the viability test. Maybe I was wrong. If so, my apologies.

Drawing a line at viability makes no sense from the pro-choice standpoint, either - if it is the mother's right to choose whether to be pregnant and have a baby, why is that right somehow different because the baby is now viable?

Because the right to choose is overcome by the now-viable fetus' right to live. Why is that nonsensical? Must choice be unfettered? I'm genuinely curious, because maybe I should stop referring to myelf as pro-choice if that is what the word means nowadays.

First, whether we do a good job taking care of the people who are already here isn't relevant to whether a woman has dominion over her own body or whether some other human being has the right to life. You cannot seriously be telling me that a justification for abortion is that we don't do a good job feeding those mouths already here, therefore abortion is justified because it prevents even more mouths from being born. While that is an appropriate justification for the Human Society to euthanize animals, it is not an appropriate justification for abortion.

I am seriously telling you that that is part of why I draw the line at viability instead of conception.

Second, if you check the CDC's stats, you will find that the overwhelming majority of abortions in this country are performed on middle class white women in their 20's. (If you need a cite for that, I will provide it.) So the "there are too many mouths to feed already and we don't do a good job at feeding them so don't make the problem worse" justification has no basis in reality.

Interesting stat. How many of them are going to be single moms? How many of them will not be able to keep working at their jobs while they raise a child? How many of them will be forced to raise a child without a father, and without any after-school supervision because they can't afford day care? These considerations may be beside the point for you. I can respect that.

Damn. This is why I don't post on abortion. I need to go do some work.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
I gotta find this opinion. I (usually) love reading Posner.

But, the reference by the defatty to this being the fault of the prosecutor sort of threw me. Don't the judges control their courts? How could the prosecutor control docket speed? Don't you just go to the court and say "their proposed schedule is too fast"? I would blame that on the judge, not the prosecution - the court is supposed to protect the due process rights.

This is the Board of Immigration Appeals -- not an actual court. The ALJs that sit on the Board are not truly independent -- they work for DOJ and thus ultimately for the AG, at least wrt performance standards (incl. case quotas).

The article goes on to clarify what the attorneys were talking about -- Last year DOJ cut the authorized number of ALJ slots on the Board from 19 to 11 (budgetary constraints) -- but at the same time upped the case clearance quotas and (given current events) are pressing forward hard with many deportation cases.

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
What is it about viability that makes someone a human or sufficiently (your words) a human?

What is it about conception that makes a fetus worthy of protection? Nothing more than the same line-drawing, in a different place, than makes a viable fetus worthy of protection. At the point of viability one can say, and no sooner that the fetus is sufficiently de-integrated from its mother that the two can be separated analytically and therefore (potentially) claim rights that, prior to viability it can claim only through its mother.

Bad analogy. Nuff said.

Well, not really. You asked whether a line of legality based on temporal passage could be changed, suggesting that to do so was incoherent. Are you saying that changing the voting age is a) incoherent ; b) distinguishable.

If a, well, nuff said. If b, please distinguish.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
This is the Board of Immigration Appeals -- not an actual court. The ALJs that sit on the Board are not truly independent -- they work for DOJ and thus ultimately for the AG, at least wrt performance standards (incl. case quotas).

Well, there are certain statutory and regulatory provisions that make them fairly independent of the agencies for which they work.