MSimon wrote:The head half-out only confers personhood. i.e. you are not a legal person until your independence from your mother is reasonably assured.
Ok. So you do seem to understand the distinction between your ficticious "legal personhood" and the defined but not specifically identified reality of sapience. As I said, I don't subscribe to that definition of personhood, but I cannot prove it is not correct. I hope someone will soon be able to. And I suspect if the definition were couched in a more explanitory way there would be more work to find out when it really is. Perhaps the law should read somethng like: Pending better knowledge regarding the point in the life cycle when a homo sapience actually becomes sapient, the courts of the US will use the definition that personhood starts at the point where 1/2 the skull is outside the womb. This is based on ancient Jewish law.
By the way, if "independence from your mother is reasonably assured" is to be your measure, shouldn't that be when the umbilical is cut? After all, if the umbilical wraps around the babies throat and it strangles half way out, is the mother responsible for murder?
MSimon wrote:The head half-out only confers personhood. i.e. you are not a legal person until your independence from your mother is reasonably assured.
In any case it is a murky business best left to the conscience of the mother and her attendants (nurses, doctors, midwives, etc.).
This is horse pucky. There are 40 year old people who are not independent of their parents.
It is only "murky" because you are squeamish about standing up to feminazis and risk being accused of misogyny. Last time I checked, none of those people have any legal standing to be judge jury and executioner over an innocent person if they are 6 inches further away from the womb. The womb isn't a nation with mother as sovereign. It's an embassy with extraterritoriality belonging to the occupant.
zapkitty wrote:So... hottest year ever... and the conversation goes from the prison slave industry to the resurgence of the forced-birth paradigm...
NOT hottest year ever. 1998 was hotter, and 1934 was hotter still, while the medeival warm period was some degree and a half warmer than that.
Besides that, we are only half way through the year. You are counting your chickens again, like any gaia cultist. The PDO just flipped. This fall is going to ruin crops and the winter will be brutal.
MSimon wrote:The head half-out only confers personhood. i.e. you are not a legal person until your independence from your mother is reasonably assured.
In any case it is a murky business best left to the conscience of the mother and her attendants (nurses, doctors, midwives, etc.).
This is horse pucky. There are 40 year old people who are not independent of their parents.
It is only "murky" because you are squeamish about standing up to feminazis and risk being accused of misogyny. Last time I checked, none of those people have any legal standing to be judge jury and executioner over an innocent person if they are 6 inches further away from the womb. The womb isn't a nation with mother as sovereign. It's an embassy with extraterritoriality belonging to the occupant.
Dude. You have been around here long enough to know that I think for myself. You may not like my conclusions but bowing to ANYONE is not my style.
And the rightness or wrongness of abortion depends on your view of the mother. Is she mandated into involuntary servitude to the "person" in her womb? Or would it be better if all such contracts are voluntary? I'm of the latter view. Despite the fact that the person in the womb is incapable of informed consent. But a good case can be made for the former. Which is why the area of contention is murky.
As I said above: my criteria is sapience AND physical independence (no umbilical cord).
In any case I would not get the government involved no matter what. Or at least as little as possible under present circumstances. Once you make women wards of the state while they are pregnant it will have unfortunate political ramifications. Like support for the pro-abortion budget busters is likely to rise.
Any way I ceased being a Libertarian absolutists quite some time ago. Because not every situation in life is amenable to fixed rules. Sometimes you have to fudge the rules. Or turn them 180. Once the rules get into law no adjustment is allowed. i.e. flexibility is reduced.
My favorite anti-abortion group wants to change people's minds not government laws. IMO that is the proper way.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote:The head half-out only confers personhood. i.e. you are not a legal person until your independence from your mother is reasonably assured.
In any case it is a murky business best left to the conscience of the mother and her attendants (nurses, doctors, midwives, etc.).
This is horse pucky. There are 40 year old people who are not independent of their parents.
It is only "murky" because you are squeamish about standing up to feminazis and risk being accused of misogyny. Last time I checked, none of those people have any legal standing to be judge jury and executioner over an innocent person if they are 6 inches further away from the womb. The womb isn't a nation with mother as sovereign. It's an embassy with extraterritoriality belonging to the occupant.
Dude. You have been around here long enough to know that I think for myself. You may not like my conclusions but bowing to ANYONE is not my style.
And the rightness or wrongness of abortion depends on your view of the mother. Is she mandated into involuntary servitude to the "person" in her womb? Or would it be better if all such contracts are voluntary? I'm of the latter view. Despite the fact that the person in the womb is incapable of informed consent. But a good case can be made for the former. Which is why the area of contention is murky.
Thank you for asking the perfect questions on this. Is she mandated into involuntary servitude? Firstly, she volunteered already when she did the act. At least thats the logic the courts apply to the MEN when they make their sperm donation. If the women get to un-volunteer after the fact, then it only stands to reason that under equal justice, the men should be able to as well and require the woman abort the child or else agree to accepting sole responsibility for the child (financial and otherwise).
As long as fathers are trapped for life from the moment of intercourse, then the women should be too. Otherwise, women are enjoying a privilege that men do not get.
Firstly, she volunteered already when she did the act.
Maybe all she wanted was sex (nature is tricky that way). As to the rest. It is a problem of law.
In any case I do not favor a government solution to the abortion question. Because the interest of "government" and those who oppose abortion are not congruent. The government workers want their jobs - thus their interest is in seeing the situation continue indefinitely. A change of culture is easier that disbanding a government Dept. And as you well know changing the culture is very hard.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I would charge the woman as an accessory. You don't want to be pregnant, don't make that choice!
It doesn't matter what you would do. The left is not interested in restricting abortion and on the right you have misdemeanor murder for the doctor and the woman goes free.
Given that political landscape - what are the odds of laws being added?
But I do love the abortion wars. While the stupids on the right are busy fighting those wars the left is stealing us blind. Way to keep your eye on the ball guys.
I might note that abortions go up in difficult economic times. Smart politics on the right eh?
I think it is past time to retire the "Tax and Spend but I'm against Abortion" Republicans. A party that favors fiscal sanity and other wise leaves the people alone to make their own (good and bad) choices is the American way. Unless you believe government can make people moral. And how is that Drug War working out for you?
The cry of statists everywhere: "just let me get my hands on the government guns and I'll fix things." And when things don't get fixed the answer is always the same: "I just need more money and more government guns."
BTW my favorite anti-abortion group is not interested in government solutions (smart people - in fact some of them are friends of mine):
Sooner or later moral socialism fails just as economic socialism does. For the same reason. Government can no more make us moral than it can make us prosperous.
I have nothing against moral crusades. Done in the private sector. It is when the moralists get the bright idea that with he help of government guns they can FORCE people to do the right thing.
Not in America. We are a nation full of people willing to break laws we don't agree with. Which is why drug prohibition with 95% compliance is such a failure.
And Mr. D - if prohibition is working how did the folks you were shocked by get their drugs?
Nice prohibition poem:
Prohibition is an awful flop.
We like it.
It can't stop what it's meant to stop.
We like it.
It's left a trail of graft and slime,
It won't prohibit worth a dime,
It's filled our land with vice and crime.
Nevertheless, we're for it.
Franklin P. Adams, 1931
Not content with instigating a relatively pointless argument regarding drug prohibition, you are now wanting to initiate another argument about Abortion?
Not only that, you are still espousing the notion that the CONCEPT of prohibition is flawed? The fact that ALL LAWS are based on the CONCEPT of prohibition doesn't turn a light on for ya?
Sometimes I wonder if you are using too much whoopie weed.
This is absolutely false. Extensive surveys have shown that in excess of 90% of abortions in general are merely for the convenience of the mother. A majority of partial birth abortions in the US are NOT done for saving the life of the mother, they are usually done because the child has birth defects that the parents do not want to deal with. So they are no different than those primitives who would throw malformed or sickly babies in the fire or out in the snow, except in the present day these people do not have the excuse that they are subsistence hunter gatherers living on the edge of survival.
A lot of material to deal with. Let me start with one. About 70% of marriages with a special needs child end in divorce. If there are already other children those who can't afford a BMW (there are a LOT of them) might choose something else. Like a better chance at keeping the family intact. Or maybe they just want a better chance at staying married.
Stereotypes and one size fits all thinking are really not conducive to discussions.
But all that is besides the point. All you have to do to stop abortion is to convince women not to have them. No government guns required.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote:I'd love to hear some major Moral Socialist come to his senses and say: "You know, what I want is of such intrinsic goodness that I don't need any government help to promote these ideas. And not only do I not need any help - I don't want any. There doesn't have to be a law. Social pressure can do the job. After all look at what changes to cultural attitudes have done for tobacco consumption. The only people who still smoke that stuff are hard core schizophrenics."
That would be great except for one thing. The government has been constantly interfering with social pressure for a long time, and shows every sign of continuing to do so.
The government DECREES what the "correct" morality is. Those are the new established rules.
As I keep repeating ad nauseum, "All laws are imposed morality. "
The question isn't whether morality should be imposed by law, but whose?
Well they are on about how the embryo screams during its demise so obviously a death penalty offense. And obviously the woman involved is an accomplice so by the logic of murder she would be subject to the same penalties as the doctor.
There is no statute of limitations on murder. So there are 20 million or so women we need to find and gas. Or inject. Or hang. We can start combing the medical records.
No. No. No. They say. We can't do that. It would be grotesque. So they come up with a penalty that is more akin to misdemeanor manslaughter. And the woman goes free.
So I say: it is not a very serious crime then even if we make it a crime.
No. No. No. No. It is very serious. You don't understand. It is not about strict logic. It is how we feel.
Well that was what I thought all along.
So what is your beef with those who feel differently? Uhhhhhhhhhhh.......
Why do you attempt to argue at such a simplistic level?
Crimes have been done to the Indians. Horrible horrendous crimes. Should we pretend they weren't crimes because we cannot punish the wrongdoers? Crimes have been done to all sorts of people, but in many cases, there isn't sufficient political will to treat a crime like a crime, so the victimizes go unpunished.
Let us not pretend that a crime hasn't occurred and let us not pretend that unpunished = absolvence , let us face instead the truth that crimes have occurred and that the perpetrators got away with it because the principles of justice weren't strong enough to overcome the desire to tolerate the status quo.
