It's understandable, though, given the left's obsession with sex, violence and fame. With rape you get the sex and violence in one lurid, awful package, and frequently the victims and perps get lots of press.
Respect is just too hard for some people.
My blood is now boiling, I'm so happy to hear somebody finally lace into these self righteous, left leaning, tree hugging, baby killing loosers.
gotta love those peace loving liberals tehy are so comaparable to the muslims who claim they are for peace
A lot of people voted for Obama to ease their misplaced guilt. They don't want to see an ultrasound of their living baby because that would add to their guilt, and rightfully so.
If any kind of penetrations is rape, then the woman is going to have to be raped by the "doctor" who performs the abortion via the tools he uses.
Dana is awesome
The question shouldn't be whether the foetus has a heartbeat (an emotional and arguably subjective qualification to say the least), but should instead be about whether the foetus has reached the stage at which it has become an "individual" and therefore endowed with the individual rights which the government must protect. Government is not instituted to protect anything with a "heart beat"; governments are instituted to protect the "individual rights", and nothing more. Knowing whether a foetus has become an "individual" is therefore crucial.
The question should then become: What qualifies something to be classified as an individual with individual rights and all the protections that this brings?
Two major qualifications for being classified an "individual" are:
1. It must be able to survive (aided or unaided) outside/independent of its mother's body
2. It must be capable of developing rationality (ie. that which separates us from other animals)
At the moment, only human beings are capable of the second one. If some alien species came along that has ratioanlity too, then they'd also have individual rights.
These two criteria pretty much classify early foetuses (which cannot survive outside of a woman's body, even with an incubator) as "non-individuals" which lack individual rights and any right to protection by the government. Biologists can objectively determine a cut off point at which foetuses meet the first qualification; this could be the point at which a foetus becomes an individual.
By that logic, a newborn baby is also not an "individual" because while the baby can breathe outside the mother's womb, the baby cannot feed itself, clothe itself, or clean itself. This whole "aided/unaided" thing is pure BS.
You already tried this in the Rubio thread a while back.
It does not matter when someone "becomes an individual." Some arguably don't manage that trick until late in life, if at all. And everyone knows newborns are wholly dependent on others in order to live.
You are simply wrong on this concept. And it doesn't depend on "when life begins" to show it, as I wrote back in that thread.
I bring it up because it is right. You say it doesn't matter when someone becomes an individual, but I would argue that it's absolutely critical to questions of government involvement in banning abortions, since the government was instituted to protect individual rights, and if a foetus is 'not' found to be an individual (for any part of its gestation) then it won't have individual rights, meaning that it shouldn't be protected by the government for the time that it is not an individual. If you now say "The government should ban abortions regardless of whether a foetus becomes an individual", then you are basically advocating that the government act outside the role that the founders intended for it, since you are advocating that the government openly violate the individual rights of the pregnant women. I cannot tolerate such an abuse of government power.
I'm trying to flip your perspective. I'm not making claims about what or who is "an individual" or sentient or however we want to classify. I'm making the argument that YOUR problem and MY problem is "how do WE know if X is or is not an individual."
I think we both can agree that this universe holds a class of beings that are capable of sentience, individuality, and some concept of self, and thus should have conferred upon them a set of unalienable rights. We know this because ...we be dem. (At least, I be dem. You be jus' a window on de monitor!) Because of this, the ones that are members of this class are members whether we wish it so or not.
But how do WE know for sure, among all the myriad things living or those not considered lifeforms which ones are like us (in that regard)?
That's the perspective I'm getting at.
Admittedly, this gets into those areas of philosophy that irritated the heck out of Ayn Rand--and also me (the old "noumena" business, etc). But I'm afraid it's unavoidable in this topic.
You're correct. We're putting the rest of the folks to sleep with this part of the topic. We'll work on this some more down the line. Thanks for a good dialog on it, Kordane.
I don't think that the qualifier for whether someone has individual rights is whether they're smart enough to understand the concept of individual rights. Firstly, there's no way to know how smart someone must be to understand the concept (30 IQ? 40 IQ? who knows...), and Secondly, I don't think that it really matters in the first place, since IQ isn't the sole measure of being an individual. Even "retards" and "idiots" who are at the lowest end of IQ aren't on the same mental level of animals; our nature predicates us to come into existence tabula rasa, so even at low IQ a human being is still fundamentally different from animals. Animals aren't rational; they just act instinctively, albeit this doesn't mean they can't do clever things. Religious people talk of this difference as how human beings "ate (an apple) from the tree of knowledge" and thus separated themselves from animals by gaining a mind capable of reason/rationality.
What I've really tried to debate here are the fundamental measures of what it means to be an "individual", and I've tried to do so on an objective basis by philosophizing about the differences between an individual and non-individuals. Maybe this is just a bit too deep for a blog thread and that I should stop, but I appreciate your input as usual, K-bob.
No, being an individual doesn't depend on the existence of others. I said the only way you could be sure if someone--or even something--qualified as an individual with unalienable rights would be to see if that person or thing was smart enough to understand the concept. It has more to do with YOUR need to discover their status, not "what their status is."
As I stated, we have no other way to find out "what their status is," and anything not in the category of "finding out if it understands" is an arbitrary, and unscientific designation.
Because we cannot possibly know the status of the unborn, any declaration of the unborn as "a potential" is a capricious, unscientific thing to do. Ayn Rand made several of these sorts of capricious errors in her life, and in her philosophy. Which is why that quote carries little weight in this debate.
(Fortunately those capricious errors did not invalidate the core of her philosophy of objectivism.)
All people have as an excuse for focusing on "when life begins" on the pro choice side of the debate is a motive. The motive being: to add some decorative weight to their logic framework regarding Personal Sovereignty. The weight, being merely decorative, isn't of much use in solving the problem of the clash of absolutes.
It certainly hasn't gained the pro choice side anything since the dawn of Roe V. Wade. If anything, the advances that we discussed last time only work against it.
It's time to let it go, and get to work on the real issues involved.
You seem to think that being an "individual" depends on the existence of others, who must "see if they are smart enough to understand the concept". You take this further and argue that we must "assign" the status of "individual" on an entity, before they become one, and then you denounce the idea of doing so, by arguing that we neither have the right nor privilege to deem it so. So we might as well forget the whole thing, right? That's ultimately what motivates your reasoning here.
I would instead argue that the status of "individual" is objectively determined by an entity's nature.
Why aren't animals and plants "individuals" - Well, it's because they lack rationality. There's no way to reason with them, and there never will be. It's 'their' nature to be like that.
But then, why are human beings "individuals"? - Well, it's because we are capable of developing a special characteristic which separates us from plants and animals: "rationality".
The other characteristic of being an "individual" is really such an obvious one, because it's about whether an entity's nature allows it to survive independent of other entities. No, I'm not talking about whether it can survive 100% unaided by other entities; that would be an utterly irrational criteria, given that even fully grown adults don't meet it! What I'm talking about is whether the entity can survive being physically separate from other entities.
Quote: "It is about the clash between two absolutes: Personal Sovereignty of the mother, vs. the fetal Right to Life"
I'd agree with that, but I would argue that the latter is wrong because they ascribe "the right to life" (the source of all individual rights) to a potential individual, rather than to an actual individual.
I quote Ayn Rand on this issue: "To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable"
Since we cannot possibly know when to assign the value 'individual' to a developing fetus (or even to a live, born infant), we do not have the right or privilege of deeming it to happen at any stage whatsoever. That is an unscientific, random, violation of nature.
THAT is why your haring off on some track of designating "when" is an exercise in irrationality.
The pro choice position does not require this foolish "designation" in order to be defended. If it did, it would have no rational basis. The only way to be certain someone is an individual, thereby conferring unalienable rights, would be to see if they are smart enough to understand the concept. Anything less requires the pretentious declarations of men who believe they know more than you do, and who must rely on bafflement, sophistry, the incitement of crowds, and ultimately force to make their position the one which dominates.
Giving the government the power to make such an arbitrary decision would be an intolerable act of first magnitude.
Clearly, the issue of whether any agency--from the local family group all the way up to the UN--should have any say over whether a woman carries a fetus to term is entirely separate from the notion of when life begins. Once the "pro choice" community understands this, they will then have the proper grounding to debate the issue.
Incidentally, the same is true for the "pro life" advocates.
The fact is, the entire abortion issue was never about when life begins. It is about the clash between two absolutes: Personal Sovereignty of the mother, vs. the fetal Right to Life. It will always be about those two things, even if one posits that the conceptus--at the moment of conception--is fully human.
Until both sides in this debate fully realize this, no solution satisfactory to either side is possible.
Obviously then, according to your definition, late term abortion (third term trimester) is murder. Please, justify your thoughts and share with us your insights, why , using your own logic, this isn't so.
Was this the profound answer you were so patiently waiting for?
Kordane, getting real tired so I'm going to bed now, but I'm sure that when I wake up tomorrow morning and fire up my computer I will find, you being the intelligent leftist that you are, a very clear answer to my question. Have a good night, if you can. I know I will.
2. It must be capable of developing rationality (ie. that which separates us from other animals)
A mentally deficient person, or a person who has suffered a head injury or is losing brain function may no longer fit into your "2". Has that person lost their human rights and can they be terminated with disregard to the fact that they are a person?
Rationality is the quality that separates human beings from other forms of life. If we didn't have rationality then there would be no individual rights since there'd be no way to deal with us, and we would treat each other just like animals treat each other. Mentally retarded and injured people are not like this.
Unlike animals or plants, all our talent and skills must be acquired. This is the nature of human beings, and that nature does not change just because they have a mental problem or injury. I would argue that it is completely irrational to say "That is not an individual because he wasn't born as smart as other human beings!" or "That is not an individual because he hit his head and isn't conscious any more".
Besides, this issue is not about mentally retarded people or injured people - This is about the cellular/foetal stages of human life.
fetus has its own dna (distinctive from the egg and sperm) at the moment of conception.
seems a pretty good litmus test for individuality to me.
'Two major qualifications for being classified an "individual" are:
1. It must be able to survive (aided or unaided) outside/independent of its mother's body
2. It must be capable of developing rationality (ie. that which separates us from other animals)' - k
Why does #1 necessarily become a criteria for 'individual'? A fetus surviving aided should not differentiate between inside or outside of the womb. It's still growing and requires aide through the entire gestation period and also through its youth.
Many people believe that 1) a sperm cell is not an individual, 2) an egg is not an individual, but 3) a fertilized egg is an individual due to the fact it is growing on its own. It is the moment when God 'breathed the breath of life' to endow a soul. Even though it doesn't appear to be an individual does not then conclude that it is indeed not one.
If a fertilized egg is an "individual" then by that very definition it should be capable of independence. By independence I mean that it capable of existing as an autonomous being, as in separate from other beings (ie. its mother). This does not mean that it must be capable of surviving "without any aid whatsoever", since that's a criteria that most adults don't even meet! It would be irrational to include "total survival unaided" as a qualifier.
I didn't say that the only qualifier for abortion is "so long as the umbillical cord isn't severed". I suggest you read my other posts, because you've yet again misunderstood my argument.
So as long as the umbilical cord isn't severed, you can kill the baby after it comes out because it's still 'part of the mother'? Pretty lame.
You are not going to be convinced, as seen by your twists and turns, and I still believe a fetus has a right to life just like you or I. Lets leave it at that. This is wasting my time.
Edit: BTW, 'separate from its mother' and 'separated from its mother' are two totally different things.
Ok you clearly misunderstood my logic from the get-go, since you believe that what I said is "like saying you're not a human being till you can walk, because humans walk upright" - Even though I'd never say such a thing, because animals can walk too, and by your strawman criteria they'd be human beings too, which they are clearly not.
Also, haven't you heard of an umbillical cord? Geez. Hardly separate from its mother now is it?
'If a fertilized egg is an "individual" then by that very definition it should be capable of independence - k
Are you making up your own definition?
That's like saying you're not a human being till you can walk, because humans walk upright. Hogwash. You want an 'individual' to be capable of independence, then you give exceptions to being independent. Having it's own DNA makes the fetus 'individual', existing as a separate 'entity', not just being self sufficient.
'By independence I mean that it capable of existing as an autonomous being, as in separate from other beings (ie. its mother) - k
Thanks for finally seeing it our way. A fetus is, indeed, an autonomous being, separate from its mother. That is the problem with pro-abortion people. They think a fetus is just a lump of tissue until it looks like us. By autonomous, I mean able to grow on its own, using the food and sustenence that its mother gives it, to develop into a full person - an individual.
It looks like Kordane is hanging his entire argument based on definitions that some ultimate genius, who is also above reproach, came up with. It doesn't look very genius too me. It looks biased and arbitrary as heck, deserving of much reproach.
The most basic right a human has is life itself. Unborn babies do not enjoy this right.
Why not? Every person who has ever lived passed through all of these stages of growth. Therefore, if any of those stages is terminated, that process ends a life that would otherwise be able to grow into possible adulthood barring serious congenital, terminal defects.
Socialism = at least 150 million dead folks
Abortion in USA alone = 50 + million dead folks
Lots of women comprise both of these groups of dead folks. A huge percent of the aboted folks are also black.
Obvious question: Why do lefties hate women and black folks so much, to the point of killing them enmasse?
No. It's the question you have been skirting by pre-defining it to define it. I already answered the question. Perhaps reading back might help.
Quote: "A fetus doesn't have the potential to become an individual. It already is an individual"
Ok, by what objective criteria do you define an "individual"?
This is the question I have been engaged in answering here.
'Just because a foetus has the potential to become an individual does not mean that it is an individual' - k
You are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. A fetus doesn't have the potential to become an individual. It already is an individual. I believe the quote was, ' be able to grow into possible adulthood'.
Big difference and the very basis of your argument. You want to define individual as something other than individual so that you can say something is not an individual. Circular logic. Never works. It's just confusing to some people.
Lets see. Premise: 2=3. Argument: If 2=3, then 3 is something other than 3. Conclusion: 3 is not 3. You start off with an incorrect premise to arrive at your forgone conclusion, which is obviously incorrect.
Quote: "The most basic right a human has is life itself. Unborn babies do not enjoy this right. Why not? Every person who has ever lived passed through all of these stages of growth. Therefore, if any of those stages is terminated, that process ends a life that would otherwise be able to grow into possible adulthood barring serious congenital, terminal defects"
Just because a foetus has the potential to become an individual does not mean that it is an individual. Government was not instituted to protect the rights of "potential individuals" - It was instituted to protect the rights of individuals, as in ones that actually exist.
The real horror will come when people succeed in expanding individual rights to non-individuals. Then we will see the rise of "animal rights", "group rights", "plant rights", or evne more absurdly "earth rights", and so on. The fact that statists and environmentalists are already engaged in this is very telling about the general misunderstanding of the nature and source of rights.
Yep, part of that question would be nice to hear asked to Muslims too. Why do you hate women so much? Are women allowed any freedom or joy at all in Islam? Why is the left complicit with the most grotesque treatment of women in Islam but hyperventilate here about manufactured slights to women that do not even exist?
They should be drilled daily with these questions. the left and Islamicists. There should be concerted world outcry against how women are treated within Islam. How are they any better than chattel or cattle?
I could open a nice barbecue pork stand in Iran or Yemen. If it catches on, I could franchise it all across the Middle East. I think it would catch on the first day...catch on fire that is, with moi skewered rotisserie style right above it...minus a head.
'Obvious question: Why do lefties hate women and black folks so much, to the point of killing them enmasse? - Rs
I would love to hear just one LSM pundit ask that question. Just one.
If a woman has to have an internal sonogram before the abortion, then what the caller is saying the first procedure is rape, but the second--that ends in a death of a baby--is consentual.
Ok. Got it.
(running into wall until I black out)
That caller was retarded. I don't know her name because I barely know who she is but why isn't she here to answer her "listeners" questions? Idiot
The tone of that caller was just typical elitist slime. Tony don't play that crap. And the screwball might do a little more research and do a little less sliming. Or maybe she just never had any children or maybe she killed them and doesn't want to face the fact that those aborted young ones were human beings. In other words I detect a little self-loathing on her part; who is looking for a target to blame her own self-loathing on.