1 Stand back, Bitches. I got this. _

2 Do they get a a jury of their peers?

3 So do I as a citizen need to have a hearing before someone can decide to murder me?   Silly to frame abortion in these terms.

4 I'm available to testify on behalf of fetuses, and at reasonable rates.

5 So do I as a citizen need to have a hearing before someone can decide to murder me? Silly to frame abortion in these terms.

Posted by: polynikes at March 20, 2013 02:25 PM (m2CN7)

 

Nope. Turns out the answer is no. Next question.

 

I work on fetuses of terrorists too.

 

6 They got Al Capone on taxes, so I'm open to roundabout approaches if it gets some good results, or outcomes if you will.  Just giving the issue some thought might be an improvement.  I think there's a lot less agonizing and soul-searching among women seeking abortions going on than the left would like the public to think.

7 Were the fetuses read their Miranda rights? Acquittal!

8 Pussy Norm Macdonald ✔ @normmacdonald I apologize for making people angry for my study of scriptures. and will leave them out of twitter.Twitter is for 2 things,jokes and gollf 12:11 AM - 20 Mar 13 Now to read the article.

9

Not going to read allah's article, and not going to try to parse some politicians words.

 

We live in a land where it's legal to murder babies.  I'd prefer to live in a land where it is NOT legal to murder babies. 

 

Anything more is just muddying the waters to make your point of view more palatible to the voters you're trying to woo. 

10 I think in this one case Obama prefers to send fetuses to military tribunals instead of civilian courts.

11 He's playing a politician, but, he's basically saying that he believes one way, but it's up to the family.

12 If he's gonna wade into the swamp he's gonna have to be better prepared. Doesn't sound like he is.

13 We live in a land where it's legal to murder babies. I'd prefer to live in a land where it is NOT legal to murder babies. Yeah, that's the long and short of it. Not sure what more parsing and wordplay will contribute to the matter.

14 Rand Paul's position may be constitutionally correct, but it's a position guaranteed to piss off almost everyone.

The abortion-rights crowd will regard it as an unnecessary impediment, and the anti-abortion crowd wants nothing less than a ban.

15

Overthinking... If I understand his position....

 

He believes that life begins at Conception, and sponsored an Act on it...

 

BUT... is saying there should be some possible Exceptions for Rape, or Incest, IF they follow some Due Process (ie Court involed in the decision)... not a Carte Blanche exception which could be abused.

 

(Its a Libertarian postition based on the idea that the Fetus is a Person, and thus has Rights unto itself...).

16 Best explanation I can come up with: he's a libertarian trying to appeal to conservatives.

17

6 -

 

Less??  I think most women who have abortions spend the rest their lives either agonizing over the decision, or rationalizing why they don't need to agonize over it.

 

I suspect there's very little reaction that doesn't fit into one of those categories. 

18 How can something who is not recognized as human be given due process? Sounds too clever by half and will jam up the courts or create bureacracy to administer.

19 Dude's a Libertarian. Libertarians are gonna be Libertarians. Anyone trying to do the mental gymnastics necessary to get around that fact are going to be disappointed. I like the guy on many issues, but trying to somehow "make" him conform to a straight-conservative platform? Round peg-square hole.

20 19 How can something who is not recognized as human be given due process?

Sounds too clever by half and will jam up the courts or create bureacracy to administer.    

Posted by: Y-not at March 20, 2013 02:32 PM (mQmzV)

 

 

Actualy, its already Murder to kill a fetus, UNLESS you are the Mother, or her Doctor...

21

Rand's solution is waaaay more politically palpable than Todd Aiken's, so there's that.

You know how the left always says something to get elected and then once in office does something different and more left? Yeah, maybe this ain't a bad idea for Rand to do.

22 What, exactly, is the charge against the fetus? Don't you have to have a crime to prosecute?

23 At the Pearly Gates, Saint Peter will not be inquiring as to "due process rights in the US Constitution". I'm afraid the standards are a little less imbued with "lawyereze" than that. 

Right and Wrong doesn't require a Lawyer.

24 I think thats on a state by state case. I could be wrong. Ive always thought that fetal murder laws were odd. Cant see hoe theyre justified if fetuses arent people unless thayre being treated more as a type of property.

25 How 'bout we just quit murderin' babies? That good?

26 I take a balanced approach. Drones strikes. With surgical percussion.

27 25 was to Romeo. Sorry. On the phone.

28 Actualy, its already Murder to kill a fetus, UNLESS you are the Mother, or her Doctor... Posted by: Romeo13 at March 20, 2013 02:34 PM (lZBBB) ..... or her grandmother ....

29 precision, that is. Or fuck it. Percussion.

30 Yes. Let's move on from the horror shown below of what abortion actually IS, and focus on the minutiae of political posturing necessary to preserve this sacred institution. Because Women's Rights. Or Youth Vote. Or Reaching Out To Moderates.

31 I read the whole post - I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

32 23 What, exactly, is the charge against the fetus? Don't you have to have a crime to prosecute? Due process doesnÂ’t necessarily mean charges. If my house is in the way of a proposed highway, there is (theoretically) a process that can determine whether the state can take away my house in order to build the highway on my land.

33
He believes that life begins at Conception, and sponsored an Act on it...

BUT... is saying there should be some possible Exceptions for Rape, or Incest, IF they follow some Due Process (ie Court involed in the decision)... not a Carte Blanche exception which could be abused.


That is an interesting and principled distinction.  I don't know how the infant in utero is to be held guilty for teh crimes that got him there, but it provides a veneer of law to otherwise complete barbarism, and would likely prevent later abortions a la Gosnell.

Not perfect, but a start, for sure.

I'm liking Paul more and more every day.

34 You lost me at "Read Allah's article" .

35 Here's how I read this.

He's treating abortions like executions and not like murders. It's a weird move, but it would drive up the cost of legal abortions and ruin the backdoor industry that it is.

Funny thing is, they always told me that legalizing abortion made it safe, you know, no more rusty coathangers.

So under his law, if everyone involved is okay with the baby getting killed, it can be killed, but none of this Kermit business; these guys will be (if the law is enforced) put out of business before there's a heap of unquestionable infanticides.

Now here's the other point: many people who are anti-death penalty and probably even anti-war are pro abortion (or really, anti-anti-abortion.) Framing the subject as executions is a wicked cool move; it has the feel of the first 'check' move in a chess game.

36 Let's move on from the horror shown below of what abortion actually IS, and focus on the minutiae of political posturing necessary to preserve this sacred institution. You forgot my subsidy. Subsidy, you H8R.

37 This post would be easier to follow with examples.

38 Is this the first step to have them legally declared people?

I vaguely remember that there were court cases about black slaves with this type of controversy.  (Sorry,  my American history class was almost 50 years ago.)

39 I find you very attractive today, EoJ. How you doin'? ;-)

40 Section 5 of the 14th Amendment guarantees everyone in the country due process before being deprived of life, liberty, or property.

Is a Community Resource Allocation Board, or whatever they're calling the "who is worthy of being allowed to have medical treatments" tribunals, due process?

Doesn't matter, Comrade. Your application for chemotherapy has been denied.

41 I would think he could at least take the position that Roe V, Wade was a usurpation of state power under the 10th amendment.

42 When you need your eyes checked you might go to an ophthalmologist, like   Paul.  When you need a legal issue addressed you call an attorney.  When the   issue is one of hot button politics you need an actual politician, not a junior   back bencher whose primary source of support consists of young kids who   still have years to go before they even graduate. 

43 This is stupid bull shit. The 14th amendment has become a travesty and should be repealed.  It was originally written to assure black rights.  This part was written to assure that they got a fair shake in court.  This amendment is no longer needed as evidenced by what it is currently being used for.


As for Rand Paul it appears to me that he is becoming as nutty as his father.

44 Best explanation I can come up with: he's a libertarian trying to appeal to conservatives.

Yep.

He's doing the same thing with his evasiveness on immigration.  Libertarians tend to be open borders types.  His proposal for "immigration reform" is every bit as bad as that of McCain, if not worse.

I appreciate his being a reliably conservative vote on fiscal policy, but I don't trust him in a leadership role at all.

I do have to give him credit for (mostly) hiding his Inner Paul Crazy.

45

Posted by: Y-not at March 20, 2013 02:36 PM (mQmzV)

 

Murder is always a State Law... unless its done on Federal Property, or to a Federal Agent...

 

So yes... it is different from State to State...

 

And I agree... the whole thing makes no logical consistant sense...

46 there is (theoretically) a process that can determine whether the state can take away my house in order to build the highway on my land. The Process Condensed: "Fuck you. Your house is ours. You didn't think this was a republic, did you?"

47 Second point, I guess...

Conception time is not always clear (1) and (2) he acknowledges that some people don't believe life begins at conception. However, I guess, he wants every post-conception human to be given due process if they are going to be executed.

48 determine whether the state can take away my house

Decent point, but what's the process for taking a life via the law. Is there any time it's ever done except as punishment?

49 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

50 You lost me at "Read Allah's article" . Posted by: grease monkey at March 20, 2013 02:38 PM (VSWPU) Meh, Allah is cool, in an Eeyore kinda way. And, we all love Pooh!

51 It's not an abortion, it's a tax!

52 This seems to be some form of weasel.

53 So under his law, if everyone involved is okay with the baby getting killed, it can be killed,

Everyone involved? Including the man who contributed half the baby's DNA?

That *is* radical.

54 Rand Paul Confuses Everyone You can stop there.

55 Congress will spend years dragging athletes in under subpoena to talk steroids, but Gosnell the Nozzle won't get more than a "National Apricot Day" mention, if anything.

56 His position doesn't worry me but I've long believed both Paul's were strongly pro life. It's a nuanced position that won't go far but it at least starts to ask the right question. When does life begin. If you say conception then the whole pro choice argument becomes extremely untenable. I think ace is correct in analysis. But I think rand is right in saying lets not focus on absolutes except when life begins. If pro lifers can get the majority to agree that life begins at conception then substantial progress will have been made

57 @55

Yeah, we'll see if the man gets any say. But you know, baby steps.

Still, it would be nice to get a wedge in, and he does genuinely seem to be trying to bridge the gap between Libertarian and Traditional; he actually acknowledges that people to the right of 'conservative' exist.

58 This seems to be some form of weasel. So are most things lately.

59 Can the President perform abortions by drones via Executive Order?

60 #55  Well,  who is involved?  Mother, father, potential grandparents, siblings, possible sisters or brothers.

And what if there are challenges from interested parties outside the family?

"Do not ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

61 I'm certain he is parsing his words, just so, in order to confuse the f**k out of LexisNexis.* *every politicians dream

62 Of all the blogs I've encountered in my travels, this was the most ... human.

63 Only if the Executive Order was given due process.

Or is that the President? The drones?

Is that sentence missing a noun

64

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 20, 2013 02:39 PM (SY2Kh)

 

He looses me on Amnesty as well....

 

The immigration issue.... like the defense issue... is really weird out here in Libertarian Land...

 

Because many of us do believe in the Rule of Law... just the least amount of laws possible... and for economic reasons MUST control our immigration.

 

Heck... I'm all for connecting the LEGAL immigration rate to the Unemployment Rate.... as I'm an American FIRST Libertarian...

65

I am not a conservative, but I do generally align with them/you on most issues, and would caucus with cons, but would never claim to speak for them/you.  Curious how y'all would react to this position:

My take...it is personal. If a pregnant woman wants an abortion, she gets a paternity test, biological father agrees, can have abortion.  If mother wants child and father does not...no paternity support nor paternity rights.  If father wants child and mother does not, no maternity support nor maternal rights.  If both want it, both obligated, both have parental rights, and no abortion issues. 

If the parents agree, no one else's business. If parents disgree, the parent that wants the child gets the child and all of the rights and obligations associated...the other does not.

I recognize that allowing someone else to (in your eyes) murder their child is awful.  Could you accept that others have a different conscience or religious perspective, and allow that the gov't should not mandate in matters of substantial disputes of conscience? 

66 Decent point, but what's the process for taking a life via the law. Is there any time it's ever done except as punishment? I couldnÂ’t think of any for the example. I have a vague recollection of something like this happening under mental health laws back in the dark ages of the 19th/20th century, but my searches on that found mostly modern cases of people arguing that murderers should not be killed because theyÂ’re retarded.

67 The obvious solution to the abortion dilemma is an amendment that explicitly States that abortion and contraception is not dependent on penumbras and the regulation thereof is a State matter with the federal government having no say in it at all.

68

52 -

 

The website is a pita.  Popups and all that, so if I'm going to read something he says, it better be worth my while.  I don't believe this  is. 

 

Still, allah was better when he was doing funny  balloon captions for  Dem pols.... and coming here to goof amongst the horde. 

69 He should've just said exceptions for the mother's life and stand up for principle instead of weasling around

70 f all the blogs I've encountered in my travels, this was the most ... human. Posted by: Dr. Varno at March 20, 2013 02:45 PM (hEr50) I bet you teetered on human versus humane.

71

:::Of all the blogs I've encountered in my travels, this was the most ... human.:::

 

OK, that was awesome.

72 Let me add. I think Paul is basically just trying to shift the discussion to when life begins. Don't scare people off with the implication. Let that occur naturally. This is how the LIV mind works. They play checkers not chess. Paul is trying to shift the cultural understanding as to when life begins without getting directly into the abortion debate. I don't know if it will work but it's a decent tactic

73

I    think   what    Rand is    doing is    offering    something that both sides have argued about for a while:  where is   "abortion" discussed in the constitution?

 

Answer:  it's not.  

 

But if you were GOING to look for a Constitutional basis for the legality or illegality of abortion, then Rand is saying that   this is where you'd find it.   It's not about the procedure itself, but the deliberative process that goes in to judging whether or not the procedure should take place.   It    wouldn't    outlaw  abortion;      it would outlaw     abortion on-demand.    There would have to be some kind of evaluative process    to judge the rights of the unborn baby     before an abortion could take place.

 

Not saying I agree with    the argument,    but if you're trying to get people to pay attention to the    Constitution again,   then USING the Constitution and showing how it would be applied to a particular situation is a good thing.   At the very least it gets people thinking in Constitutional terms again.

 

Mind you,  this would never happen.   Giving an unborn baby due process   implies that   it's a person, and the anti-life crowd    will    NEVER agree to that.

74 I think #1 nailed it. He's trying to seem like he's taking a "principled stand" when, in fact, he's refusing to take a stand at all. An unborn infant cannot have "due process" because they cannot face their "accuser." Further, we're not talking about the state having the right to take their lives, we're talking about another private citizen. Every legal code I know of (in the US, at least) says the only time I, as a private citizen, have the right to deprive another private citizen of his or her right to life is in defense of my own, or another. That is: I can kill you if I reasonably believe you're trying to kill me. I can't kill you because you're inconvenient. Period. So, the question still devolves to one of life. Is a pregnant woman carrying a human baby, or is she carrying "a lump of cells." Indeed, that's an important question even for Sen. Paul's position. Something that is not alive does not get due process. When the government is trying to seize your property, it's not the property that receives due process, it's you. Yet if what a woman carries is alive enough to get due process, then it should be alive enough to be protected from having it's life removed by a private citizen for anything short of self defense (that is: "health of the mother.") That is the only philosophically consistent view I can find. You either believe that an unborn infant is alive, or that it is not. If you believe that it is not, you're faced with the question of when it becomes "alive."

75 50 determine whether the state can take away my house

 

 

Decent point, but what's the process for taking a life via the law. Is there any time it's ever done except as punishment?  
 

Posted by: red sweater at March 20, 2013 02:40 PM (oATMN)

 

 

Drones.... Executive Order... (which I am against, but that is one of 'their' excuses).

76 Libertarians again show their hypocrisy on this issue all the time. A second human being does exist in the case of abortion. They treat the issue as if the second human simply does not exist, so that they do not have to consider the babies right to life, so they can summarily declare a ban on abortion to be a simple invasion of privacy with no complicating issues.

Let me tell you what I hope he thinks due process is. Remove Roe V Wade, put the decision back in the hands of the states. I hope. Because if he is along the lines of most Libertarians, he will be dead to me.


On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."

77 Fence sitting.

78 How long has Rand Paul been in govt? What is his track record? Isn't this his first gig?

79 67 - So, if the father wants the child and the mother does not, you force her to carry the child to term? Welcome to the War on Women Party. We have cake.

80 If pro lifers can get the majority to agree that life begins at conception then substantial progress will have been made.

Yeah, that's not going to happen.

The position that life begins at conception is valid from a religious standpoint, but that's about it.  From a scientific / medical perspective, not so much.

On the other extreme, we have the "pro-choice" crowd who maintain that life doesn't begin until birth- not one month, one day, one hour before.  Apparently the Magic Baby Fairy bestows life upon birth or something.

From a non-religious standpoint, the truth is somewhere in between.

Unfortunately the entire discussion asking when life begins has been abandoned.

81 Decent point, but what's the process for taking a life via the law. Is there any time it's ever done except as punishment?

I'm back to Obamacare.

82 Is Allah the same blogger who would hype VDH articles with a 'shop of him along with the "Hansen" band?

83 As a legal expert I uhhh... nevermind I don't know what any of these words mean.

84 Hiw so, Hollowpoint? I think the biology is very clear that human lufe begins at conception.

85 And what if there are challenges from interested parties outside the family? Walmart: "The decision to abort this baby could cost us thousands in revenue." Local School District: "The decision to abort this baby could cost us millions in revenue." Should I continue?

86 Friggin phone!

87 I take a balanced approach. Drones strikes. With surgical percussion. Drum roll please!

88 Rand stated that he's for and against abortion to counter the rubes who accuse him of being for or against abortion. Gutsy call.

89 The position that life begins at conception is valid from a religious standpoint, but that's about it. From a scientific / medical perspective, not so much. Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 20, 2013 02:51 PM (SY2Kh) But this particular question *has* been settled scientifically. It's a human organism, hence alive, hence human life. Whether or not it is a person with rights is the other question that can't be settled scientifically.

90

82 -

 

That's got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site.

 

Two cells collide, then start dividing.  That's not life?  Your definition of what it is... is what, Mr. Science? 

91 ::::So, if the father wants the child and the mother does not, you force her to carry the child to term? Welcome to the War on Women Party. We have cake.

Posted by: red sweater at March 20, 2013 02:50 PM (oATMN) :::

 

No.  But if she wants to kill her child, she can go get herself a coathanger.

92

If my house is in the way of a proposed highway, there is (theoretically) a process that can determine whether the state can take away my house in order to build the highway on my land.

---

The process is a developer handing envelopes stuffed with cash to politicians.

93 This is a decent time to point out that Europe's abortion laws are MUCH more strict than ours, generally speaking. I want fewer abortions, so I'd be thrilled with the "almost impossible to get a third trimester abortion" stance they have across the pond. It may not be philosophically coherent, but the law is a blunt instrument.

94 Welcome to the War on Women Party.

Assuming women are competent enough to choose who and how they fuck....yeah, we're horrible.

95 How long has Rand Paul been in govt? What is his track record?

Isn't this his first gig?

Yep.  Prior to being elected to the Senate, his only political experience was stumping for his dad.

96 That's got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

97 I recognize that allowing someone else to (in your eyes) murder their child is awful. Could you accept that others have a different conscience or religious perspective, and allow that the gov't should not mandate in matters of substantial disputes of conscience? Posted by: Daedalus Mugged at March 20, 2013 02:46 PM (6QmM4) Shall we also allow for differences in conscience or religious perspective for other cases of killing innocent persons?

98 Hollow point - I'm not sure I agree with you. I think there is a shift as to when life begins but it gets ignored. Paul is basically putting it bac in people's faces. Or I suspect that is what he is doing. The fact of the matter is that Paul has little ability to affect the abortion issue directly other than through supreme court nominees. This is an indirect way to at least shift it to the pro life side. The Paul's may be libertarians but they have always been pro life.

99 (that is: "health of the mother.") That is the only philosophically consistent view I can find. You either believe that an unborn infant is alive, or that it is not. If you believe that it is not, you're faced with the question of when it becomes "alive." Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at March 20, 2013 02:48 PM (4OvDk) "Health of the mother" is overly broad unfortunately. The reason we have unrestricted abortion now is because "mental distress" is enough to warrant it at any stage. It would have to be a very specifically worded law I'm guessing.

100

That is an interesting and principled distinction. I don't know how the infant in utero is to be held guilty for teh crimes that got him there, but it provides a veneer of law to otherwise complete barbarism, and would likely prevent later abortions a la Gosnell.

---

Trespassing?

101 The position that life begins at conception is valid from a religious standpoint, but that's about it. From a scientific / medical perspective, not so much. So... life arises from non-life then? And, in fact, life creates non-life which then gives rise to life? Huh?

102 You either believe that an unborn infant is alive, or that it is not. If you believe that it is not, you're faced with the question of when it becomes "alive."

----------------


And if you take the view that it is not alive, then by that logic there would be no need to kill it.  Hence no need for an abortion, right? Because you  cannot stop the heart of an inanimate object.  Rocks don't have a pulse, for instance.

103

On the other extreme, we have the "pro-choice" crowd who maintain that life doesn't begin until birth- not one month, one day, one hour before. Apparently the Magic Baby Fairy bestows life upon birth or something.

 

Even that's not entirely true today.   I've read enough articles about  so-called   scientists and other intellectuals who are all gung-ho for claiming that life doesn't begin until about   two years after birth.    The reasoning is that    infants and very young children have no sense of self or     of their place in the world.   Therefore    if they were to lose their life they wouldn't be losing anything that mattered to them,  because they'd have no concept of what they were losing.      So it should be completely okay to "post-birth abort" your baby until, oh, age two or three.

 

I wish to God I was making that up.

104 "Health of the mother" is overly broad unfortunately. The reason we have unrestricted abortion now is because "mental distress" is enough to warrant it at any stage. Yes, I used "health of the mother" as short-hand for "her very life is in danger- the question is not if one will die, but which one."

105 Something tells me this isn't really a serious abortion proposal but more a bit of petard-hoisting. Kinda like reducing abortions via holding abortion clinics to the same regulations as other outpatient clinics.

106 92 Two cells collide, then start dividing. That's not life? Your definition of what it is... is what, Mr. Science? Posted by: BurtTC at March 20, 2013 02:53 PM (TOk1P) That a definition of life if it happens on Mars. Until NOW sets up shop there....

107 New, Improved Republicans: Okay, you can marry anyone you want, same sex or whatever, maybe smoke dope at home, let you vote no matter how you got here, have an abortion anytime, but we won't pay for it. We'll spend public money really, really carefully, but you can't have all the free shit you were promised because we can't afford it. Democrats: We'll let you do all of that too and we'll pay for your abortion, then we'll make sure the rich pay for the free shit they have been denying you. We can't afford not to provide free shit. It keeps children safe and old people alive. Hmm... whom shall I elect?

108 So, if the father wants the child and the mother does not, you force her to carry the child to term? Welcome to the War on Women Party. We have cake.
Posted by: red sweater at March 20, 2013 02:50 PM (oATMN)



No, clearly you murder the child. Cause that's the better choice out of the two.

109 He believes that life begins at Conception, and sponsored an Act on it... BUT... is saying there should be some possible Exceptions for Rape, or Incest, IF they follow some Due Process (ie Court involed in the decision)... not a Carte Blanche exception which could be abused. (Its a Libertarian postition based on the idea that the Fetus is a Person, and thus has Rights unto itself...). Posted by: Romeo13 at March 20, 2013 02:30 PM (lZBBB) If that's what he was saying, than it makes sense. If not, it really doesn't. I don't speak legalese though.

110 I gotta say that there's no way I could back Rand for a 2016 run. Let's see him accomplish something fir conservatism first.

111 ::::So, if the father wants the child and the mother does not, you force her to carry the child to term? Welcome to the War on Women Party. We have cake. Posted by: red sweater at March 20, 2013 02:50 PM (oATMN) ::: No. But if she wants to kill her child, she can go get herself a coathanger. How about 18 years of child support? What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

112 :::Assuming women are competent enough to choose who and how they fuck....yeah, we're horrible.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at March 20, 2013 02:55 PM (/kI1Q) :::

 

I come equipped with my  own birth control and a not entirely unpleasant body odor.

 

Just throwin' it out there.

113 @93

Essentially, right - if life has begun then it's the same deal as with the infant. If there is a conflict of opinion about it, it gets resolved illegally.

But as we know, as good as this might seem, it will open the door to legal actual infanticide if passed.

Think about it going the other way.

114 A baby is a human being outside the womb. Inside the womb the pro-murder lobby contends the baby is not a human being. Its like they imagine the womb is some sort of twilight zone in an alternate universe.

115 >>>This is stupid bull shit. The 14th amendment has become a travesty and should be repealed. It was originally written to assure black rights. This part was written to assure that they got a fair shake in court. This amendment is no longer needed as evidenced by what it is currently being used for.

Wow.  Don't even know where to begin with this one.

116 Its like they imagine the womb is some sort of twilight zone in an alternate universe. Mine is an all-consuming world in itself.

117 116 A baby is a human being outside the womb. Inside the womb the pro-murder lobby contends the baby is not a human being. Its like they imagine the womb is some sort of twilight zone in an alternate universe. Posted by: angel with a sword at March 20, 2013 02:58 PM (3RiPs) It's a purely locational thing. Inside womb = nothing, outside = fully protected. It's bizarre.

118 Hiw so, Hollowpoint?

I think the biology is very clear that human lufe begins at conception.

I'm not sure where you get that.

At the moment of conception, we're talking a single cell dividing into multiple cells.  Outside of religious belief, I don't think there's much case to be made that a microscopic cluster of a few cells is a human life.

The religious perspective is valid, but it's just that- a religious belief.

119 The position that life begins at conception is valid from a religious standpoint, but that's about it. From a scientific / medical perspective, not so much.

----------

Something either is alive, or not alive.  Something is either animate or inanimate.  In my experience, inanimate non-alive objects do not take in nourishment or reproduce cells.  Perhaps you can clarify your definition of alive.

120 Even that's not entirely true today. I've read enough articles about so-called scientists and other intellectuals who are all gung-ho for claiming that life doesn't begin until about two years after birth. The reasoning is that infants and very young children have no sense of self or of their place in the world. I've always been fascinated that "utilitarian philosophers" who haven't yet committed suicide can't grasp irony. What's wrong with the standard that you can abort someone until they show proficiency in multivariable calculus?

121 No, clearly you murder the child. Cause that's the better choice out of the two.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at March 20, 2013 02:56 PM (da5Wo)

I sense the sarcasm has been missed.

122 (Its a Libertarian postition based on the idea that the Fetus is a Person, and thus has Rights unto itself...). Then it is a flawed position based on that premise. See my comment above about the only time a private citizen has a right to take the life of another private citizen. The State is even more restricted on when it can take the life of a person- that person has to have done things which society has determined should cost them their lives (and that list is pretty freaking small). So the State has no justification for taking the life of an unborn person- ever. Unless, of course, we really are conveying the sins of the father onto the son (or daughter, whatever). The answer may be politically safe, but it is not philosophically sound.

123 "And so instead is merely offering procedural guarantees to fetuses, that there will be a hearing before a magistrate to determine their rights to life?" I would expect that if a baby is more than four months, you'd have a medical panel if the woman is claiming it is necessary for her health. You get into situations like a pregnant woman in her fifth month needing chemo for cancer. So they routinely abort the baby to save the mother; this is considered a religious duty with some Jews. So we correctly admire those women who do choose to sacrifice their own treatment to give life to a child. However, most of us aren't really onboard with the idea of forcing a woman to give birth in those circumstances. The same unpleasant logic also applies to rape. Rand is looking to throw a grenade at Roe and to significantly reduce late-term abortion, especially any abortion after the fourth month. He was a little clumsy in explaining it. Maybe Rand is getting a little over-exposed as he tried to hatch Act 2 and Act 3 following his popular Act 1 (the Filiblizzard).

124 76 "When the government is trying to seize your property, it's not the property that receives due process, it's you. Yet if what a woman carries is alive enough to get due process, then it should be alive enough to be protected from having it's life removed by a private citizen for anything short of self defense (that is: "health of the mother.") "

I think Paul is taking a long-winded and obtuse route to codifying this, specifically in regards to the fact that the "health of the mother" clause has been twisted by every lib in existence to mean anything so much as "I'm throwing up because I'm pregnant, therefore it's okay to kill my kid to help me get back to being healthy").

Paul's trying to make "health of the mother" as an abortion excuse the same as "Self defense" as a murder excuse.

125 Even that's not entirely true today. I've read enough articles about so-called scientists and other intellectuals who are all gung-ho for claiming that life doesn't begin until about two years after birth. The reasoning is that infants and very young children have no sense of self or of their place in the world. -------- Those are personhood arguments, not life. That is up for debate.

126 Could you accept that others have a different conscience or religious perspective, and allow that the gov't should not mandate in matters of substantial disputes of conscience?

When Muslim men kill their teenage daughters for wanting to wear American clothes or date an American boy, we should accept their "different religious perspective" and insist the government has no place to pass judgment or take any action that might prohibit the free exercise of his conscience.

I mean, they're his kids, he can kill 'em any time he likes. It's only our silly religious sensibilities that make it seem wrong.

127 Who cares what he has to say anyway? Although I liked him a lot when he played the immortal in "Highlander".

128 I sense the sarcasm has been missed.

Posted by: red sweater at March 20, 2013 03:00 PM (oATMN)

Aaahhh...if so, my apologies. Sarc tags (/s or /sarc) are often helpful though. Especially when emotions are a little hot.

129 Wow. Don't even know where to begin with this one.

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 20, 2013 02:59 PM (bcLhD)

 

Don't feel that you have to.

130 I'm surprised that so many on this board are attacking rand for sponsoring a life begins at conception bill. If he went out and said that life begins at conception so of course that means no abortion after rape, well we know how far ghat would go. By not focusing on those issues now maybe he can at least advance the cause that hey can't we all agree that at least it is a sepedate life. If we can move the public to acknowledge that the pro life cause will have made significant gains.

131

Something either is alive, or not alive. Something is either animate or inanimate. In my experience, inanimate non-alive objects do not take in nourishment or reproduce cells. Perhaps you can clarify your definition of alive.

 

 

Posted by: mama winger at March 20, 2013 02:59 PM (P6QsQ)

 

Just playing Devils advocate here... but... a fingernail is a clump of cells, which is alive... but we cut them all the time.  Heck.... fungus is alive, but its not murder to kill it...

 

The question is not really life, so much as when does this clump of cells become a Person...

132 At the moment of conception, we're talking a single cell dividing into multiple cells. It is alive, I suppose by any reasonable standard of biological life, which includes bacteria. It is human by virtue of its DNA. It is a living human being.

133 What's wrong with the standard that you can abort someone until they show proficiency in multivariable calculus?

Who's gonna clean the philosopher-kings' toilets?

134 i'm pro life....period....if you want an abortion....great!!!!!! pay for it yourself....all of it....leave gov't funds out of it completely....be as pro abortion as you want....use it as birth control...support abortion doctors have abortion private fund raisers!!!! wear pro abortion shirts.....GET THE GOV'T OUT OF IT....COMPLETELY.....thank you, rant off......

135 The question is not really life, so much as when does this clump of cells become a Person... Posted by: Romeo13 at March 20, 2013 03:02 PM (lZBBB) *ding ding ding* This is harder to answer in a non-religious fashion. Of course if you believe it has to do with the baby "understanding" itself if brings you to the conclusion that 2 year olds can be post-birth aborted.

136 His answer won't satisfy the purists, but I'm glad he's thought the issue through.

137 At the moment of conception, we're talking a single cell dividing into multiple cells. Outside of religious belief, I don't think there's much case to be made that a microscopic cluster of a few cells is a human life. So... those cells are not human cells? They don't have 46 chromosome pairs? How then, pray tell, do they become human cells?

138 Right, the disagreement (which is one in bad faith really) is whether or not the fetal human being is a distinct life from the mother. I.e. is it a Person unto itself.

I say if corporations can be persons, so can fetuses.

139 The question of when life begins is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.  Science can tell us a lot about the process of conception, and about the state of the embryo and fetus at various times.  It cannot tell us what "life" is.  Once we determine what we consider "life" to be, then it can confirm or deny if the fetus has "life".

140 It is human by virtue of its DNA. It is a living human being. Posted by: AmishDude at March 20, 2013 03:02 PM (I/HMT) So is a tumor. Don't actually believe this line of argument, but that's what people would respond with.

141 The question is not really life, so much as when does this clump of cells become a Person...

------



Well, they ain't puppies.

142 OT/

A great post by Mickey Kaus on the immigration debate:

Hello, pols? Opening on the right!
http://tinyurl.com/chrgyl9

I've wondered the same thing, where are the anti-Amnesty candidates?  I'm thinking it would be an opportune moment for Gov. Mike Pence.

143 >>you force her to carry the child to term? Welcome to the War on Women Party.

You know it's comments like that, that just cement in my mind that no amount of effort will ever recover this civilization. That argument right there. Total and complete bullshit. 36 states have bans on late term abortion. Meaning that once you get to the "hard" part of pregnancy where real work is involved, you are FORCED to carry the child to term. That's today, that's now. But MEEDIA SPIN NARRATIVE WAR ON WOMEN!!!

Like I said, this civilization is done. Everything the Greeks and Romans gave to us you've sh*t on then flushed down the toilet. I might as well give up bacon and Val - U - Rite now and convert to Islam so I'm on the winning team when things get real.

144 Aaahhh...if so, my apologies. Sarc tags (/s or /sarc) are often helpful though. Especially when emotions are a little hot.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at March 20, 2013 03:01 PM (da5Wo)

Sorry, I'll do that next time. Some non-conservative, non-republican reader of this site was explaining his solution to the abortion problem. It kinda broke down when the parents had differing views. His solution still forced an unwilling mother to carry a child to term. I was trying to point out that he would get the WoW label along with the rest of us.

145 Is that troll Jon, or a different Jon? Someone scan hashes?

146 >>>This is stupid bull shit. The 14th amendment has become a travesty and should be repealed. It was originally written to assure black rights. This part was written to assure that they got a fair shake in court. This amendment is no longer needed as evidenced by what it is currently being used for.

Vic, you are aware that the only reason the Bill of Rights has any force outside of the federal government (i.e. the reason that state governments, like your local police force, etc.) is because it was incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment?  And that absent that, you wouldn't be necessarily guaranteed, say, 1st Amendment freedom of speech & religion rights?  Or the right to keep and bear arms?  (The Founders initially intended that it would not be infringed by the national government...they wouldn't have objected if, say, the state of Virginia decided to ban guns on its own.  Only with the recent Heller case was the 2nd Amendment definitively incorporated to all 50 states...using the 14th Amendment.)

Hey, still think we should repeal it? 

147 Wow. Don't even know where to begin with this one. Posted by: Jeff B. at March 20, 2013 02:59 PM (bcLhD) No doubt you are on the other side of this issue from myself and others. Yes, the 14th amendment is badly written and has been badly abused.

148 So... life arises from non-life then? And, in fact, life creates non-life which then gives rise to life?

Huh?

Do you consider an unfertilized egg to be a "human life"?

149 So if we are not sure exactly when human life begins, let's err on the side of life.

150 You know it's comments like that, that just cement in my mind that no amount of effort will ever recover this civilization. That argument right there. Total and complete bullshit. 36 states have bans on late term abortion. Meaning that once you get to the "hard" part of pregnancy where real work is involved, you are FORCED to carry the child to term. That's today, that's now. But MEEDIA SPIN NARRATIVE WAR ON WOMEN!!!

Like I said, this civilization is done. Everything the Greeks and Romans gave to us you've sh*t on then flushed down the toilet. I might as well give up bacon and Val - U - Rite now and convert to Islam so I'm on the winning team when things get real.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose DOOMCASTER! at March 20, 2013 03:04 PM (0q2P7)

Please, read the whole conversation. That comment was very much tongue in cheek.

151

So... life arises from non-life then? And, in fact, life creates non-life which then gives rise to life?

----

Been there, done that.

152 An interesting way to do this is talk about the other 'organ' or 'clump of cells' that develops in the mother in pregnancy. It grows too, it starts small, it is made of cells, it receives nourishment. It doesn't move on its own when in the womb, and after birth, it does not proceed to become another human being, it simply is discarded and cannot be used (except as fertilizer or food.) Is this true of the other clump of cells? If not, what does this say about it?

Just questions, sent into the air...

153 Is that troll Jon, or a different Jon? Someone scan hashes? Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 74% more DOOM! at March 20, 2013 03:05 PM (FsUAO) Don't we welcome all the Jon's into the fold?

154 How then, pray tell, do they become human cells?

Transubstantiation.

It doesn't always work; look at all the people walking around with brains of a goldfish.

/now I'm being sarcastic.

155 So... life arises from non-life then? And, in fact, life creates non-life which then gives rise to life? ---- Been there, done that. Posted by: Dr. Carol Marcus To think I was lightyears from Earth when we met again and you still had to bitch about our breakup. In a cave. Inside an asteroid. Women never forget.

156 >>>No doubt you are on the other side of this issue from myself and others. Yes, the 14th amendment is badly written and has been badly abused.

I'm not saying that it hasn't been badly interpreted (yes, even 'abused') by several Courts.  I'm just saying don't throw the baby -- metaphorically speaking, probably the single most valuable Baby of them our, our Constitutional guarantees of liberty under the Bill of Rights! -- out with the bathwater.

157 I know that you know that you are an utterly unprincipled dickbag, but now you are moistening your lips to receive the purple cockhead of the the Paul Mini-Dynasty. Couldn't you at least wait until after the midterms? It's gonna be a long four years.

158 Don't we welcome all the Jon's into the fold? Posted by: how randy at March 20, 2013 03:07 PM (XYSwB) Oh I do!!!

159 Just fucking shoot me. 

160 Sorry, but abortion is waaaaayyyyy down on my list of priorities at the moment, just don't care, only thing i'm interested in is stopping this slide to third world shithole socialism we're currently on.

161 Just playing Devils advocate here... but... a fingernail is a clump of cells, which is alive... but we cut them all the time. Heck.... fungus is alive, but its not murder to kill it... The question is not really life, so much as when does this clump of cells become a Person... Actually, by the time we clip the fingernail, the part we're clipping is already dead. Just like our hair. That's why the nail itself keeps growing after you've clipped it. As for the fungus: we're not talking about non-human animals or plants, either. Though here's a thought experiment- how many on the pro abortion side would be okay with picking a random doe about to give birth and aborting that fetus? Hmmm? But, to the question: it is one of life. Is that a life or not? If it is a life, then (because we're talking about human lives) it is a human life. If it is a human life, then to end it without a really good reason is murder. And "really good reason" is defined as: "that life is going to, or has already, ended another life." This is the same protection we give the life of murderers and rapists, and I see no reason they should enjoy protections that our children do not.

162 HoboJerky, who is troll Jon? I have posted here a few times over the past few days, mostly about gay rights. I don't think I said anything trollish. I just disagree with some here on some social issues.

163 look at all the people walking around with brains of a goldfish. You have a sunny assessment of our fellow citizens.

164 When the drones are small enough to fly up in your va-jayjay.

165 Re: Life vs. Cells

I always figured that a person dies when the heart stops beating and cannot be restarted for a certain period of time (the rock stars that OD on heroin, for example, have their hearts stop but are then brought back with shocks and CPR).

If so, then wouldn't life START when the heart starts beating?

166 Posted by: Jeff B. at March 20, 2013 03:05 PM (bcLhD) And did you ever bother to look at the link I posted? You know, the one detailing the past events which you were mocking as impossible. http://preview.tinyurl.com/dxrv8ow

167

 "Get the government out of it...."

 

Posted by: phoenixgirl, a commenter on the best conservative blog at March 20, 2013 03:03 PM (qn3J5)

 

There is no one who wishes to remove the government from most everything more than I, however, the batshit crazy liberals have a point on this one.

 

Assuming you get past the whole "life begins at..." question, now you're stuck with the quandry of is it better to pay for a $400 procedure at 4 weeks in with public money or take the hit for hundreds of thousands in medical, education, welfare, imprisonment, law enforcement, etc. etc. for decades?

168 "You're pregnant?? Congratulations!! When is the clump of cells due?"

169 >>>Posted by: Jon at March 20, 2013 03:09 PM (jr5Bn)

This "Jon" is okay.  Not a troll in any way shape or form.

Wouldn't be surprised if there was a different, troll "Jon."  But I've seen this guy's posts in other threads and they're calm and reasonable.

170

107 -

 

Have somebody go into abortion clinics the same  way PITA has with slaughterhouses and chicken factories. 

 

People think it's all white, sterilized medical  excellence.  It's not.  They kill not just babies, but lots of women who go in, pregnant but otherwise healthy.

171 By 4 weeks gestation, the baby's heart is there and beating.  Who here will say that a baby with a beating heart is not alive?

172 164 HoboJerky, who is troll Jon? I have posted here a few times over the past few days, mostly about gay rights. I don't think I said anything trollish. I just disagree with some here on some social issues. Posted by: Jon at March 20, 2013 03:09 PM (jr5Bn) Ok I guess you're fine. We also have another Jon that's not a troll but he's "Jon (not the troll)" so I was concerned.

173

What's wrong with the standard that you can abort someone until they show proficiency in multivariable calculus?

---

A world without blondes would be less exciting

174 Not all human cells are human beings. My red blood cells have terminally differentiated from cells carrying identical copies of my DNA (minus modifications to the DNA that specify cell function) that my skin cells have. My egg cells contain half copies of my DNA; your sperm cells contain half copies, too. When they get together during fertilization you have a new, unique human pluripotent cell with all of the things it needs to develop into a punk-assed 18 year old kid. Essentially, a human embryo, even an early embryo, is akin to a caterpillar and a butterfly. Kill off all the caterpillars and you have no more butterflies. As someone pointed out up thread, it is a separate political/philosophical matter to decide if we want to endow caterpillars with the same rights as butterflies. But acknowledging that caterpillars ARE butterflies, that on a classification scheme they reside in the same place in relation to all other organisms, is simply scientifically true. I understand that it's hard for people to relate to early stage embryos or even to fetuses that are not your own or unwanted, but it upsets me that we've drifted into such moral relativism that we're twisting scientific realities to support our moral decisions. And I really don't understand how, with viability envelope being pushed back every day thanks to medical advances, anyone can support a third trimester abortion.

175

:::The Founders initially intended that it would not be infringed by the national government...they wouldn't have objected if, say, the state of Virginia decided to ban guns on its own.::::

 

"When in the courfe of hiftory it shall become neceffary confiscate the arms of The People, it shall be juft fucking dandy if it is done by the individual States."

 

Stuff Jefferson Said, Vol. IV, edited by Jeff B.

176 What's the test for end of life? Brain waves, so call it the same.

177 Yeah I've never understood why so many amendments needed incorporating. The first is the only one that references the national government

178 if the troll nic fits.......own it..... the jon that posts with the not troll after his nic is not a troll all other jon's are suspect

179 You have a sunny assessment of our fellow citizens. Posted by: Grumpy Cat at March 20, 2013 03:09 PM (j3uk1)

That's our Radish!

...

Wait.  I just had a great idea for a SitCom.

180 157 "To think I was lightyears from Earth when we met again and you still had to bitch about our breakup. In a cave. Inside an asteroid. Women never forget."

I've done far worse than kill you, Admiral. I've hurt you. And I wish to go on hurting you. I shall leave you as you left me, as you left her; marooned for all eternity in the center of a dead planet . . . with that woman who will continue to bitch about your breakup and nag you over your flaws.

181 That's pretty complicated. How about this: right vs wrong Or Would you go back in time, see how you like it, and then tell me.

182 I might as well give up bacon and Val - U - Rite now and convert to Islam so I'm on the winning team when things get real. Fuck that. I'll help a couple of 'em meet allah when it's time to go before I give up bacon and Val-U-Rite. Next thing you're going to say is we have to give up pussy for little boys & goats.

183 abortion is waaaaayyyyy down on my list of priorities at the moment

I pretty much agree, excepting obvious criminals like Gosnell.

Still. Since we're not able to fill up any other habitable planets, human life on this planet is about 1/7th as precious and special as it was when there were "only" a billion of us. And that's assuming that all humans are equal which they are not.

184 First off, "opposing" doesn't mean, "I want to make illegal." If you have a questionnaire about abortion and you say you "oppose" abortion in a given situation, it just means you don't believe that it is called for. Hence, the distinction that it's a family decision.

I read it all very quickly, but I suspect Paul is "confusing everyone" because he hasn't resolved his own conflicts about social conservatism versus libertarian "leave everyone alone."

I know where he's coming from because I like leaving people alone, too, but if one believes a fetus is a human life, that presents a quandary between two deeply felt principles.

185

Just playing Devils advocate here... but... a fingernail is a clump of cells, which is alive... but we cut them all the time. Heck.... fungus is alive, but its not murder to kill it...

 

Good question.

 

Speaking for myself, I guess I'd say the difference is the purpose and potential.        The cells that   go into forming a fingernail are    given that duty as soon as they get their orders.     "Okay, we need fingernails.  You guys, go.   Handle it.   Oh, and kick those other guys there and tell them to head to the liver STAT."      

 

But those cells that begin to divide and grow in a woman's uterus    have only one purpose:   they    WILL   BE    a living, breathing human being someday.    Barring genetic abnormalities,    they've    got all the code in them,   all the blueprints, to build every piece of a human body and put it together in the right sequence.          The process by which two gametes meet is very specific and geared toward only one result -- the creation of another person.   You don't have sex and then 9 months later give birth to a new spleen,   or   a   length of intestinal tract  (if you do, you're seeing the WRONG DOCTOR).     You don't go to the obstetrician to get a sonagram of the perfectly formed ear gestating in the woman's uterus.     If you have an abortion, you aren't aborting fingernail cells.   You're aborting PERSON  cells.

 

It's hard for me to put into words,   but hopefully y'all get what I mean.

186 Uhm, I thought Due Process required that the accused be mentally competent to understand the charges against him and to the ability to understand the proceedings. In a sane world, Due Process would mean you keep your fucking implements of death away from the defenseless fetus.

187 Do you consider an unfertilized egg to be a "human life"? Since an unfertilized egg cannot fulfill the biological requirements of life, no. However, once fertilized with a sperm cell, the resulting combined cell then fits the biological requirements of life. However, just like a virus, both egg and sperm are what I have heard called "quasi-life" (though I'm sure there is a better technical term) which indicates that it comes from something that is alive and can be made alive by natural biological processes. For specifics on that: ask a biologist or a bio-ethicist (calling tsrblke, tsrblke to the white courtesy phone, please).

188 @Allen

You can cut live skin off of yourself and keep it alive in some kind of medium like a petri dish.

When you say 'life' you mean 'a person', as in a life which is distinct, not 'something alive'. We're made of billions of things that individually are alive and could be in the right environment (petri dishes) but that wouldn't make any of those a person.

It's just that the process is clear: at conception you have a distinct set of genes and a set of human cells which are unique, differentiated from the mother, developing in-utero. The mother has almost complete power over this organism, which I think is the point, isn't it?

We're culturally so degraded now that we will require a Big Man to rule us.

189 When in the courfe of hiftory God. Damn. It. If I've faid it once, I've faid it a thoufand times. Do not make Grumpy Cat laugh.

190 Oh, I see. Now you care. Ok.

191 I should say, as strongly as I feel about abortion, and despite the frustration that I feel as a PhD in developmental biology about the reasoning I see people use to condone it, I know this is not an easy argument. And I really do try my best to not condemn people for coming around. But I think we should keep trying to bring people around because there's something fundamentally dehumanizing about a society that condones disposing of inconvenient people.

192 Vic, you are aware that the only reason the Bill of Rights has any force outside of the federal government (i.e. the reason that state governments, like your local police force, etc.) is because it was incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment? Yes, by mentally deficient people who can't read plain English. It ain't there. Made up. And that absent that, you wouldn't be necessarily guaranteed, say, 1st Amendment freedom of speech religion rights? Except for it being in every state Constitution. And for the fact that the Feds have used the 1st as a bludgeon against our rights to, say, have vouchers that can be used for religious schools. I figure that the feds will trample rights more easily than 50 states simultaneously. Again, I realize that incorporation is a useful lie, but it is a lie nonetheless. Or the right to keep and bear arms? (The Founders initially intended that it would not be infringed by the national government...they wouldn't have objected if, say, the state of Virginia decided to ban guns on its own. Except that the 2nd Amendment is in the passive voice. Plain English. "Congress shall make no law" is an entirely different concept than "shall not be infringed." Plain English. You see, the Constitution does not need "Constitutional Scholars". It ain't long. It ain't complicated. And it's in English. The menu at Denny's is more confusing and open to interpretation than the Constitution.

193 Message from Planet Ocean:  Duck penes to you all. 

194 i'm pro life....period....if you want an abortion....great!!!!!! pay for it yourself....all of it....leave gov't funds out of it completely....be as pro abortion as you want....use it as birth control...support abortion doctors have abortion private fund raisers!!!! wear pro abortion shirts.....GET THE GOV'T OUT OF IT....COMPLETELY.....thank you, rant off...... Posted by: phoenixgirl, a commenter on the best conservative blog at March 20, 2013 03:03 PM (qn3J5) yep women will abort if they want to history shows this but, don't make us pay for it

195 "You're pregnant?? Congratulations!! When is the clump of cells due?" The new Lefty Line from Hallmark.

196 Where's Pixy?!?!

Dammit!  I paid for the AoSHQ Platinum Package.  I want this blog to have warning signs from now on. 

Especially, "WARNING: EoJ Post Ahead"

That way I'll know not the have anything in my mouth when I continue to read.

197 I'm not saying that it hasn't been badly interpreted (yes, even 'abused') by several Courts. I'm just saying don't throw the baby -- metaphorically speaking, probably the single most valuable Baby of them our, our Constitutional guarantees of liberty under the Bill of Rights! -- out with the bathwater. Posted by: Jeff B. at March 20, 2013 03:08 PM (bcLhD) That the 14th amendment accomplishes some good things, there is no doubt. But much of the problems now afflicting this nation are the result of misinterpreting the meaning of the 14th amendment. At the very least, the 14th should have been broken into several amendments rather than having been created as a "catch all" amendment. Incorporation of the bill of rights into the states is mostly a good thing, but it has also been used to abuse and damage the states. I suspect prior to the 14th, Most states recognized various components of the bill of rights anyway. (in most cases.)

198 "You're pregnant?? Congratulations!! When is the clump of cells due?"

♪ cell clump, cell clump, cell clump, ooooh
cell clump, cell clump, cell clump noooo  ♫

199 only thing i'm interested in is stopping this slide to third world shithole socialism we're currently on. Posted by: booger at March 20, 2013 03:08 PM (HI6wa) Why, that's just crazy talk. Obviously, national bankruptcy, the rule of law and war are not existential issues, because we see less of that on TV than Social Issues, which are the True Threat That Must Be Our Highest Priorities. And the reason we have to put all our attention on those issues is that it splits us and keeps us from addressing the other issues. Kind of like the "New Scandal Gambit" keeps us from resolving previous scandals, because we're all crack-addled ADD monkeys. So, "fix the budget and deal with national threats first, or *we* won't be making the decision on abortion and gay marriage, Lord Humongous will."

200 Would you go back in time, see how you like it, and then tell me. Posted by: Justamom of the LiB camp at March 20, 2013 03:12 PM (erYRT) What if there's a 50% chance of fatality carrying out pregnancy? 30%? 10%? 5%? It's not so cut and dry, even if we agree about life starting at conception.

201 >>>At the moment of conception, we're talking a single cell dividing into multiple cells. Outside of religious belief, I don't think there's much case to be made that a microscopic cluster of a few cells is a human life.

The very first moment a woman can know she is pregnant is close to two weeks after fertilization. After another two weeks that baby is no longer a "clump of cells" it has already finished basic structures and begun building bodyparts.

F* you and your "clump of cells" Tell me what % of abortions actually get done inside of the first two weeks of known pregnancy. If we actually limited abortion to the "clump of cells" phase, I'd be thrilled.

202 #191 Quit f'ing yourself. 

203

Not saying I agree with the argument, but if you're trying to get people to pay attention to the Constitution again, then USING the Constitution and showing how it would be applied to a particular situation is a good thing. At the very least it gets people thinking in Constitutional terms again.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

 

This is my take also and I applaud him for approaching it this way.  R vs. W is law right now.  Certainly not a good law or  a just law, but law just the same.

 

I'm happy that he's going back to "the law of the land" and reminding people that the process of  the law deciding life or death was written into the Constitution long before R vs. W.

204 Hmm, well, RP's two for two. I didn't get his immigration stance yesterday and I  don't get his abortion stance today.

205 I now speak for the Dumb. How will this help the Dumb people, or why should they care?

206 What does Ireland do? They apparently do pro-lifing pretty danged well.

207

The question is not really life, so much as when does this clump of cells become a Person...

---

Why is there a need to invent some distinction between life and personhood?

208 there's something fundamentally dehumanizing about a society that condones disposing of inconvenient people.

Posted by: Y-not at March 20, 2013 03:13 PM (5H6zj)

----------------

Amen.

209 >>>"When in the courfe of hiftory it shall become neceffary confiscate the arms of The People, it shall be juft fucking dandy if it is done by the individual States."

You have to understand the legal and historical context, EoJ.  When the Founders wrote the Constitution, the idea that any state would want to pass a law confiscating guns was inconceivable.  But it wouldn't have been UNCONSTITUTIONAL, at least in terms of how the Bill of Rights was originally conceived by the Framers to relate to the government.  The Constitution was designed as a federal charter, and the Bill of Rights were explicitly understood to be binding SOLELY upon the federal government.  Which, in fact, was exactly the case for a very long time.  Only near the end of the 19th century did the Supreme Court start saying "hey, wait a minute, you know it doesn't make sense if the federal government can't infringe upon your freedom of speech or religion...but states still can."  And the process of incorporation didn't really get rolling in a major way until (gasp) the Warren Court era....hell, before 1961 there wasn't even any guarantee of protection against unreasonable searches and seizures unless the state you were living happened to pass a law to that effect.  (Ohio was one that didn't, hence Mapp v. Ohio, the case that incorporated the 4th Amendment to all the states through the conduit of the 14th Amendment.)

In other words, you can be a snarky jackass all you want, but you only make it clear that you have no real idea what you're talking about from a Constitutional Law perspective.

210 Sidebar: Apple hires Adobe exec as CTO. *facepalm* Sigh. *scratches furniture into matchsticks*

211

"...there's something fundamentally dehumanizing about a society that condones disposing of inconvenient people." 

 

Posted by: Y-not at March 20, 2013 03:13 PM (5H6zj)

 

Well, I can see who isn't going to like my fix for Social Security.

212 This Rand Paul using the left's rules against them.  Similar to my own legal argument I had since Con Law class in law school.

If ya come to the table and say abortion is murder, then you are on one polar opposite side to "abortion is permitted". No matter how right you are, people will tune you out.

But this issue here is, now, under law, it's the woman's SOLE decision.  But this issue isn't just about her - the father and the child have a stake in it.

So the kid is either 1) a person, 2) a quasi person 3) a life form like a dog that you just can't torture to death or 4) PROPERTY.  If it's property, it's the man and woman's, and thought one can benefit the property without consent of the other "owner" they can burden it.

And if it's property, the man can have a due process right (procedural) before it is denied.

So if the woman wants the abortion, the MAN has procedural due process to say "no, I want the kid, so I'll take full custody" or "no, I don't want it, coat hanger it".  That allows the abortion, but it ain't Mommy's alone to make - she needs dad's say so, and the court ro arbitrator oversees this.

Conversely, this would allow the father to take her to court and say "she wants the kid, but I don't, so either she gets an abortion or I get to skip on child support".  Because as the feminists explained to me in law school,  abortion was pushed because men would abandon kids and women didn't want stuck with them.  So abortion was the way to "balance out" and let the woman skip on the kid, too.  But, the problem is, the state forces Dad to pay child support, but can't force Mom to get an abortion.  So, if she can dodge, why can't he?

Granted, this is not the ideal that conservatives want, nor is it what I want, but it is LEAGUES better than leaving it up to a woman alone. AND it uses the Left's rules against it.  I don't know if Paul is truly pro-life, but I can tell ya for sure the left will shit bricks over this.

213 Number 9.....Number 9.....Number 9....Number 9....Number 9....Number 9...

214 I'm guessing that it goes along the lines of "abortion only to preserve the life of the mother."  I can see a solid libertarian argument that the fetus has a right to life, but if it's life means killing the mother, then the mother had a right to self-defense to have the fetus aborted.

215 Why is there a need to invent some distinction between life and personhood? Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at March 20, 2013 03:15 PM (SO2Q

In order to make personal choices more socially acceptable and to give them a patina of morality.

216 Assuming you get past the whole "life begins at..." question, now you're stuck with the quandry of is it better to pay for a $400 procedure at 4 weeks in with public money or take the hit for hundreds of thousands in medical, education, welfare, imprisonment, law enforcement, etc. etc. for decades? Posted by: jwest at March 20, 2013 03:10 PM (u2a4R) This is a false dilema. It is exactly like arguing that the Death Penalty is too expensive because opponents of it have worked their asses off MAKING it expensive. The government policy should not be to encourage unwed mothers. Government policy should be designed to either remain neutral, or encourage the opposite. Normal Marriage.

217 I always figured that a person dies when the heart stops beating and cannot be restarted for a certain period of time (the rock stars that OD on heroin, for example, have their hearts stop but are then brought back with shocks and CPR). I think you have cause and effect reversed. If the heart stopping where the cause of death, simply restarting the heart would let life continue (that is: you could just set up a heart pump and the subject would remain alive). When they just can't be restarted, it's because the person is already dead.

218 Why is there a need to invent some distinction between life and personhood? Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at March 20, 2013 03:15 PM (SO2Q If a two-cell human life is a person, and worthy of state protection, are we going to shut down IVF clinics and make sure to implant every frozen embryo? That's one of many things we'd have to deal with if we decided full personhood.

219 209 Why is there a need to invent some distinction between life and personhood? Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at March 20, 2013 03:15 PM (SO2Q Eliminate the distinction and about 30 different college majors cease to exist. And, yes, that would be a good thing....

220 Almost every State has some version of the bill of rights built into its own State Constitution.  Yes, the federal BOR was intended to be for the feds only.


If you live in a State that does not guarantee the right you want then MOVE to another that does.  That is what the founders intended.


The right to keep and bear arms is in my State's Constitution. I suspect that it is NOT in MA's Constitution.

221 Let's face it, there's only one solution to all of this madness:  more diversity training. 

222 Wouldn't be surprised if there was a different, troll "Jon." But I've seen this guy's posts in other threads and they're calm and reasonable. Posted by: Jeff B. at March 20, 2013 03:10 PM (bcLhD) Relative to some folk, I would have to agree.

223 I think the availability of "morning after" treatments are weeding out a lot of abortions and that number will increase. We will still see a lot of abortion committed against unborn handicapped children. We are already aborting a vast majority of Downs babies, for instance. So Rand is trying to deal with the current abortion situation nationally, not based on conditions that stopped being true years ago. This is part of Rand trying to move past the "stale and moss-covered" policies of the institutional GOP. To use an old 18th century gardening phrase, Rand has chosen a tough row to hoe, as this thread amply demonstrates.

224 Even procedural due process does not make sense.  Procedural due process is supposed to apply to actions taken by the state - not individuals.

In other words, I don't have the right to kill you just because I convene a tribunal to hear my reasons for killing you.  For the state to kill you, you must have committed some crime. 

He's trying to have it both ways - claiming he believes life begins at conception but then saying he isn't going to get involved in abortion decisions and then - if your interpretation is correct - coming up with a process whereby the state actually starts making the decision whether to kill the fetus.  That's an even worse outcome than the current system where private individuals are making those decisions.  Now we are going to have the state even more complicit in the murder of unborn children.

It's also a cop-out.  Anyone who believes that life begins at conception (or sometime thereafter), can't square the circle as to why abortion is not murder.  If it is a separate, individual human life - which you just stated it was - how is it ok to simply decide to kill it because it is inconvenient?

Were he smart, he would have stuck to his libertarianism and said "I think it is an issue best left to the states" and instead said he disagreed with Roe v. Wade because it is such a stupid legal decision that invents new rights out of whole cloth to add into the constitution.  I think that would have worked much better amongst pro-lifers than this mess - which will actually hurt him more among moderates who "grudgingly" are pro-choice b/c now any opponent will argue that Paul wants every woman to have to go to federal court to have an abortion.

This is a serious self-inflicted wound.

225 New non-abortion thread

226 We will still see a lot of abortion committed against unborn handicapped children. We are already aborting a vast majority of Downs babies, for instance.  Posted by: TooCon at March 20, 2013 03:20 PM (f+yEj)

It's greater than 80% now.

227 >>>Please, read the whole conversation. That comment was very much tongue in cheek.

Sorry my sarc detector needs cal.

228 I wonder if we can haz a thread on something more cheerful, like dentistry as practiced in the 15th century.

229 In other words, you can be a snarky jackass all you want, but you only make it clear that you have no real idea what you're talking about from a Constitutional Law perspective. Hey, you got the same template in Word as me! It's called the Insufferable Ass commenting template.

230 Imagine if due process applied a fetus were similar to those of a murderer on death row. He would be well on his way to high school before the final appeal. What then? Do we begin executing fourth-graders, or is everyone pardoned at birth?

231
Outside of religious belief, I don't think there's much case to be made that a microscopic cluster of a few cells is a human life.


Wait ... What?  I guess republicans ARE anti-science.

Cellular "life" is the actions of organelles and genes to maintain activity, reproduce, and grow. 

From wiki:

In the viviparous animals (which include humans and all other placental mammals), the ovum is fertilized inside the female body.

The human ova grow from primitive germ cells that are embedded in the substance of the ovaries. Each of them divides repeatedly to give rise to several smaller cells, the oogonia. The oogonia then develop via meiosis into the ova, the primary oocytes, and the polar bodies.[1]

Once the ovum has been fertilized, it begins to divide over the course of a few hours or days, becoming a morula. The morula enters the uterine cavity where it is immersed in the secretions of the uterine glands, ultimately forming a blastocyst

Which part of that is not living?

And which part of that is not human?

232

As someone pointed out up thread, it is a separate political/philosophical matter to decide if we want to endow caterpillars with the same rights as butterflies. But acknowledging that caterpillars ARE butterflies, that on a classification scheme they reside in the same place in relation to all other organisms, is simply scientifically true.

 

Beautiful.  Perfectly stated.   Far more eloquent than my hamfisted attempt!

233 I know where he's coming from because I like leaving people alone, too, but if one believes a fetus is a human life, that presents a quandary between two deeply felt principles. Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at March 20, 2013 03:12 PM (dCqrx) Yes, it is much akin to the idea of leaving Slave Owners alone, which was in fact, a popular sentiment before the Civil War. There are certain moral issues that demand intervention.

234 there's something fundamentally dehumanizing about a society that condones disposing of inconvenient people.

Posted by: Y-not at March 20, 2013 03:13 PM (5H6zj)

----------------

Amen.

Posted by: mama winger at March 20, 2013 03:15 PM (P6QsQ)

 

--- The Roman empire

235 That's an even worse outcome than the current system where private individuals are making those decisions. Now we are going to have the state even more complicit in the murder of unborn children. This is a serious self-inflicted wound. Posted by: Monkeytoe at March 20, 2013 03:20 PM (sOx93) So how would we ever make any excepts work? Or are we not doing life-of-mother exceptions either? Just a single doctor saying so? Wouldn't this be really easy to side-step by shopping for a liberal doctor? I honestly want to know, asking sincerely.

236

This is just the type of confusion and division that could be avoided if I were King.

 

 

237 It's greater than 80% now.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at March 20, 2013 03:21 PM (sbV1u)

--------------

My mother, not known for facing difficult situations well,  would never have carried my brother to term if pre-natal testing and abortions had been available back in the early 60's.  What a blessing we would have missed out on.  I'm glad he was born before 1973. 

238 In other words, you can be a snarky jackass all you want, but you only make it clear that you have no real idea what you're talking about from a Constitutional Law perspective.

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 20, 2013 03:16 PM (bcLhD)

 

Oh yes, I am not arguing with you.  I absolutely agree with you that the Framers absolutely did not give a fuck what type of repressive,  tyrannical hells-on  earth  the individual states became, as long as the federal  government didn't  infringe  upon any of the natural rights that they had spent six years and tens  of thousands of lives defending.

 

That  makes perfect sense.  And I trust your judgment of our Founders' Intent because after all,  You Are A Lawyer  And I Am Not.

239 What if there's a 50% chance of fatality carrying out pregnancy? 30%? 10%? 5%? First, I defy you to put numbers that precise on risk of death by carrying a baby to term. Those numbers don't mean what you think they mean. Second: assuming you could put such numbers on risk of death by carrying a baby to term, I would say that falls under "risk of mother's death" and becomes the one time I advocate for "choice." If my wife stood a significant chance of death in bringing a baby to term, I don't know what I'd do. I do not believe it is inherently morally wrong to elect to protect either of those lives. Whichever life I choose to protect, the other will be lost (or at least stands a significant chance of being lost). Philosophically, then, I'm not choosing to end a life; rather, I'm choosing which life I'm willing to end. That's a far different question.

240 230 I wonder if we can haz a thread on something more cheerful, like dentistry as practiced in the 15th century. ------ OK, I LOLed. Thank you for that.

241 81 67 - So, if the father wants the child and the mother does not, you force her to carry the child to term? Welcome to the War on Women Party. We have cake.

Posted by: red sweater at March 20, 2013 02:50 PM (oATMN)

Yes, damn me to Hell for thinking the child is also mine.  How dare I!

Course, if I knock her up, and she wants it, and I don't, then I get stuck paying for a kid I don't want.  I don't get to skip on child support.  Even though we both "screwed up", she gets two bites at the apple (choose sex, choose abortion), I get one (choose sex)

Welcome to the War on Men Party.  We have pie.

But then, no one gives a fuck about mens' rights. 

242 To think I was lightyears from Earth when we met again and you still had to bitch about our breakup. In a cave. Inside an asteroid.

Women never forget.

Posted by: James Tiberius Kirk at March 20, 2013 03:08 PM (j3uk1)

---

yeah, and thanks for the Rigelian Herpes asshole.

243 Ace, there's also the 5th amendment's due process clause.  Just an fyi.

244 We will still see a lot of abortion committed against unborn handicapped children.

Eventually that's going to be mandatory under Obamacare.  Part of the "killing saves money" thing jwest keeps going on about.

245 Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at March 20, 2013 03:24 PM (4OvDk) I agree with you 100%, I was poking holes in this "black and white" theory some people have around here. That you Just Say No to abortion, all the time.

246 219 "When they just can't be restarted, it's because the person is already dead."

Either way, it would make logical sense that if the heart stopping (usually) equals death, then the heart starting would equal life.

247 In other words, you can be a snarky jackass all you want, but you only make it clear that you have no real idea what you're talking about from a Constitutional Law perspective. Posted by: Jeff B. at March 20, 2013 03:16 PM (bcLhD) I understood everything you said, but as far as i'm concerned, Roosevelt/Truman fucked up the courts (and through them the law schools) and the Courts thereafter did a lot to fuck up society. Wickard v. Filburn is a prime example of Roosevelt Court Fucked up stupidity.

248 179 Yeah I've never understood why so many amendments needed incorporating. The first is the only one that references the national government Posted by: SH at March 20, 2013 03:11 PM (is2uy) Madison made it clear repeatedly that the BOR was intended to restrain the states, this was not a controversial view. Several legal observers at the time thought the view was relatively obvious, and the argument primarily rested on Article VI. Gradually, some states and particularly some jackass lawyers thought they could benefit from the reverse view (and up until some decades later it simply wasn't a regular issue), so they gradually eroded that position with court decisions to the point where you can't now find a legal text or law school that won't take the position that it was *intended* to exclude the states. So, basically, when the BOR says *people* have unalienable rights, in the eyes of lawyers that means *no* people or *not* unalienable, which, in fact, makes no fucking sense whatsoever. Then again, many abuses of law rest on the assumption that the lawyer or politician's predecessors were useless poltroons and can safely be ignored.

249 F* you and your "clump of cells" Tell me what % of abortions actually get done inside of the first two weeks of known pregnancy. If we actually limited abortion to the "clump of cells" phase, I'd be thrilled.

So you're cool with abortion in very early stages, implying that you agree that life begins sometime after conception.  How much longer?

250 If it is a separate, individual human life - which you just stated it was - how is it ok to simply decide to kill it because it is inconvenient?

Society executes murderers because it find it convenient/desirable/worthy to do so.  But, they're entitled to process (and a possible altered outcome if they got clever lawyers) before that execution happens.

If you buy that abortion is murder, then it follows that abortionists are society's designated executioners of the unborn. 

If naturally follows that the unborn condemned be afforded process of the same sort that the born condemned are.  Indeed perhaps even more because they were never accused or convicted of crimes.

251 The position that life begins at conception is valid from a religious standpoint, but that's about it. From a scientific / medical perspective, not so much.

On the other extreme, we have the "pro-choice" crowd who maintain that life doesn't begin until birth- not one month, one day, one hour before. Apparently the Magic Baby Fairy bestows life upon birth or something.

From a non-religious standpoint, the truth is somewhere in between.

Unfortunately the entire discussion asking when life begins has been abandoned.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 20, 2013 02:51 PM (SY2Kh)

Actually, from a scientific standpoint, life begins at conception.  The definition that pro-choicers are using for "life" when they ask the question "when does life begin" is really not about whether a fetus is "alive" or not, but about when the fetus can be considered an independent human being worthy of protection (or, I guess, sentient maybe).  they answer, of course, at birth for the most part, which allows them to kill fetuses the same way one takes antibiotics to kill bacteria.

However, from a scientific standpoint, my sperm are alive.  When it reaches an egg and fertilizes the egg and the cells begin to divide - that is life. Just as a single cell amoeba is alive. Simply because at that stage of its development it cannot survive outside the womb does not make it any less alive.  there are all kinds of living organisms in our bodies that are separate from us that can't live outside our bodies (bacteria, viruses, etc) that does not make those things any less alive.

So really, science has answered the question of when life begins - it begins at conception.  That is always overlooked.  The question that pro-choicers are actually posing is when does the fetus get human rights - not when is it "alive".

252 This is fairly standard confusion for libertarians. Does the fetus have rights? And does the person carrying the fetus have rights to not carry?


Like it of not, the SCOTUS came up with a fairly good compromise on the issue.

In the first trimester, their isn't a lot of neural activity happening, so the fetus gets the same rights as a brain-dead human.

In the third trimester the child stands a good chance of actually surviving a ceasarian, so you had damned well better be able to prove medical necessity ( partial birth abortionists are begging for a murder conviction, IMO ).

In the second trimester, things start getting unclear, and states should be able to regulate abortions during this time.

253 Be sent to a desolate planet, superhuman sockpuppet

254 I'm guessing that it goes along the lines of "abortion only to preserve the life of the mother." I can see a solid libertarian argument that the fetus has a right to life, but if it's life means killing the mother, then the mother had a right to self-defense to have the fetus aborted. Posted by: Phelps at March 20, 2013 03:17 PM (zJH/w) My understanding is that this is also ancient Jewish Law as well. If the fetus is regarded as a "pursuer" then self defense can be utilized against it. I have no issues with this perspective.

255 What's more human, a clump of newly replicating cells or Keith Richards?

256 I think the availability of "morning after" treatments are weeding out a lot of abortions and that number will increase.

From an absolutionist "life begins at conception" perspective, the use of the "morning after" pill is also abortion.

257 So how would we ever make any excepts work? Or are we not doing life-of-mother exceptions either? Just a single doctor saying so? Wouldn't this be really easy to side-step by shopping for a liberal doctor?

I honestly want to know, asking sincerely.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 74% more DOOM! at March 20, 2013 03:23 PM (FsUAO)

I may have been wrong in my interpretation of what Paul is saying.  I was writing under the impression that he is saying due process for all abortions - not just in the case of exceptions for rape and incest.  If he is saying outlaw all abortions except rape and incest - and for those have due process hearings - then my original comment is completely wrong.

If he is saying that he is applying this to all abortions, with no standards as to what the tribunal makes its decision based upon (i.e., the mother can simply demonstrate she is "too poor" to have the child) then my original comment stands.

258 Well this post was a whole lot of nothin', other than Rand's really gotta be clearer about what he means. Just say there are exceptions for rape/life of mother and make it simple. In 20 years when/if Roe gets overturned, then we can work on the actual procedure to make sure the rights of the mother are protected as well.

259 If he is saying that he is applying this to all abortions, with no standards as to what the tribunal makes its decision based upon (i.e., the mother can simply demonstrate she is "too poor" to have the child) then my original comment stands. Posted by: Monkeytoe at March 20, 2013 03:35 PM (sOx93) Ah. Maybe, I don't know. At worst we'd be back to where we are.

260 My comment on the Gosnel case:

If the child in question was capable of surviving without assistance, and this "doctor" murdered that child for patient convenience instead of stabilizing and calling paramedics, then he needs a trial and an execution.

I support first trimester abortion as a choice ( no mental activity present ).

But this kind of partial or near partial birth abortionist needs a rope, badly.

261 Lincolntf: What's more human, a clump of newly replicating cells or Keith Richards?

That is actually a tough question. Is Richards brain dead yet?

262 So really, science has answered the question of when life begins - it begins at conception. That is always overlooked. The question that pro-choicers are actually posing is when does the fetus get human rights - not when is it "alive".

That a single-celled organism is alive doesn't necessarily imply that it's a human life.

You guys are dodging the question with semantics.  Yes, a replicating cell is "life", be it a fertilized egg or a wart.  But when does said egg become human life (alive, a person with rights)?

Christianity holds that it's at the moment of conception.  If that's your view, fine.  Say that.  Just admit that it's a religious view rather than hide behind semantics (dividing cell = life = living person).

263 Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 20, 2013 03:40 PM (SY2Kh) It's not splitting hairs. It's correct terminology. We are being precise. We agree that there's still the issue of personhood to be determined.

264 What's the difference whether a third trimester baby is able to live without medical assistance or not? My nephew weighed one pound. He's a great kid- smart and strong.

265 When you look at our country's abortion numbers and at the number of people wanting to adopt, it is absurd. When people have the choice to have a baby or an abortion, and can't make up their minds until babies are- I can't even write it- it is as Saint Theresa says: a poverty.

266 It's not splitting hairs. It's correct terminology. We are being precise.

We agree that there's still the issue of personhood to be determined.

No, it really is splitting hairs in an attempt to dodge the question with semantics.

In the context of rights of the unborn, the question "when does life begin" is obviously not asking whether a human cell is "life"- of course it is, be it a skin cell or an egg.

When is it a human life (i.e. "person") though?

267 We agree that there's still the issue of personhood to be determined.

Its already been determined in many cases.  A while ago the feminists pushed for enhanced penalties for assaults where the mother was pregnant and the fetus died in the attack.  Now the attackers can be charged with manslaughter.

If you have a "manslaughter", you gotta have an entity with legal standing who was killed or there's no manslaughter.

QED

268 That a single-celled organism is alive doesn't necessarily imply that it's a human life.

You actually reiterate my point.  The fetus is "alive".  But now you change the argument to whether it is a "human life".  Which was what my entire comment said you were really arguing - not whether or not the fetus is "alive" but whether or not it is "human".

But, again, science answers this question.  Scientifically, anything that is alive and will grow into something is that something, just in an earlier stage.  thus, the fetus is "human life".

What you are arguing is not a scientific question but a philosophical question, whether or not, because the fetus is not yet "sentient" (for want of a better term), it is ok to kill it.  You are seeking to define "human life" in a philosophical, not scientific way.  You want to know when the fetus becomes something with enough value to call it "human life". That question really can't be answered scientifically.  there's already plenty of science showing that fetuses feel pain, smile, etc. at a fairly early age - and that does not persuade pro-choicers that it is "human".  What most pro-choicers mean by "human" is walking and talking.

269 Christianity holds that it's at the moment of conception. If that's your view, fine. Say that. Just admit that it's a religious view rather than hide behind semantics (dividing cell = life = living person).

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 20, 2013 03:40 PM (SY2Kh)

Again, because science is pretty clear that a "clump of cells" is a human life, the question can never be answered scientifically - it can only be answered philosophically/religiously.

Define the science that defines "personhood". There is no such thing.  What you argue is "semantics" is pointing out that the language employed by pro-choicers is false and the claim that there is some scientific answer to the question is false.

Deciding when an embryo (the first stage of human life) is a "person" is the same as a religious argument over when the body becomes ensouled.  It is a matter of faith (assuming you define personhood as being different than simple human life - which you apparently do).

270 I don't understand myself, but I'll hazard a guess. Oh oh. This guarantees three successive postings and several retractions for "clarity".

271 gain, because science is pretty clear that a "clump of cells" is a human life, the question can never be answered scientifically - it can only be answered philosophically/religiously.

Crap.  I've just learned that I'm a murderer for having removed that wart.  It was after all a cluster of living human cells, thus a human life by your definition.

You'll never take me alive, coppers.

272 A living organism - as in an individual member of a species - does more than just metabolize nutrients, respire, move, etc. It has to possess the ability to continue the species. Fundamentally that is true of an embryo - given enough time - but not true of a skin cell. A fertilized egg is a unique member of the species to which it belongs. It's an individual at a specific developmental stage.

273 The closest sense I can make of it is that he's hoping to eliminate the hard cases that make bad law. It's not ideologically perfect, but if it's implemented the right way, it could work. If I could stop all abortions, ever, I would, but I know that enough people are swayed by the hard cases---13 year old incest victims carrying Tays-Sachs babies---used in pro abortion propaganda that it's not (currently) realistic. This could be a good step. Incidentally I know of a woman who had to go before some sort of panel to have an abortion in something like 1970. She had one kidney, but otherwise was perfectly healthy, and had carried two pregnancies just fine. Her real reason for wanting an abortion was unrelated to her having one kidney, but she played the health-of-the-mother card anyway, then whined that the panel was unfair when they approved her abortion on one condition---she had to get a tubal at the same time in order to prevent any future problems.

274 Hollowpoint, the wart had only your DNA. You can do whatever you want with something that's only your DNA. Once your DNA has fused with someone else's and made entirely unique DNA, it's a whole other ball game.

275 A libertarian can be pro-life. Obviously, if the fetus is a person (and I really don't know how it could not be) then you don't get to kill a person. HOWEVER that doesn't mean that a woman has no rights, either, it just means that both the mother and fetus are involved. Our courts decide conflicts between parties all the time. That's what they do.

276 #275 I've sometimes said that maybe abortion should be 100% legal on a woman's whim, but each one should come with a mandatory tubal. It's not a perfect solution, but I bet the number of women who just *had* to get an abortion would drop to near nothing.

277 A new human life is 1- alive, 2- has human DNA, 3- is physically distinct (with few exceptions) from other individuals, and 4- will continue to live until killed by something... intent, accident, disease, or old age. 1- "alive" is sort of obvious. 2- Human DNA is potentially less obvious, but we're not technologically there yet. For the present, if something has human DNA you're looking at a human. 3- a new conception or a twin or a clone or anything like that is physically distinct from it's mother (even if it was a clone of the mother), the only exception I can think of is a Siamese twin or the weird case where one twin consumes the other in utero, and then, too, it's still not something that can be confused with the mother. 4- this individual human life will continue to grow or live until it is interfered with. Unless someone kills it on purpose, or there is disease or natural causes, or an accident or old age... it will continue to live. Sometimes people like to pretend that disallowing purposeful termination (abortion) requires somehow actively preventing accident or miscarriage. How stupid is that? If it's illegal to murder someone who is grown, does it suddenly become mandatory to ensure without fail that a person doesn't have an accident or die from disease? If we accept that not all people live to old age but that some die of accident or disease, does that mean we have to allow murder? Also, if we're not allowed to kill another grown human, does that mean self-defense is not allowed? Of course it doesn't.

278 Crap. I've just learned that I'm a murderer for having removed that wart. It was after all a cluster of living human cells, thus a human life by your definition.

You'll never take me alive, coppers.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 20, 2013 04:16 PM (SY2Kh)

A wart does not grow into a human.  Nor does a virus, or a skin cell.  You are being purposefully obtuse.  Either you are unable to understand biology or you simply refuse to concede biology exists.  The science, as they say, is settled.  Whether or not that clump of cells is a "person" is based entirely on a different definition than whether it constitutes a human life.  All of your snark does not change the science or the facts.  I guess you are unable to make an argument for what you want to claim - that an embryo or fetus is not a "person" worthy of any rights because . . . pick your reason - it doesn't talk yet?  It can't do math yet? 

I'm not arguing one way or another for the definition of "personhood" as you are proclaiming it - just pointing out that the science is pretty clear on when "life" begins.  You seem to be very angry with the facts of the science.  My point is that science can't define "person" in the way you mean it - so your snark about "religious" beliefs forming the basis of what a "person" is is foolish, as any definition of "personhood" is just as arbitrary - whether based on some philosophical argument or some religious argument or just picking a random date like 3rd trimester.

279 Synobel: "277 A libertarian can be pro-life." Many, perhaps a majority, of Libertarians are pro-life. This has been true ever since Ron Paul ran pro-life as the LP nominee in '88. Last time I checked, the LP refused to pronounce any position on the topic, either pro-abortion or pro-life. You got the feeling that leadership leaned toward pro-choice but didn't want to start any fights with the pro-life Libertarians. Anyway, I'm just pointing out that the common idea that all Libertarians are pro-choice simply is not true. I do think that more of their candidates are pro-choice than their registered voters are. Of course, we're still talking about maybe 1% of the voters which seems awfully small until you recall that, until after the Civil War, there were no more than 2% of the voters in any state who self-identified as Abolitionists. So a persistent and dogged minority can be the catalyst of great change...

280 "I recognize that allowing someone else to (in your eyes) murder their child is awful. Could you accept that others have a different conscience or religious perspective, and allow that the gov't should not mandate in matters of substantial disputes of conscience?"

Of course not.  We went through this with slavery.

Accepting this viewpoint pretty much destroys the entire penal code.  I mean, every crime has a perpetrator who felt that he deserved the profit, sexual pleasure, use of real property, control of drug customers, etc., to a superior degree to the person he robbed, raped, killed, or defrauded.

I have no problem saying that killing people for convenience is wrong.  And bear in mind, once the victim is dead, its on us or nobody.  They can't argue for themselves.


"The position that life begins at conception is valid from a religious standpoint, but that's about it. From a scientific / medical perspective, not so much."

False.  Your personal DNA was created at conception, the merger of sperm and egg.  
Since it's accepted science that your DNA can be distinguished from everybody else, including your parents, that's a medical proof of separate life.

"42 It is human by virtue of its DNA."
So is a tumor."

Tumors don't have a different DNA than the patient suffering cancer.


"I'm surprised that so many on this board are attacking rand for sponsoring a life begins at conception bill. If he went out and said that life begins at conception so of course that means no abortion after rape, well we know how far ghat would go. By not focusing on those issues now maybe he can at least advance the cause that hey can't we all agree that at least it is a sepedate life. If we can move the public to acknowledge that the pro life cause will have made significant gains."

This would be the third instance of Rand proposing laws I wouldn't support, but, I'm supposed to Stand With Rand because he's raising awareness of the principle.
I think I'd prefer it if he raised awareness with good policy.
If he just wants a stunt to raise awareness, he could break out of a straitjacket while handcuffed suspended 100 ft in the air by a crane.

"264 That a single-celled organism is alive doesn't necessarily imply that it's a human life.

You guys are dodging the question with semantics. Yes, a replicating cell is "life", be it a fertilized egg or a wart. But when does said egg become human life (alive, a person with rights)?

Christianity holds that it's at the moment of conception. If that's your view, fine. Say that. Just admit that it's a religious view rather than hide behind semantics (dividing cell = life = living person)."

First off, the "humanity" of the offspring of two humans isn't really semantics.  

Secondly, to declare (NOT "admit") that there is no distinction between human persons and human trash is not a sneaky semantic trap.  It's a reasoned conclusion.  It's not only based in Christianity.  I don't think you'll find many Jews on your side, for instance.

Your position that there are useful humans and useless humans is not the default position.  It is not a neutral position.  It is a position that has been propounded in history for one reason only: the subjugation and exploitation of human populations.

281 Honestly... I don't know how anyone can say, based on pure biology, that a new life doesn't exist at conception. What philosophy or religion gives us is the *value* of that life, not the existence of that life. Someone's belief may be that human life has value at conception, is a *person* at conception, or someone's belief may be that human life has value at some other point according to some other metric... like being born, or the ability to live outside the womb, or "quickening", or when they leave the house and get a job. But the biological fact of that human life isn't a matter of opinion or religion... it's alive, it's human, it's a separate organism, and like other biological organisms, it will live and grow until something kills it.

282 Imagine a biologist examining a bunch of cells and being unable to know if it's a separate organism or not. Biologists can tell. They can even tell if something is a "colony" of symbiotic organisms that only appears like a single organism. Imagine a biologist examining a clone in the womb of its clone parent and being *confused* as to whether it's a part of the parent or not, or its own separate being. (I think that the worst, most stupid, dumb thing I ever saw that wasn't offensive just because it was too moronic to be offensive was that gawd awful episode of TNG where the crew of the enterprise kill off their adult size clones as if they were removing a tumor or getting their hair cut.)

283

I actually  think  the majority of  Americans already believe that life begins at conception and in fact, some pro-choicers  have already admitted it (there was a link to  some feminist here awhile back and she got into major trouble for stating it); but it doesn't matter -- a sizable amount of  people are ok with killing babies.  England, a place where doctors argue for abortion two years after birth, is where we're heading.

 

One  thing keeps me  hopeful:    until recently, polls on abortion actually had the majority as pro-life. We need a revival.

284 Oh, and  when life begins has nothing to do with "religion"; we have a thing called "science" and it tells us that life begins at conception.

285 Synova: "283 Honestly... I don't know how anyone can say, based on pure biology, that a new life doesn't exist at conception." It is life. Where it falls short is making the compelling argument that a clump of cells is actually a human being. Tell me, how many people do you know who lost a pregnancy at 6 weeks and then held a funeral for the family and friends? We say, essentially, human-at-conception. But we don't actually behave that way.

286 "Tell me, how many people do you know who lost a pregnancy at 6 weeks and then held a funeral for the family and friends?"

Probably most practical Catholics do.

287 I'm just exited that there's a libertarianish senator. Hope he tells sanders to "fuck off, slaver" at every opportunity.

288 TooCon: Someone had stated that it was religion and not biology that said that life began at conception. I think that's backward. I think that life obviously starts at conception, and I do mean human, individual, life. It's not a growth off of the mother or something. It's separate. So comparing an abortion even at the earliest stages to having a growth removed is just silly. It *is* by definition a separate human being. It will live and grow unless killed by disease, accident or direct action. Religion or philosophy is how we decide if we *care* or not. And I think we agree on that. Do we treat an early miscarriage the same as a stillbirth? I don't know. I *think* I may have had a very early miscarriage once, I don't count days so I *think* I was very late and then I had the menstrual period from h*ll. How do I feel about a possible three-ish week miscarriage? Wistful. I feel wistful. Because if it's true, then for that short time my husband's and my genes had combined in a unique combination that can never exist again. That person is gone. Even if one says that it wasn't a person *yet*, it's still gone forever. Even if, as is often the case in miscarriages, the combination of genes and the initial development was just wrong, unviable in all ways, it's still gone. It existed and now it's gone. Not the least bit like having my tonsils out. I think that a lot of people who do not have funerals for miscarriages where there is at least something to bury, end up being sorry afterward.

289 The notion that some human life lacks personhood, has always been promoted to exploit that population. And it engenders disrepect for the "mistakes" who got through.

290 Why the hell should I care if leftists murder their children?

The abortion obsessed never seem to realize that, by and large, it is their mortal enemies who are going around killing their offspring.  Conservative women don't need a law to tell them they can't kill junior.  You could pass a law REQUIRING women to murder their young and conservative women would refuse to comply and take active steps to defy that law.

So why are so many on the right obsessed with using the power of the state to prevent abortion?  Total and complete waste of time, money, effort and energy.  Instead of trying CONTROL people, how about trying to persuade them?  This won't eliminate abortion of course, but it will limit it to the types of people we would be better off without.  When the Lena Dunham's of the world execute their offspring, it makes the world a better place.

By focusing so closely on abortion, other issues are ignored, like promiscuity.  Abortions result from unwanted pregnancies.  People forget that.  Avoid the pregnancy by avoiding promiscuous sex, and you avoid the problem of abortion before it beings.

I often think that the left worked so hard to get abortion legalized precisely because they knew the right would expend all our energy trying to fight it, leaving the left free to operate unopposed in other areas.