On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:16:41 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
PeterD wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:45:04 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"

Solyent Green, dumbAss.

but...

It's green!

Proven fact, people don't like to eat green things!

Try this: give someone a choice between a green colored donuts and a
pink ones. Bet the pink one goes first!

I won't touch either color of Doughnut, I'm diabetic.

I eat a lot of green foods. in fact, I just got home from the
grocery where I bought four pounds of sliced green peppers (A mix of
Red, Yellow, Green peppers, and onions) to make chili.

Yeah, the green bread and green meat can be particularly palatable! ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news:vpTaj.8971$gF4.3303@trnddc02...
The pro-"life"rs believe that women are cattle. In their twisted little
version of reality, if a woman becomes pregnant, she no longer has any
rights - only the fetus has rights.

Gawd, I hate pro-lifers. :-[

So you think child endangerment laws should also be repealed?

Tim

--
Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk.
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:46:15 -0600, Tim Williams wrote:
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message

The pro-"life"rs believe that women are cattle. In their twisted little
version of reality, if a woman becomes pregnant, she no longer has any
rights - only the fetus has rights.

Gawd, I hate pro-lifers. :-[

So you think child endangerment laws should also be repealed?

No, of course not!

Once it's out, it's been "born", and is therefore entitled to citizenship
rights (namely, all of them), which is delineated in amendment 14.

But a fetus is not a person. The person who is gestating it is. And
also, she is its owner, just as you are the owner of your own body
and all of its contents. This isn't explicitly spelled out in the
Constitution, but it's one of those that _should_ be self-evident,
to anyone who has more than two neurons to rub together.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news:ffYaj.12855$gF4.10752@trnddc02...
So you think child endangerment laws should also be repealed?

No, of course not!

Once it's out, it's been "born", and is therefore entitled to citizenship
rights (namely, all of them), which is delineated in amendment 14.

How about late-term abortion? Partial birth abortion?

Tim

--
Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk.
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

Tim Williams wrote:
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news:ffYaj.12855$gF4.10752@trnddc02...

So you think child endangerment laws should also be repealed?

No, of course not!

Once it's out, it's been "born", and is therefore entitled to citizenship
rights (namely, all of them), which is delineated in amendment 14.


How about late-term abortion? Partial birth abortion?

How about you let the woman decide for herself.

Or do think you own women ?
Or do you think women are not smart enough to understand ?
Or do you want to be sure that 1/2 the population does not vote aginst
you in the next election ?

Please let us know what the REAL goal is here.

donald



Tim

--
Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk.
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

"donald" wrote in message
. ..
How about you let the woman decide for herself.

Or do think you own women ?

Huh?

Please let us know what the REAL goal is here.

Do tell indeed. Your mind must be pretty twisted, that came out of
nowhere.

_I'm_ trying to see where Rich turns insignificant fetuses into fully
fledged human beings with all their rights and responsibilities.

Tim

--
Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk.
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:06:49 -0600, Tim Williams wrote:
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message

So you think child endangerment laws should also be repealed?

No, of course not!

Once it's out, it's been "born", and is therefore entitled to
citizenship rights (namely, all of them), which is delineated in
amendment 14.

How about late-term abortion? Partial birth abortion?

How about them? Are you saying that since she's been making this
fetus for almost 9 months, that there's some magical, miraculous
moment when the woman is no longer a person, but only her fetus is?

Would you declare women to be beasts of burden, then? The pro-lifers
clearly do.

If you don't own your own body, them "freedom" is nothing but an
empty buzzword.

Thanks,
Rich

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:38:44 -0600, Tim Williams wrote:
"donald" wrote in message

How about you let the woman decide for herself.

Or do think you own women ?

Huh?

Please let us know what the REAL goal is here.

Do tell indeed. Your mind must be pretty twisted, that came out of
nowhere.

_I'm_ trying to see where Rich turns insignificant fetuses into fully
fledged human beings with all their rights and responsibilities.


Well, you'll never find that out, since it's the exact opposite
of what I'm actually trying to say.

A fetus is not a person.

A person (actually an infant) is what happens at "the miracle of
childbirth", when the woman expels her fetus and it becomes
a viable individual being.

It's like this: one person, one pregnant person, one VERY pregnant person.
*THE MIRACLE OF CHILDBIRTH*
Poof! Two people!

It's really quite simple.

Cheers!
Rich

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news:utxbj.4046$1q4.301@trnddc06...
How about them? Are you saying that since she's been making this
fetus for almost 9 months, that there's some magical, miraculous
moment when the woman is no longer a person, but only her fetus is?

Would you declare women to be beasts of burden, then? The pro-lifers
clearly do.

What is this mental block with you people and thinking women are "beasts of
burden"? I just don't get it. It's certainly nothing I've said or
implied, in this thread or I think at any time on the internet.

The point is, when does the fetus become a human being, and why? If the
baby is a person immediately after (or while?) being born, and nothing
before that event, what fundamentally is different about it? C-sections
prove that the fetus can be "personized" so to speak at an arbitrary time,
so I don't really get why birth should be the defining event. It seems to
me it is the mother's responsibility to care for her fetus just as it is
her (and her S.O.'s...if there is one) responsibility to care for the
child. There are clear laws concerning the treatment of children, which
you have stated your approval of. Why shouldn't these apply to a fetus as
well?

Tim

--
Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk.
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:18:03 -0600, Tim Williams wrote:
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news:utxbj.4046$1q4.301@trnddc06...
How about them? Are you saying that since she's been making this fetus
for almost 9 months, that there's some magical, miraculous moment when
the woman is no longer a person, but only her fetus is?

Would you declare women to be beasts of burden, then? The pro-lifers
clearly do.

What is this mental block with you people and thinking women are "beasts
of burden"? I just don't get it. It's certainly nothing I've said or
implied, in this thread or I think at any time on the internet.

I DO NOT AND NEVER HAVE believed that women are beasts of burden.

It's the "pro-lifers" who do that.

Bringing up their boogeyman words, like "late-term" and "partial-birth",
makes you sound like you're one of them, or at least an apologist.

Thanks,
Rich

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news:2yxbj.4047$1q4.2802@trnddc06...
It's like this: one person, one pregnant person, one VERY pregnant
person.
*THE MIRACLE OF CHILDBIRTH*
Poof! Two people!

It's really quite simple.

Alright, so having established that, what, physically, is different between
the fetus, one second before birth, and the baby, one second after? Two
seconds have passed, and it's still the same physical entity. How did it
suddenly gain your empathy?

Tim

--
Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk.
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

I liked this thread when we were giving away cars.

donald

PeterD wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:52:50 -0600, "Bo" wrote:


"PeterD" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:19:04 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:43:53 -0500, PeterD wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:04:45 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7151862.stm

...Jim Thompson

Idiots... The problem is over population, not cars.

How do you get third world countries to practice birth control?

...Jim Thompson

I wish it were possible! But even developed countries such as the US,
are both over populated, and have a growing population. I actually had
to post numbers for the US on a group the other day because some idiot
would not believe it. g

The USA is over-popluated? Cite? By what definition/std? MUCH of the US
has less than a handful of persons per square mile. ????

Bo


The United States is grossly overpopulated. Saying less than a handful
is like saying that until we are all standing shoulder to shoulder
things are just ducky. That's not true.

Currently the US cannot produce enough food to feed the nation (we are
now a food importer!), pollution (from overpopulation) is chokeing the
air, and the quality of live is in a serious decline.

OK, it's great if you are selling land to build new houses, but these
people are the only ones who come out ahead, and that is not a
substantial gain.

A sustainable pouplation is one that can support itself, and not one
person more. Saying that everyone needs to sacrifice so that a few
more people can have more children (children that many can't afford to
support, but that's a different issue) is not wise.


Check this google for population density, the US is not the bad nation.

world population density
With this as second item

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lation_density

And this is a credible analysis of world food trade:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/F...dFoodFeb05.pdf

--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.Â*Â*
--Schiller

flipper wrote:


But a fetus is not a person.


That may be, and obviously is, your opinion but simply declaring it to
be so doesn't make it so and there are plenty who disagree.


Its kind of funny that this was not an issue for anyone until the
religous rignt and the republicians starting with Regan.

The court allowed woman freedom to decide ( Roe v Wade),
then Regan decided to court the religous vote that did not exist before.

Yes, I agree that "plenty who disagree", but do they disagree because
their pastors told them to disagree, or because they do give a damn.




And, I dare say, some would argue your definition to be arbitrary with
no philosophical or scientific basis. Why not pick when it can walk,

This is true for both sides of this discussion.

(we can add that god has no philosophical or scientific basis either.
He, she, it has been made up in an arbitrary fashion too.)


or talk, or passes puberty and can reproduce? Those are all
'conveniently' definable events as well.

The other side, however, can argue that the unborn's DNA clearly
establishes it's 'human' and, further, a 'human' distinct from either
parent.

Or, put another way, take a biopsy of both mother and the unborn, send
it off for blind testing, and the DNA results will identify two
distinct, albeit related, human beings. And, btw, you'll get similar
DNA results regardless of which side of the birth canal the biopsy is
taken.


The person who is gestating it is. And
also, she is its owner, just as you are the owner of your own body
and all of its contents.


The DNA of the unborn clearly establishes it is not 'her body'.


This isn't explicitly spelled out in the
Constitution, but it's one of those that _should_ be self-evident,
to anyone who has more than two neurons to rub together.


The situation changes if you use the neurons as brain cells instead of
just rubbing them together.


Hope This Helps!
Rich

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:06:51 -0600, Tim Williams wrote:

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news:2yxbj.4047$1q4.2802@trnddc06...
It's like this: one person, one pregnant person, one VERY pregnant
person.
*THE MIRACLE OF CHILDBIRTH*
Poof! Two people!

It's really quite simple.

Alright, so having established that, what, physically, is different
between the fetus, one second before birth, and the baby, one second
after? Two seconds have passed, and it's still the same physical
entity. How did it suddenly gain your empathy?

By being born. Are you incapable of grasping that simple fact?
As long as it is contained entirely within her body it is her
property to do with as she wishes. That's the _REAL_ right to
life - the life of the _born_.

999 times out of 1000, if the woman has let it get that far, it's
probably because she wants to have the baby, so abortion isn't
even a consideration.

But until it exits and exists on its own it is tissue. You can not
endow it with personhood without stripping its mother of hers.

Of course, the pro-lifers never believed women to be equal to
themselves in the first place - they've always considered women
to be property.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:06:51 -0600, Tim Williams wrote:
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message

It's like this: one person, one pregnant person, one VERY pregnant
person.
*THE MIRACLE OF CHILDBIRTH*
Poof! Two people!

It's really quite simple.

Alright, so having established that, what, physically, is different
between the fetus, one second before birth, and the baby, one second
after?

Location, location, location. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:11:22 -0600, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:46:19 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

But a fetus is not a person.

That may be, and obviously is, your opinion but simply declaring it to
be so doesn't make it so and there are plenty who disagree.

So, are you saying that pregnant women don't have the right to own
their own bodies?

If not, then who does?

Thanks,
Rich

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:11:22 -0600, flipper wrote:

And, I dare say, some would argue your definition to be arbitrary with
no philosophical or scientific basis.

This is simply not true.

There's one very sound, logical, scientific and legal principle at work.

If it's inside the woman, it's not a person. (Unless the woman herself
says so. It is, after all, her right to do with it whatever she
wishes - if she wants to declare it a "pre-person", that's entirely
her prerogative, and not that of the church or the state.)

Once she poops it out, it is, in fact, a person, and she doesn't
own it any more, even though she's going to be stuck with its
upkeep for the rest of her life.

Cheers!
Rich

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:11:22 -0600, flipper wrote:

Or, put another way, take a biopsy of both mother and the unborn,

What if she doesn't want you sticking biopsy needles into her?

_THAT's_ the right that's in question here - who granted you the
power to invade this woman's body against her will, just so you
can wrest control of it from her?

Are all prolifers closet rapists and torturers?

Thanks,
Rich

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:45:22 -0600, flipper wrote:

Frankly, if you're going to accuse anyone of treating people like
'cattle' it might be closer to the other side who seem to argue that
humans are incapable of rational thought and hopelessly subject to
animal urges so that the only means of 'herd control' is abortion since,
as the saying I keep hearing goes, "they're going to do it anyway." Sort
of like when a bull gets loose among the milk cows. Well, there ya go.
What can you expect?

I can always expect some pro-"life" fanatic to come up with some
convoluted argument to justify their addiction to control - even to the
extent of accusing me of doing exactly what you're doing. "People are
animals, so we have to override their free will since we're so much
wiser than the cattle."

You really don't grasp the concept of Freedom, do you?

I STILL hate pro-lifers. :-[

Thanks.
Rich

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news:5YSbj.28466$gF4.211@trnddc02...
By being born. Are you incapable of grasping that simple fact?

No, I am not! Why is it inhuman one second and something protected the
next? Birth is an arbitrary event, and it doesn't change anything about
the fetus. It's obviously an inconsistent point at which to decide when a
fetus becomes a person. And it also follows logically from this, that the
fetus at any earlier stage, up to conception, should also be protected.

Also, what is so different about a woman bearing a fetus versus parents
caring for a child? Shelter is even included for free in the womb. The
thing still needs to be fed and protected from injury. But for some
reason, it doesn't count inside the womb? Just how inconsistent is that?

The logic is overwhelming. That you refuse to accept it makes me wonder
about your phsyche. Perhaps you aborted a child some time ago and need to
staunchy rationalize it as nothing in order to live with yourself? Maybe
you just refuse to believe what you can't see: until the fetus is born, you
don't accept that it's even there. Maybe your childhood was abusive. Hard
to say, lots of things to guess.

Tim

--
Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk.
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news:QhTbj.28588$gF4.9544@trnddc02...
I can always expect some pro-"life" fanatic to come up with some
convoluted argument to justify their addiction to control...

You really don't grasp the concept of Freedom, do you?

So raising children is freedom, though bound *by law*, laws *which you
approve of*, to the responsibility of raising them? How is it that you see
a pregnant woman as nothing more than a cow, yet a mother with child as
something admirable?

What about the other laws that you obey, like traffic laws? Licensing? I
know you work, I've seen you talk sideways about "the PHB". What kind of
freedom do you have there? I bet you don't even have the freedom to come
in to work at any hour of the day or night and work as many hours as you
"feel like". If you felt like going in to work naked, cursing everyone,
would you be back the next day? How ridiculously intolerant of your
freedom!

Rich, you live in a fantasy world. There is no freedom, only the illusion.
It is not freedom we have, but which freedoms to give up that matter.

Tim

--
Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk.
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

PeterD wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:18:22 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



PeterD wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7151862.stm

...Jim Thompson

Idiots... The problem is over population, not cars.

It is ? News to me. How do you plan to reduce the population ?

Graham


Nature's working on it... bg

HIV was the first big clue.

--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.Â*Â*
--Schiller

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:45:04 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

PeterD wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7151862.stm

...Jim Thompson

Idiots... The problem is over population, not cars.

It is ? News to me. How do you plan to reduce the population ?

Graham


Solyent Green, dumbAss.

Leftist weenies, by definition, can't get it up ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Is that how they keep breeding?

--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.Â*Â*
--Schiller

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:19:28 -0600, Tim Williams wrote:
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message

I can always expect some pro-"life" fanatic to come up with some
convoluted argument to justify their addiction to control...

You really don't grasp the concept of Freedom, do you?

So raising children is freedom, though bound *by law*, laws *which you
approve of*, to the responsibility of raising them? How is it that you
see a pregnant woman as nothing more than a cow, yet a mother with child
as something admirable?

What mental disorder is it that causes you to take my words, and
accuse me of saying the exact opposite?

I don't see a pregnant woman as a cow - you do. I see her as an
individual human being with the unalienable rights to life, liberty,
and property, but you want to take away her ownership of her own
body, and seize ownership of her fetus before she expels it,
and force her to carry it full-term against her will.

"Against her will" being the operative phrase here.

If government power doesn't stop at our skin, we might as well
all just learn to march the goose-step and wear swastika armbands.

Like they say, when the Nazis come to America, they'll be wrapped
in the flag and carrying a cross.

Thanks,
Rich

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news:9wwcj.4677$XW3.2488@trnddc04...
What mental disorder is it that causes you to take my words, and
accuse me of saying the exact opposite?

I'm only using the same "logic" that you appear to be applying to me. ;-)

I don't see a pregnant woman as a cow - you do.

I didn't say that, you did.

I see her as an
individual human being with the unalienable rights to life, liberty,
and property

So how do you see the mother with child? Just a cow with calf? That was
the next thing I asked.

Tim

--
Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk.
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:11:00 -0600, Tim Williams wrote:
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message

By being born. Are you incapable of grasping that simple fact?

No, I am not! Why is it inhuman one second and something protected the
next?

Because one second it is still inside its creator's body, and
therefore her property. The next second (or however long the
birth ordeal takes), it's outside, ergo, a person.

And you're clearly putting up a strawman - by the time she
lets it get gestate long enough to get viable, she clearly
wants to whelp the thing, or she'd have taken care of it
long ago.

They're not cows, contrary to what you seem to advocate.

You seem, like most statists, to be a victim of all-or-nothing
thinking, i.e., you seem to think that what's not banned is
mandatory, which is also not true.

Thanks,
Rich

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:54:31 -0600, Tim Williams wrote:
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message

What mental disorder is it that causes you to take my words, and accuse
me of saying the exact opposite?

I'm only using the same "logic" that you appear to be applying to me.
;-)

I don't see a pregnant woman as a cow - you do.

I didn't say that, you did.

Yes, I said that I don't see a pregnant woman as a cow, but you clearly
do, as you continue to deny her her right to ownership of her own body.

Let's get down to brass tacks - if a woman doesn't own her own fetus,
just exactly who does?

Thanks,
Rich

"flipper" wrote in message
So you have no problem with a ban on partial birth abortion since,
according to you, it never happens anyway,

That's true. "Partial birth sbortion" is a political term that has no
medical meaning.

"flipper" wrote in message
...
The definition is...

That's not a "definition" in the schoalarly sense of the word; it's a
"definition" riddled with "weasel words" meant to bias the reader to have a
particular reaction to it. One could write one from the opposite point of
view, obviously, referring to e.g., the "organic cell mass" rather than a
"living fetus."

Every live human on the planet has uncountably many cells both die naturally
and be killed through "overt acts" (e.g., taking a shower! -- you're sure to
get SOME live cells in there) each and every day. The cells that make up that
cow you're going to have for dinner are really not all that different than
those making up a fetus; in my mind the distinction of what sort of entity
deserves legal protection and what doesn't can't really be argued from a
biological perspective since most all animals are so similar at the biological
level. When I see one of those bumper stickers that says, "abortion stops a
beating heart!" (which isn't even true if the abortion is performed within
about a month after conception) I often think, "well, yeah, it does, but so
does slaughtering a chicken..."

I'm not attempting to make either a pro-choice or pro-life argument here, just
pointing out that biologically based arguments (from either side) don't really
hold a lot of weight IMHO.

---Joel

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:59:54 -0600, flipper wrote:

We've already established, by DNA, that the unborn is not 'her body'.

Well, you can't do that, because to get DNA from the fetus, you'd
have to violate her body, which in the USA she's supposed to be
protected from.

And in the second place, the DNA is irrelevant, because it is INSIDE
HER BODY!

Do you, or do you not, own your own body?

Do you, or do you not, have a right to have your body safe from being
pierced, cut into, or otherwise violated, such that you let a gang of
fanatics override your Free Will?

If government power doesn't stop at our skin, then Liberty
is meaningless.

Thanks,
Rich

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:33:19 -0600, flipper wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:45:02 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:11:22 -0600, flipper wrote:

And, I dare say, some would argue your definition to be arbitrary with
no philosophical or scientific basis.

There is absolutely nothing "arbitrary" about the fact that you are
your own property.

If government power doesn't stop at our skin, then "Liberty"
is meaningless.

Thanks,
Rich

Flipper,

"flipper" wrote in message
...
Your argument might have had at least the appearance of 'scholarly' if
you had left in the definition you attempt to critique.

Just trying to convserve bandwidth.

"Living fetus" is accurate, unobscure, and to the salient point

No, it's kinda weasely. Try using it (the entire definition) in wikipedia
somewhere (other than a quote, obviously), and see how fast it takes before
it's labeled as weasely.

while your
"organic cell mass" is precisely the thing you claim, "weasel words,"
in an attempt to obfuscate.

Yes, exactly, that was my point! "Organic cell mass" is just as bad as
"living fetus." In a proper definition, one might reasonably say "living
fetus" one of twice, but the definition you quoted clearly belabors the point
in an attempt to bias the reader's reaction.

What you are doing is a version of "false equivalency" where every
irrelevant 'similarity' between things is discussed while summarily
ignoring all matters of substance.

Again, exactly my point: You can't decide whether or not (or when) it's OK to
abort babies/fetuses/call masses/whatever-they-are based strictly on
biological consideration.

But it is precisely all the things you chose to summarily ignore that
differentiate a human being from a dead tree stump and while you may
not find 'much difference' between the two I dare say the rest of the
human race does.

Agreed, they do... although I'm not sure you want to persue that line of
reasoning with respect to deciding when or if abortions are OK because you
then rapidly get into the rather sticky area of trying to decide whether or
not, e.g., deformed or severaly retarded fetuses or even born babies deserve
any protection under the law. Or maybe you do... I would admit that there are
not really any easy answers in this area.

If you see no distinction between murdering another human being vs
killing a chicken then you have a lot more ethical and moral problems
than dealing with the abortion question.

I see a distinction, my point was just that the singular fact that aborting
(some) fetuses stops a beating heart doesn't persuade me that abortion is good
or bad... plus I then get annoyed at the manipulation attempted, especially
after realizing it's not even a true statement. It's almost as ridiculous a
bumper sticker as, e.g, "Not aborting a severely retarded baby will cost tax
payers an average of a million dollars over the life of the child, which will
cause 10 other already-born children to die from being unable to afford health
care." -- It *might* be true (although of course here I'm just making up the
numbers), but it shouldn't really influence the discussion of whether or not
abortion is OK.

---Joel

"PeterD" wrote in message


Yes, I'm a bit (tiny bit!) radical on population... My utopian society
is about the smallest that anyone would ever consider.

You think it's a matter of size. Of degree.


I don't think it is a case of "we can make it work" but a case of "If
we control our population, then some of the problems we have today
will cease to be problems".

Control our population. Jeez.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add another
zero, and remove the last word.

"flipper" wrote in message
...
There is noting "weasel word" about "living fetus."

You might not like the term -- "weasel word" -- and I'd grant you that it's
not the ideal example based on how Wikipedia defines it, but regardless of
which term you want to use, the repetitive use of the term "living fetus" in
the law's phrasing is -- IMO -- clearly meant to evoke a specific emotional
response from the reader rather than simply trying to define what a
partial-birth abortion is. For a comparison, I'm willing to bet that
medical texts describing and defining the procedure don't read at all like
the law you cited does. Hopefully you'd accept that -- while nothing
written is ever 100% objective -- textbooks on
engineering/science/medicine/etc. at least *attempt* to be so. Those
writing laws may or may not be required to even make that attempt (it's
well-known that how you word a proposal has a significant influence on
peoples' reaction to it).

while your
"organic cell mass" is precisely the thing you claim, "weasel words,"
in an attempt to obfuscate.
Yes, exactly, that was my point!
No, that was not your point

My point really was that "organic cell mass" is "just as weasely" as "living
fetus." I may have communicated this so poorly that it wasn't obvious, but
I'm telling you the truth here.

Living fetus is appropriate and well understood while "organic cell
mass" is meaningless B.S.

IMO both are inappropriate.

Here, again, we see your over riding concern that someone might
"figure out' what's being discussed and have 'a certain reaction'.

In a debate where the goal is to create a law, I'm a strong advocate of
trying to remove as much *emotional* reaction as possible. I don't think
there's anything to be "figured out" -- surely it's clear to everyone that
performing an abortion kills a living entity (a "living fetus" if you like),
and the question is whether or not (or when) that entity deserves legal
protection such that killing it would be illegal. It's a difficult issue
since it's hard to get away from attempting to define what is human and what
isn't (many people get a little uncomfortable when it's pointed out that at
a biological level "being human" is not all that horribly special in the
grand scheme of things) as well as the recognition that what happens to the
fetus has a huge impact on many people (obviously the mother and father, and
these days even grandparents often figure they have a say).

On the other hand, the 'Pro life' crowd have a prima facie case with
DNA being a reliable test for 'human being' in other matters so it's
at least a reasonable argument for them to claim it's valid here as
well, including for a, so called, "organic cell mass,"

But surely no one argues that just because some cell mass contains human DNA
in it it deserves legal protection, do they? Cancerous tumors still contain
plenty of human DNA, after all...

Are you suggesting the mentally retarded are not human and have no
rights?

They're certainly human and by definition they have all the rights that any
other human does. (...one salient point being that, AFAIK, no country
claims humans have the right not be killed or left to die 100% of the
time... there are always "strings" attached, such as not being a mass
murderer, not requiring huge amounts of other peoples' resources to keep you
alive and, yes, in some places, having actually been born or at least gotten
2/3 of the way there or whatever.)

Why not a 'deformed' X year old if the
'deformity' is what makes it 'ok'? After all, the X year old is just
an "organic cell mass" too.

You're again demonstrating my original thesis, that biology alone isn't
enough to decide whether or not abortion is OK.

I rather think we're in violent agreement about many things here...

I don't know whether it is or not because

Trust me, it takes a number of weeks after conception until a beating heart
has developed; women who use "day after" pills (...on the day after...)
don't stop any beating hearts.

---Joel

"flipper" wrote in message
...

Nonsense.

"flipper" wrote in message
...
No, that's your obsession: that someone might 'figure out' what's
being discussed and have 'a certain reaction'.

From what you say, it sounds like you're a supporter of having "loaded"
(weasely? :-) ) definitions in your laws. That's not my preference, since
overall I don't really think it helps, but I'm sure that the type of
definition your prefer is not uncommon in many other laws too.

That's because their purpose is to tell another doctor how to perform
a particular procedure as it is currently practiced and not to define
the 'concept'.regardless of the procedure involved.

Not the textbooks I'm used to -- usually a concept is quite well-defined prior
to a discussion of procedures on how to implement the concept.

You, however, would object to saying "cell phone" because it might
evoke 'a certain reaction' and claim "assemblage of electronic
components" is 'just as weasely'.

I might object if, by, "cell phone" you really meant "any and all radios" and
would then counter that "assemblage of electronic components" was just as
weasely as "cell phone." :-)

Interestingly, since defining a cell phone precisely is actually somewhat
difficult, writing legislation that bans the seemingly simple concept of,
e.g., using cell phones while driving can end up have plenty of unexpected
consequences. If you read some of the ham radio sites, they'll occasionally
be upset that laws are written so generically that not only are cell phones
banned... but so are ham radios, police/fire/ambulance radios, etc. This
point again argues for trying to write laws in such a way as to make the
specific intent as clear as possible, which is often at odds with writing them
in such a way that so as to bias the reader in their reaction to it.

Laws are written by lawyers who don't give a tinker's dam what
something 'sounds like' or 'looks like'. Their obsession is in making
the legalism as bullet proof as possible so the next lawyer won't have
an easy time picking it apart, like with "what the meaning of is is."

Fair enough, I suppose. Perhaps the law you cited is more a reflection of a
society filled with overzealous lawyers than "common sense" people...

You cannot write a law making murder illegal without mentioning murder

Sure you can... you just talk about "killing" and "death" and a host of other
words instead. Using the term "murder" in a law is just there to make it
more compact when you feel that your average reader already knows what
"murder" is.

and, I'm sorry, but that's going to evoke 'a certain reaction' in some
people.

....which is something that I believe we should attempt to avoid whenever
possible. Leave the melodrama for the court room testimony and argument, not
in the letter of the law.

That is precisely the problem with weasel words, like "organic cell
mass," you can't figure out what the hell is meant and even if you
think you know you don't.

You're still don't seem to accept that my usage of the term "organic cell
mass" was done specifically to demonstrate something that would not be useful.

Go ahead and try to come up with something understandable that doesn't
evoke 'a certain reaction'.

That's a bit of a strawman... just because we can't write "perfectly" worded
laws that don't evoke emotional chain reactions is no reason not to attempt to
*minimize* the reactions.

The Pro life crowd, of course, argue that the time to be thinking of
'impacts' is before you create it.

So do the pro-choicers; I doubt you could find anyone from, e.g., Planned
Parenthood who'd say that having an abortion vs. not conceiving the child in
the first place would ever be a positive choice. So in that sense I expect
the pro-lifers and pro-choicers agree, but of course the debate comes into
play when, through immaturity (e.g., teens who "just didn't think" they'd get
pregant) or "accidents" (no birth control method is perfect) or circumstances
beyond their control (e.g., rape), if you conceive a child anyway, what are
the options?

They're certainly human
How do you know?

It's like porn -- you can't define it but you know it when you see it? :-)

There is no perfect definition of human, so I suppose you might find me a case
whether I'd be hard pressed to say whether or not the organic tissue mass in
front of me is human :-). However, personally I'd normally give those organic
tissue masses the benefit of the doubt... especially if they can perambulate
and grunt a bit, I guess... :-)

Well, before they collapse it's skull while killing it.

I suspect that most pro-choicers are in full agreement that, yes, a fetus is a
human... but that doesn't mean they don't want the option of killing it.

Nice amoral jumble of false equivalencies, like trying to equate
premeditated overt acts, such as a mass murderer, with guiltless
existence and the deliberate act of abortion is not "left to die."

I didn't say those things were equivalent; they're just various examples of
when we, as humans, actively kill other living entities (including fetuses).

I'm not sure your emphasis on trying to figure out a really good definition of
"human" helps that much in the abortion debate, because I expect you'd agree
that there are many instances where killing non-humans is morally wrong as
well... right?

---Joel

"PeterD" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:56:23 -0600, "Bo" wrote:


Seems that the difference in our views can be summarized by saying, I have
faith in and that the people of the USA have the ability and resources to
sustain themselves as a whole, whereas you do not. I wonder which
countries
you think are not overpopulated? and what your definition of overpopulated
is?

Bo


This is a good discussion, and I think it should continue, but it is
way off-topic here and perhaps we should move it elsewhere.

Yes, I'm a bit (tiny bit!) radical on population... My utopian society
is about the smallest that anyone would ever consider.

I don't think it is a case of "we can make it work" but a case of "If
we control our population, then some of the problems we have today
will cease to be problems".

You see a happy future, I'm a bit more pessimistic however.

Sorry about the liong delay... been away for the holidays. I don't see much
need to move the discussion elsewhere since this group often has political
and non-techie discussions... just let me know which newsgroup you move to
if you should so decide...

I more realist I think than either optimist/pessimist categories--ie
somethings pessimistic, something optimistic.

Bo