Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
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.

Sorry, missed that. Did y'all get into a discussion regarding the eggs of one mother being grown inside the uterous of another? See really, it's not a particular person, it's any person with a uterous.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
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?

IMHO, maybe so. The balancing of interests involved certainly changes a lot. But one could also see permitting "abortions" in the first few days, on the theory that a just-conceived embryo really isn't sufficiently like a person to warrant protection.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Me
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?

If society will bear the vast majority of what I'm sure would be the astronomical cost of such a procedure, and can guarantee that there will be people willing to take any and all fetuses, then sure, we can outlaw abortion. I'm sure that the anti-abortion people will be willing to live with the scores of fetus deaths that occur when this procedure is being developed. And I'm sure the survivial rate of the fetuses will approach 100%. But since this is so obviously totally and completely theoretical, you can have your point.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
IMHO, maybe so. The balancing of interests involved certainly changes a lot. But one could also see permitting "abortions" in the first few days, on the theory that a just-conceived embryo really isn't sufficiently like a person to warrant protection.

No that, ladies and gents, is intellectual honesty.

[Not Me]

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.

Well if that is your reasoning, then what about the case where the father wants the mom to have an abortion or to give the baby up for adoption and she won't and a court orders him to pay child support? He didn't want the kid. He voted for abortion or adoption. Why should he have to work to pay child support for a kid he didn't want? Isn't that temporary involuntary servitude imposed on the father?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
for much of humanity through much of history, "exposing" a child was considered perfectly legal.

The above is merely an historical datapoint. Make of it what you will.

Through much of history, slavery was considered perfectly legal and still is in some parts of the world.

The above is merely an historical datapoint. Make of what you will.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But why does that matter?

Because, after birth, if society states that this life has to be supported (fed, whatever), it can appoint (or pay) any of a number of individuals to do it. While still in utero, society has to force one specific individual, involuntarily, to support it, and that individual has independent rights. (Some people would be OK with the gov't dropping of an infant on their door and saying "guess what, he's your own personal problem now, if you don't take good care of him we'll prosecute," but not many I'd wager.) If the fetus could be removed and supported independently from the mother, then the a fetus being "supported" in utero and being "supported" after birth would be analogous. (That's what makes viability an attractive alternative, though, in theory, that would mean women would have a right, at any time, to say "OK, let's induce and let the thing survive on its own if it can.")

I think most people actually rely on some vague, ill thought out combination of "viability" and "utility" in this debate to get to the balancing of rights between fetus and mother that they feel comfortable with. The fetus has increasing rights from conception onward, with some specific events giving it a better or worse claim to protection (viability, birth defects), while the mother has decreasing interests to be protected (not only because she could have done something sooner but because as time goes on her future burden continuously decreases), and enough of society finds late abortion and/or infanticide distressing enough for there to be an increasing utility argument for limiting it (the "birth" line is, I think, ultimately a "utility" standard: people are less horrified at the idea of abortion than infanticide, for whatever rational or irrational reasons, and the prevention of widespread social distress is a good utility argument).

I think most people really quite like the "self consciousness" line from a religious/spiritual/sentimental point of view (also because it is consistent with a lot of people's feelings about eating meat, euthanasia, the right to die and sometimes the death penalty), but the proof problems are pretty much intractable and, unless you combine it with the "social utility" standard I described above, it may force you into condoning infanticide.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Not Me
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.

Actually, I think for most people, that's it exactly.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Sorry, missed that. Did y'all get into a discussion regarding the eggs of one mother being grown inside the uterous of another? See really, it's not a particular person, it's any person with a uterous.

Once the combined sperm/egg are in a uterus, it's not mobile and from that point onward, it is that particular person with a uterus. Sheesh.

And, Ty's post reminds me that I'm not up on what's going on with the morning-after pill going OTC. Anyone have any idea?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
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?

I guess I'm asking you to accept ownership of the consequences of the GOP's platform. It's all well and good to overturn RvW because it's bad law, but to get there you said abortion is a matter on which the constitution is silent and thus it is inappropriate for federal judicial regulation. Now that the GOP Congress has made it clear that fetus personhood is a matter it thinks appropriate for federal legislative regulation, where do you stand on the constitutional issue?

Keep in mind that the fetus holocaust does not support an answer either way, making the "NARAL=KKK" argument a non-sequitur.

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 . . . )

I think the act would be constitutional to the extent it applies only to attacks on exclusive federal jurisdictions and enclaves, like federal reservations (military bases, federal parks and the like). However, even then it would be largely redundant of existing state law in many cases because of 18 U.S.C. § 13, the Assimilative Crimes Act. This "across state lines" bullshit is rediculous, unless I shoot a pregnant woman in Arizona while standing in Nevada, in which case I've already committed a crime in two states, either one of which could prosecute.

The GOP is flogging the Laci Peterson case to the detriment of its principles. I'm not surprised, but you should be.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
But one could also see permitting "abortions" in the first few days, on the theory that a just-conceived embryo really isn't sufficiently like a person to warrant protection.

I know that is your theory, that a just-conceived embryo really isn't sufficiently like a person to warrant protection. However, what I have yet to hear explained is how you arrived at that theory. Why is an embryo not sufficiently like a person to warrant protection. What is it that makes a being sufficiently like a person to warrant protection?

And why is viability the line at which a fetus becomes sufficiently like a person to warrant protection? What is so special about viability that it tips the scales in favor of the fetus rights? Oh wait, scratch that, it is the particular person/involuntary servitude thing. Sorry, I forgot. I was distracted momentarily by all the pretty colored marshmallows floating in my cereal.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Actually, I think for most people, that's it exactly.

However, it is an awful standard to base a human beings right to live upon, wouldn't you say? I mean it is one thing to use it to base someone's right to expression on, but to base whether they get to live or don't get to live on such a nebulous standard seems pretty wacky to me.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Because, after birth, if society states that this life has to be supported (fed, whatever), it can appoint (or pay) any of a number of individuals to do it. While still in utero, society has to force one specific individual, involuntarily, to support it, and that individual has independent rights. (Some people would be OK with the gov't dropping of an infant on their door and saying "guess what, he's your own personal problem now, if you don't take good care of him we'll prosecute," but not many I'd wager.) If the fetus could be removed and supported independently from the mother, then the a fetus being "supported" in utero and being "supported" after birth would be analogous. (That's what makes viability an attractive alternative, though, in theory, that would mean women would have a right, at any time, to say "OK, let's induce and let the thing survive on its own if it can.")

If I understand what you are saying correctly, it seems that there is some magical point on the continuum where the balance of rights changes and we call this point "viability," but it really does not have a direct correlation with whether or not the fetus could survive outside the mother. Right? Because if it did, wouldn't it have to be different for each fetus? Presumably there are some that could survive after week 11, and others not until week 16, but for social convenience we have picked the average.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me
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?

I didn't.

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.

Lovely. Insult an entire religion. You are one offensive little sock.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Not Me
Well if that is your reasoning, then what about the case where the father wants the mom to have an abortion or to give the baby up for adoption and she won't and a court orders him to pay child support? He didn't want the kid. He voted for abortion or adoption. Why should he have to work to pay child support for a kid he didn't want? Isn't that temporary involuntary servitude imposed on the father?

Though I've never been a huge advocate for consistency for its own sake, I have, ever since I first heard the idea, been a firm advocate of the idea of "paper abortions" for men.