Abortion and Liberty?

[Cake]

Uh... I didn't think I would have to spell it out this clearly, because it seems so self-evident. But I'll explain the difference more clearly:

A zygote is designed to grow into an adult human. That is its purpose, and whether it survives to do so is irrelevant. A cancer cell can never grow into an adult human. But a zygote is designed to, its purpose is, and it is made to grow to an adult human, and for this reason it qualifies for the protection of life afforded to adults.

Also, you mention a sperm and an egg. Alone, unfertilized, they hold zero potential for life. Only a fertilized egg holds potential for life. Sperm and unfertilized eggs cannot thus be held to the same standard as a fertilized egg.

Once the egg is fertilized, it is potential life. Once that fertilized egg becomes a zygote, it is a human life.

A fertilized chicken egg is just a young chicken.

A human zygote is just a young human.



I answer this above this quote.

First of all, I did not mention cancer in the post you are responding to, so try to keep up.

Secondly, you completely ignore that more than one sperm can join with an egg, becoming a zygote, and those two sperm can develop into two bodies with only one brain. You are avoiding the fact that we would not consider a single head's second body as a separate individual entitled to constitutional protections, yet it exceeds the requirement you have set to establish personhood.

 

[Cake]

When you read the words I wrote in the quote of mine you quoted in this post, you interpreted them differently than I meant them!

Or perhaps you meant something different than what you say. Nonetheless, I quoted one word, I believe was in perfect context... unless of course, you are now saying that you did not mean that the words should be defined by the accepted definitions at the time they were written. It's your job to say what you mean. Here you have an editing option, in the Constitution, if there is a discrepancy between what is meant and what is said, it may very well be a Court's interpretive duty to identify, but it is only for the Congress to correct.

See, this is what I mean. If we go around applying our own meanings and definitions to the words in the Constitution, then we can make it mean whatever we want it to mean. That is not a literal reading, that is an interpretive reading. What I suggested, using the meaning that the founders put into the document, is what I would consider to be a literal reading.

A literal interpretation means using a dictionary with accurate definitions of the words at the time they were written. What someone hoped to achieve at that time is irrelevant.

Also, the term "living document" is usually meant to be the kind of reading I am arguing against, and does not refer to the amendment process. That type of reading being where you use whatever definition of the words in it allows the government to do what it wants, rather than the government following the intent and meaning behind the words that were written, using the definitions and concepts that were meant in the words.

Yes, the term "living document" is often mislabeled as creative interpretation. However, upon examining the Constitution, there is nothing living about it, by simply posing it in new ways, like a lifeless doll. It is the ability to CHANGE and adapt through that change (amendments) that gives it an applicable characteristic of living. I was simply voicing my perceived correction of a misunderstood concept of "living" in generic terms, and reference to a document.

 

[Yieu]

First of all, I did not mention cancer in the post you are responding to, so try to keep up.

I am keeping up. We were still talking about the question that I was still answering. I was still answering, and you were also still discussing, the following question:

Ah, but it is not so easy. If simply having "unique DNA" qualifies as a "separate individual" entitled to rights of personhood, how do you then differentiate cancerous human cells which also have "unique DNA"?

You did not fully understand my answer to that question, so I clarified my answer a few times to try to help you understand the answer. It seems you may not have followed along with the train of thought, so you may want to go back and read through it again.

Secondly, you completely ignore that more than one sperm can join with an egg, becoming a zygote, and those two sperm can develop into two bodies with only one brain. You are avoiding the fact that we would not consider a single head's second body as a separate individual entitled to constitutional protections, yet it exceeds the requirement you have set to establish personhood.

I ignored that part because it was an irrelevant expansion upon the first question, and it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. That new question is merely trying to further complicate the issue when I made it as simple as it can be. I am not discussing quirks -- I gave the clear answer, take it or leave it.

 

[Yieu]

A literal interpretation means using a dictionary with accurate definitions of the words at the time they were written. What someone hoped to achieve at that time is irrelevant.

The thing is, if you do not look back to the writings of the founders, you won't really get the meaning of the words that are in the Constitution. Using a dictionary from the time is not enough. Understanding the concepts that those mere words are trying to portray is how you get the most full understanding of the Constitution and the meaning behind it. We may get the meaning of the words using a dictionary of the times, but the fullest explanation is in the writings of the founders. Knowing the intent behind the words in the Constitution is the most full understanding. A dry, dictionary understanding is a partial understanding. And the worst understanding is trying to bend the meaning of the words using modern understandings of the words, and twisting the meaning out of existence.

 

[Cake]

I am keeping up. We were still talking about the question that I was still answering. I was still answering, and you were also still discussing, the following question:



You did not fully understand my answer to that question, so I clarified my answer a few times to try to help you understand the answer. It seems you may not have followed along with the train of thought, so you may want to go back and read through it again.



I ignored that part because it was an irrelevant expansion upon the first question, and it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. That new question is merely trying to further complicate the issue when I made it as simple as it can be. I am not discussing quirks -- I gave the clear answer, take it or leave it.

Anything that meets the defined criteria is relevant. The fact remains that you have not provided a definition that establishes a "person" that does not apply to many things beside what you intend to attach it to.

...and good night.

 

[Yieu]

Anything that meets the defined criteria is relevant. The fact remains that you have not provided a definition that establishes a "person" that does not apply to many things beside what you intend to attach it to.

...and good night.

I explained it well enough. I think I was pretty clear. If it is still not understood, perhaps try reading back to see if that helps. Adding questions that are not relevant to the topic after a satisfactory answer has already been given then complaining about that does not make sense.

 

[Cake]

I explained it well enough. I think I was pretty clear. If it is still not understood, perhaps try reading back to see if that helps. Adding questions that are not relevant to the topic after a satisfactory answer has already been given then complaining about that does not make sense.

I do not find it satisfactory. You leave too many questions, with such an oversimplified definition, that appears to be based more on your emotional analysis of the issue and not biological or medical science.

You, saying that a sperm does not have the potential of human life, because it is dependent upon passing through the cervix and entering an egg, is truly no different than saying that the zygote does not have potential for human life unless it is able to make the journey through the fallopian tube to the uterus.

Yes, the DNA ‘blueprint’ is there to guide the development of the zygote into a person, but just as a blueprint does not a house make, DNA does not a person make. It is therefore contradictory logic to base such a conclusion that that is the moment a person becomes a “person” when you would no more consider a blueprint and pile of lumber a “house” before it reaches a further stage in its development.

Furthermore, it is apparent that you may very well be aware of your contradiction in that you are adamantly avoiding the reality that by your very measure, the additional body parts of a person born would constitute a person in and of themselves. Therefore it would be an injustice to the liberty of that which you have identified as a "person"--being the product of a separate sperm entering an egg and becoming a part of a zygote—to remove any extra limbs or body parts that are the result of a birth defect.

 

[Cake]

The thing is, if you do not look back to the writings of the founders, you won't really get the meaning of the words that are in the Constitution. Using a dictionary from the time is not enough. Understanding the concepts that those mere words are trying to portray is how you get the most full understanding of the Constitution and the meaning behind it. We may get the meaning of the words using a dictionary of the times, but the fullest explanation is in the writings of the founders. Knowing the intent behind the words in the Constitution is the most full understanding. A dry, dictionary understanding is a partial understanding. And the worst understanding is trying to bend the meaning of the words using modern understandings of the words, and twisting the meaning out of existence.

If a literal reading does not suffice to understand the words of the Constitution, how is it that you expect to understand the additional words of the Founders? Perhaps we should with equal arbitrary effort examine their early lives and presume to understand their collective intent...

The fact is those additional writings did not make it into the Constitution. They were not ratified, and they are not based in binding law. There is no social contract or authoritative document adopted by the United States that anything the Founders said outside the Constitution should be regarded as law. Even referring to the Declaration of Independence, there is no document that contains words that supersede the Constitution of the United States and what it says specifically.

Our responsibility is to understand what it says in literal terms, and if the law does not say what it means, a process is included to correct the discrepancy. Rather that adopt this idea of accepting twists and turns in the law for each writing you discover originating from a Founder, the law should be considered static in form, at the time it is read.

 

[Yieu]

You, saying that a sperm does not have the potential of human life, because it is dependent upon passing through the cervix and entering an egg, is truly no different than saying that the zygote does not have potential for human life unless it is able to make the journey through the fallopian tube to the uterus.

I am sorry you do not find it satisfactory. At this point we are just talking back and forth -- the relevant arguments have been made. I am not over-simplifying it. You are over-complicating it by adding in extra "What If" factors that are not related to the question at hand.

The portion I quoted above is an example of over-complicating, but it is also not an accurate comparison. I suppose the problem is that you don't understand the difference between fertilized and not fertilized. I will try to break this point down further.

A sperm alone can never become life.
An egg alone can never become life.
The distance from the sperm to the egg is irrelevant. If that distance is never traversed, it means nothing.

Once the egg is fertilized, then it becomes potential life -- and at no stage before this is it ever potential life.
Once the fertilized egg develops into a zygote, then it is life -- and at no stage before this is considered to be life.
Once it is life (i.e. a zygote), it is a separate, individual, human life (which is legally defined as a "person," if you want to get into legal terms), and this stage is only possible if each of the steps leading up to this point occur.

If the sperm and egg never meet, there is zero potential for life.
The distance from the sperm to the egg is irrelevant.
The only relevant factor is IF the sperm and egg DO meet.

I hope this breakdown helps -- but it can only help if you take the time to read it slowly and understand the concepts involved.

"What Ifs" like potential birth defects, or rare birth deformities, or any type of twin formation are irrelevant to the conversation.
Those are merely "What Ifs," at this point, as far as this conversation is concerned, and can only serve to stray you from the answer you seek.
Those "What Ifs" are a separate and different conversation. We are talking about the point at which a human life becomes a human life. In regards to that question, those are not related and are a separate topic.

If you come to understand the facts that I have laid out in this post and previous posts, you will see that there is no contradiction in my argument. You may see one now, but it is not in fact a contradiction because a sperm -- even on its way toward an egg -- is not potential life. Only the fertilized egg is potential life. You are perhaps thinking in terms of "but, potentially, if the sperm enters the uterus and fertilizes the egg, that would mean the sperm is potential life too!" but that is not how it works. It is only potential life once the sperm fertilizes the egg. Before that point, anything is possible in the mess of quantum possibilities, so it is useless and irrelevant to talk about before the point of fertilization.

A zygote is more than just a "DNA blueprint." It is much more than that; the "DNA blueprint" is contained within the zygote, but a zygote is more than just a blueprint. It is a very, very young human being.

Please do not just give this post one quick read through and then make a quick post in response out of emotion. If you are not going to carefully read and give your full attention to trying to understand what I am trying to say, then there is no reason for me to continue trying to explain it, because at that point it means you are merely arguing for the sake of argument rather than trying to see the other side.

 

[Yieu]

If a literal reading does not suffice to understand the words of the Constitution, how is it that you expect to understand the additional words of the Founders? Perhaps we should with equal arbitrary effort examine their early lives and presume to understand their collective intent...

The fact is those additional writings did not make it into the Constitution. They were not ratified, and they are not based in binding law. There is no social contract or authoritative document adopted by the United States that anything the Founders said outside the Constitution should be regarded as law. Even referring to the Declaration of Independence, there is no document that contains words that supersede the Constitution of the United States and what it says specifically.

Our responsibility is to understand what it says in literal terms, and if the law does not say what it means, a process is included to correct the discrepancy. Rather that adopt this idea of accepting twists and turns in the law for each writing you discover originating from a Founder, the law should be considered static in form, at the time it is read.

Again, you are not understanding the words that I am saying. I cannot explain it if you refuse to understand what I am trying to explain. I've tried explaining concepts in various ways, but either you are trying to ignore what I mean, or you are reading one thing and interpreting it to mean something else in your head. And the fact that people read one thing and interpret it some other way in their head is exactly why I say we should not take the Constitution as it might sound in the modern language.

I will make one quick attempt to see if you can understand what I am trying to say.

I am not calling the supporting writings of the founders "law," nor am I considering them to be "law" as you seemed to think I meant. I am stating that those supporting documents are to be used to understand the concepts that are written in the Constitution. Let me say that again for clarity: the supporting documents are relevant in figuring out the actual meaning of the words that are written in the Constitution. I am not saying to look at the childhood lives of the founders (how is that relevant?), I am not saying to look at the supporting documents on their own merit, I am only saying that if you do not understand the intent behind the words in the Constitution itself, then you could use a different definition of the words and come up with a meaning that has nothing to do with what is written in the Constitution.

If you don't understand what I mean still, it won't help to just reply and say the same thing again... I see what you are trying to interpret my words as, but what you are reading is apparently not the same as what I am writing.

 

[CaseyJones]

moved to philosophy

 

[Sentient Void]

I think the question of whether and when/at what point a fetus, or cells, or whatever becomes a person is irrelevant.

IMO, it comes down to property rights. Does a woman own herself and have full dominion over her body? Or not? Even if a fetus is a fully self-owning person, and one does not have the right to aggress against it like any human - the issue is a property rights issue, because *if the mother deems it so*, the fetus is invading her body, and violating her. She has every right to expel it, otherwise you are making her a slave.

Not to mention the unintended consequences / practical problems in outlawing abortion and the black market it would create.

But hey, we've been over the abortion issue many, many times on this forum. if you want to see all the arguments hashes out and brought to their logical conclusions (great responses from both sides)... I must suggest these threads:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ro-Life-are-both-incomplete-Positions-(Video)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...arians-and-non-libertarian-conservatives-last

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?258089-HELP-RPF!-Am-I-A-quot-Fake-quot-Libertarian

Some epic threads right there. Shit got pretty heated.

 

[Yieu]

IMO, it comes down to property rights. Does a woman own herself and have full dominion over her body? Or not? Even if a fetus is a fully self-owning person, and one does not have the right to aggress against it like any human - the issue is a property rights issue, because *if the mother deems it so*, the fetus is invading her body, and violating her. She has every right to expel it, otherwise you are making her a slave.

I do not wish to evoke a heated response, nor do I want to get on your bad side, but there is something that I feel compelled to point out. That dash that I made bold signifies a leap in logic. Since the fetus is a fully self-owning person, and one does not have the right to aggress against it like any human, then therefore any action to harm it is murder and a violation of the non-aggression principle.

It is not at all a question of the woman's body, it is not about her body or her property rights, but rather about the child's body and its property rights.

But if you read my previous posts, I am not looking to penalize women, so you shouldn't have any problems with me over this. I am merely pointing out that abortion against the non-aggression principle, which is a divine principle -- a principle which is enforced by a system in nature called Karma.

To further reiterate, so as to not evoke a heated response, I am not interested in penalizing women. But we must stay on the side of logic and reason, and so it must be pointed out that abortion is a very clear violation of the non-aggression principle. It is an aggressive initiation of force. And it is not out of self-defense either, unless the woman's life is in danger. Even if you consider the woman to be a "slave" (which is rather offensive), that thought still does not make it out of self-defense, and as a violent act of aggression, it is still a violation of the NAP.

 

[Sentient Void]

I do not wish to evoke a heated response, nor do I want to get on your bad side, but there is something that I feel compelled to point out. That dash that I made bold signifies a leap in logic. Since the fetus is a fully self-owning person, and one does not have the right to aggress against it like any human, then therefore any action to harm it is murder and a violation of the non-aggression principle.

It is not at all a question of the woman's body, it is not about her body or her property rights, but rather about the child's body and its property rights.

But if you read my previous posts, I am not looking to penalize women, so you shouldn't have any problems with me over this. I am merely pointing out that abortion against the non-aggression principle, which is a divine principle -- a principle which is enforced by a system in nature called Karma.

To further reiterate, so as to not evoke a heated response, I am not interested in penalizing women. But we must stay on the side of logic and reason, and so it must be pointed out that abortion is a very clear violation of the non-aggression principle. It is an aggressive initiation of force. And it is not out of self-defense either, unless the woman's life is in danger. Even if you consider the woman to be a "slave" (which is rather offensive), that thought still does not make it out of self-defense, and as a violent act of aggression, it is still a violation of the NAP.

I don't take discourse personally. You don't have to worry about that.

But I don't see the 'leap in logic'. How is it a leap in logic that even though I acknowledge that a fetus is a self-owner, and a woman is a self-owner, that because she is a self-owner and has dominion over the full property of her body, that she has the right to expel from her property what she considers to be an invader? This seems absolutely consistent with the logic of property rights.

The point is that her act of evicting the fetus is absolutely an act of self-defense. If you own your home, and you invite someone in - and then you decide you don't want the person there (for whatever reason - the reason is irrelevant), you have the right to force them out.

And while calling it 'slavery' is indeed (and understandably so) an emotionally charged word in this context, it is the best word to use to describe such a situation. See, the nature of the relationship between the fetus and the mother changes, depending on the mother's view of the situation. If she wants the fetus, then it is a voluntary relationship - the fetus is still living inside the property of the mother, using her resources and energy, etc - but she is allowing it to. However, if she does not want the fetus, then it becomes a parasitic invader on her life (unfortunately), and if she is forced by law, the state, whatever to allow it to live within her property, use her energy and her resources and cause mental anguish, all against her will, then she is, in fact, by definition, made into a slave - either an involuntary slave to the state or an involuntary slave to the fetus.

But again, this and all the logical implications of these arguments have been addressed in the aforementioned threads.

 

[Krugerrand]

Allow mothers to profit from giving a child up for adoption and the abortion problem would all but go away. Realize, it's only legal because there are powerful groups that make money off of it. Take away the profit, and they'd close shop in a heartbeat. (pun, sad but intended)

Employees of adoption agencies. lawyers, and whatnot make a boatload of money off of adoptions ... the woman who bears the child gets nadda. Allow free-market compensation for her efforts, and abortions would not happen.

 

[Theocrat]

Graphically Exposing the Injustice of Abortion

The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform demonstrates unequivocally that the personhood of an unborn baby begins at conception. Click here.

 

[Sentient Void]

Allow mothers to profit from giving a child up for adoption and the abortion problem would all bu go away. Realize it's only legal because there is powerful group that makes money off of it. Take away the profit, and they'd close shop in a heartbeat. (pun, sad but intended)

Employees of adoption agencies. lawyers, and whatnot make a boatload of money off of adoptions ... the woman who bears the child gets nadda. Allow free-market compensation for her efforts, and abortions would not happen.

abso-fucking-lutely.

 

[robert68]

...And while calling it 'slavery' is indeed (and understandably so) an emotionally charged word in this context, it is the best word to use to describe such a situation. See, the nature of the relationship between the fetus and the mother changes, depending on the mother's view of the situation. If she wants the fetus, then it is a voluntary relationship - the fetus is still living inside the property of the mother, using her resources and energy, etc - but she is allowing it to. However, if she does not want the fetus, then it becomes a parasitic invader on her life (unfortunately), and if she is forced by law, the state, whatever to allow it to live within her property, use her energy and her resources and cause mental anguish, all against her will, then she is, in fact, by definition, made into a slave - either an involuntary slave to the state or an involuntary slave to the fetus.

That argument can apply to legal barriers to a pregnant woman doing something to herself, it doesn’t apply to legal sanctions against doctors for performing abortions, as they are not aggression against her.

 

[Sentient Void]

That argument can apply to legal barriers to a pregnant woman doing something to herself, it doesn’t apply to legal sanctions against doctors for performing abortions, as they are not aggression against her.

Fair enough.

So coathangers and black market abortions ftw, then?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Fair enough.

So coathangers and black market abortions ftw, then?

Excellent counterpoint. However, people who take Robert's position typically riposte with carrying the baby to term and giving it up for adoption(not to put words in his mouth, of course). What say you?