(split from FW thread) Abortion Debate

[idirtify]

It seems you're sidestepping my questions and putting words in my mouth. Where do I say the person attached to the arm has no rights?

Right here:

“Even if it were the arm doing the fisting, I would not be in the wrong if I punched the dude in the face … Furthermore, if a person were to do that, I would not be wrong even if I punched them in the face while his arm was outside of my rectum. In fact, I could still prosecute them for a time later, not just for the time they were violating my personal space.”

 

[jmdrake]

In Frisby v. Schultz the Supreme Court decided that it is not OK to harass. Freedom of speech is protected but the location of it is limited. Specifically, it is not OK to use speech to pester. If you have political speech to utter, it is protected but to use it as an excuse to pester is not protected.

Though the Supreme Court did not come out and define the right to privacy to include the right not to be pestered the Supreme Court by inference suggest such a standard with this decision. The decision does say local standards may be put in place to protect privacy.

Sure. I'm aware of how the Supreme Court violated the constitution in that case, just like the violated the constitution in the Dread Scott case, the Pleasey v. Ferguson case, the Wickard v. Filburn case etc. But it's total crap. Either you have a right to free speech or you don't. If the government has it's way your "free speech zone" will be limited to here.

 

[jmdrake]

What about "big government" stopping killing of people in America?
Maybe we cannot do much to protect people or animals around the entire globe, but we can do something to protect them here. Life is important, whether it is human or animal life. The environment as well. We should do what we can to protect it. Human, Whale, Dolphin, Cat, Dog, whatever one may be.

I think the best we can do for the world as a whole is lead by a good example.

Well for one thing the U.S. government doesn't own the ocean. For another it was government environmental activism that cause the problem in the gulf in the first place. If it weren't for the federal government more oil companies would be drilling closer to shore in shallower waters where it's easier to fix problems.

 

[jmdrake]

What a perfect double-circle! What the law currently says or does or “will get you” is not relevant to a discussion about what law SHOULD BE. No, I don’t understand why you are merely making up and picking-and-choosing definitions.

Wrong. I gave you my answer of what IS first and then I gave you my answer of what should be! You win round one of what is. The government defines that babies 8 months into a pregnancy don't have rights unless they make in partway down the birth canal. Before that they didn't even have rights then.

What should be is that human dna + cognitive ability = individual and individual = rights. But you are "picking-and-choosing" which arguments you want to respond to.

 

[Elle]

Not every woman that enters a clinic is getting an abortion. It used to be that birth control pills were cheaper at the clinic than at the pharmacy. Exams were cheaper there as well. When you don't have insurance, this makes a difference. Been there.

It is extremely annoying to be going into the clinic for birth control pills and having a random person follow you quoting the bible, as they shove pictures of aborted babies in your face. I wasn't there for an abortion and I am not Christian. How can this be free speech? To me, it is harassment.

 

[micahnelson]

How can this be free speech? To me, it is harassment.

Harassment isn't the opposite of free speech, but its price. Its a heavy burden, I can understand that, but thats the price we pay. If you want to tell President XYZ where to go and how to get there, Joe Biblethumper is probably going to be able to tell you the same thing.

I'm against abortion on principle, but I can understand that verbal assault is not pleasant to experience. I don't think I would go that route- but some do. I am surprised we don't see protests at churches as a response.

 

[jmdrake]

Harassment isn't the opposite of free speech, but its price. Its a heavy burden, I can understand that, but thats the price we pay. If you want to tell President XYZ where to go and how to get there, Joe Biblethumper is probably going to be able to tell you the same thing.

I'm against abortion on principle, but I can understand that verbal assault is not pleasant to experience. I don't think I would go that route- but some do. I am surprised we don't see protests at churches as a response.

^This * 1776! I don't get people who are so ready to through the first amendment under the bus whenever it suits them. Every time we hold an "End the Fed" rally in from of one of the Fed buildings that's a type of "harassment" too.

 

[idirtify]

Wrong. I gave you my answer of what IS first and then I gave you my answer of what should be! You win round one of what is. The government defines that babies 8 months into a pregnancy don't have rights unless they make in partway down the birth canal. Before that they didn't even have rights then.

I seeeee. NOT!

What should be is that human dna + cognitive ability = individual and individual = rights. But you are "picking-and-choosing" which arguments you want to respond to.

Why did you stop there? Your collection of criteria granting rights includes far more than human dna and cognitive ability. It also includes:
1) the thing can benefit from singing,
2) you getting more out of singing to the thing,
3) the thing recognizes your singing voice,
4) the thing has human tissue that’s only a few centimeters difference from a baby,
5) people cry about loosing the thing.

I feel like I am omitting some. O well.

Anyway…… Dear all THINGS reading (or within line-of-sight of) this post:
If any of these 5-7 characteristics relate to you in some way, YOU JUST MIGHT BE a thing with rights.

 

[Elle]

^This * 1776! I don't get people who are so ready to through the first amendment under the bus whenever it suits them. Every time we hold an "End the Fed" rally in from of one of the Fed buildings that's a type of "harassment" too.

I wasn't chucking the 1st under the bus. Shoving pictures in someone's face to the point where you are slapping them in the face with said pictures is not free speech.

 

[jmdrake]

I seeeee. NOT!

Well that's one thing we agree on. Your problem is that you can't see.

Why did you stop there? Your collection of criteria granting rights includes far more than human dna and cognitive ability. It also includes:

Wrong. I simply gave you my criteria for what is an individual. I gave you evidence of why I think a fetus is an individual. The fact that you want to ignore such clear evidence just shows you are closed minded. But rights are determined by the laws government of the government where you live. If you live in China for example, you have no rights even as an adult human. But you should have rights because you are an individual. Anyway, you want to be a jerk and make lame attempts at tearing down my examples (while sticking to the nonsense that a fetus = cancer). Let's hear your example of what is an individual. Do you really believe that a baby that is stopped halfway down the birth canal and then killed somehow is less of an individual than the baby that is allowed to come out the last few centimeters? If no then you are actually agreeing with my point whether you are willing to admit it or not. If yes, then why should a few centimeters make such a big difference in your bizzarro world?

 

[tasteless]

Right here:

“Even if it were the arm doing the fisting, I would not be in the wrong if I punched the dude in the face … Furthermore, if a person were to do that, I would not be wrong even if I punched them in the face while his arm was outside of my rectum. In fact, I could still prosecute them for a time later, not just for the time they were violating my personal space.”

Having the right to defend myself from assault != the person assaulting me not having rights. If a person were to commit such an act, is it not wrong to defend yourself using whatever non-lethal means necessary? If a person were to sodomize another with their arm, do you not believe that person should rightfully go to jail? Or do you think the proper punishment would be to chop off his arm and throw his arm behind bars since only the arm was committing the violation and the person attached to it has rights?

 

[jmdrake]

I wasn't chucking the 1st under the bus. Shoving pictures in someone's face to the point where you are slapping them in the face with said pictures is not free speech.

If someone hits you with a picture that's assault, not speech. If they simply put it in your face (what you euphemistically call "shoving") that is speech. You simply don't have a constitutional right not to be harassed on the public sidewalk.

Free speech:

Not free speech:

Any questions?

Once the government starts passing laws based on the content of the speech (anti abortion for example) it's violating the first amendment. You don't need new laws to keep someone from making contact with you with their signs. Battery laws already cover that. But you don't have a right not to have a sign close to you or even "in your personal space".

 

[micahnelson]

But you don't have a right not to have a sign close to you or even "in your personal space".

Not to quibble, but i think most states have laws respecting a "Personal Bubble" and being aggressive within 2 feet or so of a person becomes assault. Assault can be verbal and is illegal, as you know.

Its a difficult line...

I shop at walmart sometimes, try to avoid it though. If people were protesting I wouldn't mind them yelling at me or whatever, as long as they did it without blocking my path or literally getting in my face. If I can see well enough to get in and out of the door safely then its all free speech in my book.

That said, there is little emotional turmoil present in the choice to go to walmart- but much in the choice to have an abortion. Any argument about the fragility of the person walking in can certainly be made about the fragility of the life, if you believe that human life begins before womb-escape.

We certainly could argue when someone has rights- and I think its a good argument to have. Unfortunately our government fails to recognize human rights during any stage of life, pre and post-mortem. Certainly there is fertile soil in the common grounds we do stand on from which to reap a harvest of liberty.

 

[jmdrake]

Not to quibble, but i think most states have laws respecting a "Personal Bubble" and being aggressive within 2 feet or so of a person becomes assault. Assault can be verbal and is illegal, as you know.

Its a difficult line...

I've never heard of that, but it's not surprising with different people pushing idiocy like "hate speech" laws. I guess these states don't allow baseball either.

The common law definition of assault is an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

Words are only considered assault if the create a reasonable fear that a harmful or offensive contact is imminent. From the above link.

There can be no assault if the act does not produce a true apprehension of harm in the victim. There must be a reasonable fear of injury. The usual test applied is whether the act would induce such apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person. The status of the victim is taken into account. A threat made to a child might be sufficient to constitute an assault, while an identical threat made to an adult might not.

Of course states can always pass statutes that abridge the common law. But applying the common law to abortion protests, somebody who said "If you go in there and hurt that baby I'll hurt you when you come out." would qualify as assault. On the other hand someone held up some grizzly photo of an abortion and said "Think about what you are about to do" would not.

I shop at walmart sometimes, try to avoid it though. If people were protesting I wouldn't mind them yelling at me or whatever, as long as they did it without blocking my path or literally getting in my face. If I can see well enough to get in and out of the door safely then its all free speech in my book.

That said, there is little emotional turmoil present in the choice to go to walmart- but much in the choice to have an abortion. Any argument about the fragility of the person walking in can certainly be made about the fragility of the life, if you believe that human life begins before womb-escape.

We certainly could argue when someone has rights- and I think its a good argument to have. Unfortunately our government fails to recognize human rights during any stage of life, pre and post-mortem. Certainly there is fertile soil in the common grounds we do stand on from which to reap a harvest of liberty.

I think your Walmart example is very good. Applied to the abortion question, people who in the old days linked arm and arm forming a "human chain" blocking access to abortion clinics are certainly violating someone else's rights. They may feel their actions justified from a civil disobedience point of view. That's like slavery abolitionists who might link arm in arm to block the way to the slave auction house. Or running the underground railroad for that matter. But certainly the first amendment doesn't give you the right to physically block access to anything that's legal.

Something else to consider when thinking about the fragility of the women involved. As I pointed out earlier, at least one study has shown that 64 percent of them felt pressure to have an abortion. If there is an action against pro life protesters "pestering" women into not having abortions, where's the action against boyfriends, husbands, relatives etc. who pester women to have abortions?

And I agree this is a good discussion to have.

 

[ChaosControl]

Well for one thing the U.S. government doesn't own the ocean. For another it was government environmental activism that cause the problem in the gulf in the first place. If it weren't for the federal government more oil companies would be drilling closer to shore in shallower waters where it's easier to fix problems.

I know they don't "own" the ocean. As far as I am concerned, the government doesn't "own" anything.

Well I will agree it is partially the government's fault, but it is also BPs fault. There should never have been deep water drilling, that was just stupid to allow. I don't think it was really environmental activism though that is responsible, I think it was just stupidity. There is nothing environmentally sound about deep water drilling.

 

[ChaosControl]

Not every woman that enters a clinic is getting an abortion. It used to be that birth control pills were cheaper at the clinic than at the pharmacy. Exams were cheaper there as well. When you don't have insurance, this makes a difference. Been there.

It is extremely annoying to be going into the clinic for birth control pills and having a random person follow you quoting the bible, as they shove pictures of aborted babies in your face. I wasn't there for an abortion and I am not Christian. How can this be free speech? To me, it is harassment.

Well going there supports its existence, so it is saying you"re okay with it. So just because you aren't actually getting an abortion yourself, doesn't mean they don't have objection to what you're doing. Free speech includes things that you may not like, things that make you uncomfortable.

 

[idirtify]

Originally Posted by idirtify
Why did you stop there? Your collection of criteria granting rights includes far more than human dna and cognitive ability. It also includes:

Wrong. I simply gave you my criteria for what is an individual. I gave you evidence of why I think a fetus is an individual. The fact that you want to ignore such clear evidence just shows you are closed minded. But rights are determined by the laws government of the government where you live. If you live in China for example, you have no rights even as an adult human. But you should have rights because you are an individual. Anyway, you want to be a jerk and make lame attempts at tearing down my examples (while sticking to the nonsense that a fetus = cancer). Let's hear your example of what is an individual. Do you really believe that a baby that is stopped halfway down the birth canal and then killed somehow is less of an individual than the baby that is allowed to come out the last few centimeters? If no then you are actually agreeing with my point whether you are willing to admit it or not. If yes, then why should a few centimeters make such a big difference in your bizzarro world?

Why did you say “wrong” then reword exactly what I said? In the context of this argument, I can see no difference between “criteria granting rights” and “criteria for what is an individual” (OR “evidence of why I think a fetus is an individual”). IOW: yes, I know what you gave me and it’s the same thing as “criteria granting rights”.

Now regarding your criteria: Upon analysis, they all fall apart. Apparently, since you think my previous efforts were “lame”, I must go through your list one-by-one and point out what should be excruciatingly obvious:

1) human dna – lots of things in the body have human dna but not rights. Cancers can even have “unique/discrete dna”.
2) cognitive ability – lots of born people have no cognitive ability (sleeping, retarded, in coma, etc) yet have rights.
3) the thing can benefit from singing – other things (plants) can benefit from singing but not have rights.
4) you get more out of singing to the thing – same as above, and more.
5) the thing recognizes your singing voice – see DOGS; they don’t have rights.
6) the thing has human tissue that’s only a few centimeters difference from a baby – see #1.
7) people cry about loosing the thing – people cry about losing LOTS of things that don’t have rights.

Now regarding my idea of an individual person with rights, I have previously delineated it.

Finally, how about you stop with the attempts to lower the standard of the debate? I’ll appreciate you not continuing to call me names (like “jerk”).

 

[idirtify]

Having the right to defend myself from assault != the person assaulting me not having rights. If a person were to commit such an act, is it not wrong to defend yourself using whatever non-lethal means necessary? If a person were to sodomize another with their arm, do you not believe that person should rightfully go to jail? Or do you think the proper punishment would be to chop off his arm and throw his arm behind bars since only the arm was committing the violation and the person attached to it has rights?

In this context, there is no difference between the invader “not having rights” and “not have rights that supersede yours”. Since it’s obvious that abortion is a case that asks “whose rights dominate”, there is no meaningful difference between “having no rights” and “having fewer rights”.

Now let’s get to your question. NO, it’s not wrong to defend yourself; and YES, it is within your rights to attack the invader. Since that is my point regarding the fetus and you have (unwarily?) concurred, the only detail left to discuss is whether you have the right to go beyond non-lethal force; and the only relevant factor here is how long the invasion continues – if non-lethal force fails to successfully defend against the invasion, you have every right to intensify your defense efforts into the realm of lethal force (or to remain true to the analogy [admittedly a lousy one, since there are no good ones], to lop off and/or destroy the arm).

 

[Krugerrand]

In this context, there is no difference between the invader “not having rights” and “not have rights that supersede yours”. Since it’s obvious that abortion is a case that asks “whose rights dominate”, there is no meaningful difference between “having no rights” and “having fewer rights”.

Now let’s get to your question. NO, it’s not wrong to defend yourself; and YES, it is within your rights to attack the invader. Since that is my point regarding the fetus and you have (unwarily?) concurred, the only detail left to discuss is whether you have the right to go beyond non-lethal force; and the only relevant factor here is how long the invasion continues – if non-lethal force fails to successfully defend against the invasion, you have every right to intensify your defense efforts into the realm of lethal force (or to remain true to the analogy [admittedly a lousy one, since there are no good ones], to lop off and/or destroy the arm).

Here's an interesting "perspective builder." If we take "brain dead" as meaning a person is dead ... this child survived for almost three months inside of a "sustained" corpse.

A brain-dead US woman who was kept alive for almost three months to give her foetus time to develop has given birth to a girl, two months premature.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4740721.stm

 

[tasteless]

In this context, there is no difference between the invader “not having rights” and “not have rights that supersede yours”. Since it’s obvious that abortion is a case that asks “whose rights dominate”, there is no meaningful difference between “having no rights” and “having fewer rights”.

Which right of the mother is the baby infringing on by existing?

Are you suggesting that pregnancy is an infringement on a mother's rights? Then does that mean all pregnancies should be aborted in order to protect those rights?

Now let’s get to your question. NO, it’s not wrong to defend yourself; and YES, it is within your rights to attack the invader. Since that is my point regarding the fetus and you have (unwarily?) concurred, the only detail left to discuss is whether you have the right to go beyond non-lethal force; and the only relevant factor here is how long the invasion continues – if non-lethal force fails to successfully defend against the invasion, you have every right to intensify your defense efforts into the realm of lethal force (or to remain true to the analogy [admittedly a lousy one, since there are no good ones], to lop off and/or destroy the arm).

Are you still trying to say that a human arm and an unborn child are equivalent? I already stated, a human arm is not a human being. A human arm does not have rights on its own, whether inside or outside another human being. It does not have rights. The unborn child does. It has the right to life whether inside or outside its mother.

Again, I'll ask. Is a mother allowed to cut the baby in half midway through delivery, since half of the "invading" baby is inside of her? When does it become a person according to you?

On that point, how is a fetus an invader, anyway? Invaders come from outside and infringe on a perimeter. A developing child does not fit this definition.