Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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.

Well then I whiffed.

I have two pet peeves in these abortion discussions. The first is when there is a group of lawyers discussing abortion and the lawyers mischaracterize Roe. The second is when people say things like "life begins at conception." WTF? Were the egg and the sperm dead before the fertilization? Umm no. The sperm and the egg aren't human beings, but they aren't dead either if the union of the two results in an embryo.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
The main argument against outlawing slavery was that the slaveowners had a Constitutionally-guaranteed property right in those slaves - they had purchased them for good money, and they had a right to keep them.

The counter was, yes, you have property rights, but you are ignoring the rights that we (the abolitionists) claim are held by those slaves you own.

So, like today, there was an argument over whether someone deserved to be called a "person". And, like today, there were competing rights - to own property, and to live free - that had to be balanced.

And, like today, there was a "wreck their lives" argument - the economy of the South was almost completely dependant on slave labor at that point, and abolition would wreck havoc with an entire economy.

As it worked out, the property rights of the South were eventually deemed to be less compelling that the rights of the slaves to freedom. No one ever claimed that their property rights didn't exist - just that the other parties' rights trumped them. Similarly, while it's certainly not a wonderful situation for the woman involved, I would say that, following intercourse, and a resulting pregnancy, the best balance of the competing rights might lie in letting the kid live.

That is a good argument. However, it overlooks a more basic metaphysical argument. Is a fetus a "life" as we conceive of it in political and social terms? I would take the position that a life, in order to be considered in the balance of competing rights, has to be a life in being.

I recognize that there are competing positions and that they too can be supported. But the above position is the one I favor.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
I have two pet peeves in these abortion discussions. ... The second is when people say things like "life begins at conception." WTF? Were the egg and the sperm dead before the fertilization? Umm no. The sperm and the egg aren't human beings, but they aren't dead either if the union of the two results in an embryo.

2

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You think that immoral evil women who are willing to murder their own children would balk at a false report to the police?

Who said they were immoral/evil?

In any event, if they did, there are consequences for that.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me
The sperm and the egg aren't human beings, but they aren't dead either if the union of the two results in an embryo.

well if you think only life can breed life, you must not accept evolution as a theory. Ty?

[Gattigap]

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

Oh, lord. Let's not go there, else every guy on this board faces certain imprisonment.

Though some of us may bemoan the lack of a statute of limitations on murder, poor Hank doesn't even have that argument to slow the advance of his fate.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Club's conception of individual rights -- as least as regards a woman's bodily autonomy -- is a pretty weak one. Woman who act irresponsibly in his book -- e.g., choosing to have non-incestuous sex -- are not deemed to have any real cognizable interests relating to the pregnancy that follows.

In contrast, we all know that club has a very different conception of property rights. He believes in strong property rights. People who use their property irresponsibly aren't subjected higher taxes, or takings, and so on.

I'm not saying that his views on the latter subject are inconsistent with his views on the former subject. I just think the contrast is edifying. Who knows, maybe he can articulate some principled way of tying it all together. Not that I'm holding my breath or anything.

Dude you are being ridiculous in your characterization of my position. This is not just a question or an individual's rights. There are at least 2 individuals involved. Hence, I'm going to accuse you of what you accuse "us" of doing all the time - trying to simplify a very complex question.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Oh, lord. Let's not go there, else every guy on this board faces certain imprisonment.

Though some of us may bemoan the lack of a statute of limitations on murder, poor Hank doesn't even have that argument to slow the advance of his fate.

if this means you haven't beat off in 6 years, I'd only mention Cialis. PM SS for details.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Sperm is human. Is sperm a human? I don't think so. But like a fetus, sperm can -- under favorable conditions -- become a baby.

This is a ridiculous argument. So ridiculous, I am not responding to it.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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."

I believe you and I have come to an agreement on this point before. I am not against drawing the line for abortion at sentient being. A blastula or a morula are not sentient beings. But at some point, the fetus is. That is where I would draw the line on abortion by demand/for convenience. Once the fetus becomes sentient, then I would limit the abortions to life of the mother/rape/birth defects and serious health issues.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
well if you think only life can breed life, you must not accept evolution as a theory. Ty?

WTF? Evolution is not a theory about how rocks transmogrified into humans. It's doesn't tell you where life came from.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I understand that's what you think, but that's not what he said. Without regard to the interests of the unborn fetus, he suggested that when a woman has sex -- setting aside rape and incest -- he discounts the burdens she experiences in connection with a resulting pregnancy. He's not talking about how to weigh the fetus's interests against the woman's interests -- he never reaches that question because he's pretty clear that the woman's interests don't count. He wants to know whether the fetus suffers pain, but he doesn't care whether the woman suffers pain. And so on.

I agree with you that it's hard to figure out how to reconcile the competing interests of the fetus and the woman. Club makes it easy, by excluding the latter from the calculation at all. Except in cases of rape and incest. That gets a separate equation in which the woman's interests count. (This is "intuitive," says club, and obviously doesn't reflect that the fetus's interests are different.)

I don't exclude it from the calculation, but I know the result. Mother's pain is less than death of fetus. Sorry, I'll spell it out next time.

With rape and incest, I admitted freely that my position is hard to reconcile. I would normally choose life at all costs, but "intuitively" there seems to be something different for rape. Perhaps the "pain" part of the equation tips the balance.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Dude you are being ridiculous in your characterization of my position. This is not just a question or an individual's rights. There are at least 2 individuals involved. Hence, I'm going to accuse you of what you accuse "us" of doing all the time - trying to simplify a very complex question.

Don't walk away from your words. You said it several times, and I kept pushing you to make sure what you mean.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
That is a good argument. However, it overlooks a more basic metaphysical argument. Is a fetus a "life" as we conceive of it in political and social terms? I would take the position that a life, in order to be considered in the balance of competing rights, has to be a life in being.

I recognize that there are competing positions and that they too can be supported. But the above position is the one I favor.

Yes, we realize that is your position. However, you haven't explained why you think that a child at 38 weeks gestation is not worthy of any rights.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Don't walk away from your words. You said it several times, and I kept pushing you to make sure what you mean.

Cite please. What am I walking away from?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
WTF? Evolution is not a theory about how rocks transmogrified into humans. It's doesn't tell you where life came from.

Life came from a primordial soup of nucleic acids that became organized after billons of random associations lead to an organized association. That is not inconsistent with a higher being, as it could have been the way this higher being felt like desiging life. The beauty is in the simplicity. I, however, wish his/her/its plan would not have included menstruation.