Politics: A new beginning

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
(Sigh.) You should re-read what I was responding to. And then, attempt to process the information. And, then, if it's still warranted, indicate that you would like me to read something.

Sigh. I did. And all y'all should read the article and the opinion(s). Without having any clue as to the grounds upon which Posner was criticizing the admin judges, you were questioning how it could possibly be Ashcroft's fault.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Other than perhaps for feeding. I never understood this viability distinction. For at least the first 3 years post birth, a baby cannot survive on ems own. Em needs someone to at the very least to feed em. Hell, I'm in my 30s and I barely pass the viability test.

Yes, but anyone can feed them. They don't need the particular person in which they were conceived.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Yes, but anyone can feed them. They don't need the particular person in which they were conceived.

But why does that matter?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Frankly, I don't know. And I have thought long and hard on it.

But yet you know an embryo is not one of these human beings that you don't have a definition for. I get it. A human being is like porn. You can't define it, but you know one when you see one.

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I don't know, and have great respect for a court that tells me they don't either.

So if you don't know when the embryo (not a human being) transitions to a fetus (a human being), why choose viability as the line?

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I'm Catholic, and would describe myself as reasonably pro-choice. 20 years ago, there were not a lot of Catholics out there who thought like I do. Today there are.

When it comes to abortion, premarital sex, and birth control, many if not most Catholics, or at least American Catholics, have always claimed to believe one thing but practiced another. That hasn't changed a bit in the last 20 years.

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I think many, many people are pushed to defend broader pro-choice laws by the vitriol we see from the right to lifers.

In my experience, I have seen the opposite. I remember a time when people more strongly advocated for as few as possible restrictions on abortions. Now, I see many pro-choice people saying "safe, legal, and rare" and who are OK with outlawing partial-birth abortion and who are Ok with parental notification laws.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Sigh. I did. And all y'all should read the article and the opinion(s). Without having any clue as to the grounds upon which Posner was criticizing the admin judges, you were questioning how it could possibly be Ashcroft's fault.

Yes, I had no knowledge of the structure of this particular process, and so assumed, in the previous post that there would be some form of due process protection, like, not having the prosecutor and the judge from the same side. In the normal course of our legal system, a prosecutor cannot make decisions about court timing with impunity, thus causing me to wonder why the defense lawyer would blame the prosecutor for timing issues here. Sam disabused me of that notion, and, in the post about which you were bitching, I was expressing my amazement that we would have such a system. By that point, I had read the article, and a good deal of the opinion.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But why does that matter?

because they can be given up for adoption at that point. unless you believe that society has the right to impose temporary involuntary servitude, the difference is relevant.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Other than perhaps for feeding. I never understood this viability distinction. For at least the first 3 years post birth, a baby cannot survive on ems own. Em needs someone to at the very least to feed em. Hell, I'm in my 30s and I barely pass the viability test.

Since BRC does not seem to be lurking, I will point out that for much of humanity through much of history, "exposing" a child was considered perfectly legal. If you look to the ancients in Greece and Rome, and to medieval Europe, you find developed customs and laws regarding who has the right to"expose" a newborn.

Note for purposes of clarity: the above is not advocacy for exposing newborns, or Clubby for that matter. The above is merely an historical datapoint. Make of it what you will. And, Clubby, come inside, it's cold out there.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Yes, I had no knowledge of the structure of this particular process, and so assumed, in the previous post that there would be some form of due process protection, like, not having the prosecutor and the judge from the same side. In the normal course of our legal system, a prosecutor cannot make decisions about court timing with impunity, thus causing me to wonder why the defense lawyer would blame the prosecutor for timing issues here. Sam disabused me of that notion, and, in the post about which you were bitching, I was expressing my amazement that we would have such a system. By that point, I had read the article, and a good deal of the opinion.

That system applies in other administrative fora.

You know, a funny thing happened to me on the way to the forum...

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Since BRC does not seem to be lurking, I will point out that for much of humanity through much of history, "exposing" a child was considered perfectly legal.

Take your perverted kiddie-sex practices somewhere else, you pagan.

(And now I'm remembering why I never do the abortion-debate thing.)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
That system applies in other administrative fora.

You know, a funny thing happened to me on the way to the forum...

Thank goodness I've managed to avoid admin processes.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me


Now, I see many pro-choice people saying "safe, legal, and rare" and who are OK with outlawing partial-birth abortion and who are Ok with parental notification laws.

I'm sure political savvy has nothing to do with their revised position.

Do you really think there's anyone in teh country who likes abortion? Much as the anti-abortion folks would like to call the other side pro-abortion, it simply doesn't fly.

Abortion has been, and remains, a last option. Whether it's a legitimate last option is the only difference in debate. You can say "you should have used a condom (or three)" while another person can, with as much principle, say "you should have decided to have the abortion before the third trimester." It's just a question of when (if ever) abortion is a reasonable solution to an unwanted pregancy. Lines again.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
(And now I'm remembering why I never do the abortion-debate thing.)

Me, too.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Other than perhaps for feeding. I never understood this viability distinction. For at least the first 3 years post birth, a baby cannot survive on ems own. Em needs someone to at the very least to feed em. Hell, I'm in my 30s and I barely pass the viability test.

I see you missed Ty's explanation. It is because the fetus needs a PARTICULAR person to survive. Which of course means that when medical technology advances to the point where a fetus can be transplanted from one womb to another, abortion will be illegal since the fetus will then be like a baby and not need a PARTICULAR person to survive.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
because they can be given up for adoption at that point. unless you believe that society has the right to impose temporary involuntary servitude, the difference is relevant.

I don't see how this is relevant, or how the viability test is justifyable. We are using viability as the dividing line between the rights at issue, right? Pre-viability, the woman's right to chose outweighs the fetus' (or whatever the technical term is) rights. But what is so significant about viability? The fact that the fetus no longer needs to be stuck to the mother's uterous to survive means what? And why is that different than having a tube down it's throat in the ICU?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Yes, but anyone can feed them. They don't need the particular person in which they were conceived.

So does that mean that when medical technology advances to the point where a fetus can be transplanted from one person to another and eliminates the need for a particular person, will you then vote for outlawing abortion? And if not, then why?