41% of Births end in Abortion...100%

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Also, I can only violate the rights of what I consider to be a person.

Since the mother most definitely is one and it is debatable whether the embryo is , I think we shall err on the side of prudence.
[/quote]

Oh give me a break. You don’t care if it’s a human life, period. Why be so cowardly in your position? [/quote]

Yep.[/quote]

Don’t know if anyone remembers, but a while back when we were in a different thread about the exact same topic, only this time we were discussing the ethics of abortion with respect to property rights. For some reason, when it came to his religion, Orion was fundamentalist, idealistic, black-and-white,unwavering.Now that we come into another angle that isn’t nearly so malleable as Property Rights (PBUT), he’s all like, practical, and stuff.[/quote]

Property rights come from a human’s right to their fundamental piece of property: themselves.
The natural human right to property is an extension of your right to: voluntary exchange ← your labor ← self-ownership ← life.
[/quote]

I think he’s referring to this:

A mother has decided she will no longer feed, clothe, or keep clean her 1 month old infant. She is not actively doing it harm. That is, she is not smothering it, shooting it, or etc. Somehow word gets out to some good-hearted folk in town. Immediately they rush over to this woman’s residence to remove the child and get it medical help. At first they merely call to her from the edge of the property, begging her to turn the child over. She informs them that no one will raise her flesh and blood, even in the face of her own negligence. Oh, and that they do not have permission to set one foot on her property, trespassing, much less take the child.

Which is the moral good? To trespass upon sacred private property (aggression)? To right some ‘wrong’ transpiring absent aggression (negligence)? Or to possibly even shoot one of the home invaders (rescuers) in defense of property? [/quote]
Neither. The mother is detaining the child and violating its right to voluntary exchange(liberty) with the people offering it aid. Since the right to voluntary exchange of the child and of the persons offering aid do not surpass the right of the mother to her own property, the persons themselves cannot enter the property to aid/retrieve the child. The appropriate thing to do would be to petition a neutral arbiter to issue a warrant to remove the child from the property on the basis of an illegal detainment of the child.
What actually constitutes being detained and the threshold of evidence necessary for a child vs an adult(or anyone with a larger degree of mobility), is within the rights of the state to determine. In other words, the state(or society) may determine that bringing a person with no mobility into your home or property is an action that constitutes illegal detainment. The same society may determine that the threshold for what constitutes detainment is dependent on the ability of the person being detained to remove themselves from the property. They could likewise determine that the detaining individual must(or may not) have acted willfully and knowingly to detain the person from it’s right to liberty and voluntary exchange.

342

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
of Abortions end in Death…

And, I am glad this judgement was passed: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pro-life-victory-in-nyc/

[quote]NEW YORK (CNA/EWTN News) â?? A federal judge on July 13 temporarily barred New York City from enforcing a new law that would cripple crisis-pregnancy centers with heavy fines and possible closures for failing to cite medical limitations.
â??Pro-life pregnancy centers, which freely offer real help and hope to women and their preborn children, shouldnâ??t be punished by political allies of those who make their money aborting babies,â?? said attorney Matt Bowman of the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group.
Judge William Pauley III called the new law â??offensive to free-speech principlesâ?? and halted its enactment while a lawsuit filed on behalf of two pregnancy-care centers and a maternity home by the Alliance Defense Fund continues.
The law, titled Bill 371-A, was passed in March and backed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and City Council speaker Christine Quinn.
The measure obligated pregnancy centers to notify women whether the center offered abortions or had licensed medical providers on staff. It also required the centers to encourage women to consult with alternate medical providers. Failure to comply with the law could result in thousands of dollars in fines, shutdown of the centers or imprisonment.
In contrast, the law did not require abortion or family-planning businesses to make any disclosures about abortion alternatives.
â??We think this is a resounding defeat of the Gestapo-like tactics of Christine Quinn and Mayor Bloomberg,â?? Chris Slattery, founder of Expectant Mother Care/EMC FrontLine Pregnancy Centers, told the New York Times.
â??This is one of the most important First Amendment decisions in American history and will very strongly boost pro-life free-speech initiatives and protect pregnancy centers not only here in New York, but across America.â??
Attorney Matt Bowman said Judge Pauleyâ??s decision â??keeps the city from enforcing a law that is specifically designed to deter pregnant women from receiving the help they need to make fully informed choices about their pregnancy while this lawsuit goes forward.â??
Optimistic about the future of pregnancy centers in the city, Bowman noted that the order â??means that the court is likely to find the ordinance unconstitutional.â??
Paulyâ??s suspension of the new law comes as recent statistics show that 41% of pregnancies in New York City end in abortion.[/quote][/quote]

I wish we had that law here in California. These damn church funded pregnancy centers that advertise they’ll let you know of all your options, even going to hell for killing a person.

I think New York City has respectable balls to stand up to this bullshit christian guilt machine. The federal judge is acting on religious beliefs and should be impeached for mixing church and state. There is no sane reason to suspend a law because people are being less christian and acting responsibly.

343

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

Neither. The mother is detaining the child and violating its right to voluntary exchange
[/quote]

I didn’t say she was detaining a one month old. Shes just not offering it her services and aid.

344

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Every cell in your body is replaced during a seven year cycle. So no, the three year old is no longer the zygote.

[/quote]

say what?[/quote]

Yeah, apparently that idea is nonsense; most cells die and are replaced quicker and more often than once every seven years. Brain cells however last a lifetime. I’m glad you caught that in time![/quote]

Not just brain cells, the entire motor unit and all peripheral and CNS neurons don’t undergo a regular reproductive process.

345

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

Neither. The mother is detaining the child and violating its right to voluntary exchange
[/quote]

I didn’t say she was detaining a one month old. Shes just not offering it her services and aid.[/quote]
She is detaining it having brought it onto her her property with the knowledge of it not having the mobility to free itself. This would apply to a paralyzed or otherwise immobile adult, as an example. You have the right to your own property and therefore no obligation to aid an immobile person. However, willingly bringing them onto your property with the knowledge of their inability to remove themselves(and therefore barring them of voluntary exchange with other individuals) constitutes a violation of their liberty, which I’m calling detainment.

346

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

She is detaining it having brought it onto her her property with the knowledge of it not having the mobility to free itself. [/quote]

Not relevant. The infant had no objection to it’s being born on the property. It’s never expressed a desire to leave, nor seemingly attempted to. In fact, it’s probably pretty, pretty, safe to say it can’t do any of those things. Much less, participate in ‘voluntary exchange.’ We are talking about a 1 month old infant here. So, any statement otherwise, must necessarily be the bald-faced projections of outside observers. We are again talking about a 1 month old. It hasn’t been forcibly chained to a radiator in a basement, having expressed a desire to go to the mall and participate in some voluntary exchange at the GAP, after all.

347

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

She is detaining it having brought it onto her her property with the knowledge of it not having the mobility to free itself. [/quote]

Not relevant. The infant had no objection to it’s being born on the property. It’s never expressed a desire to leave, nor seemingly attempted to. In fact, it’s probably pretty, pretty, safe to say it can’t do any of those things. Much less, participate in ‘voluntary exchange.’ We are talking about a 1 month old infant here. So, any statement otherwise, must necessarily be the bald-faced projections of outside observers. We are again talking about a 1 month old. It hasn’t been forcibly chained to a radiator in a basement, having expressed a desire to go to the mall and participate in some voluntary exchange at the GAP, after all.

[/quote]

You can say the same for a person drugged and kidnapped.

“well, they never expressed any desire to leave or even not be taken in the first place.”

348

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
As soon as a zygote can survive outside a womb without aid, then it’s become autonomous.[/quote]

So when a kid hit about 3 years old, it’s no longer a zygote?

The ‘zygote’ it a separate living entity from the host, like a parasite. It is not the same as the host. Just because it require a host, doesn’t mean it’s the same living organism.
If a tape worm crawls up your ass, are you and the tape worm one and the same?[/quote]

Every cell in your body is replaced during a seven year cycle. So no, the three year old is no longer the zygote.

I know you think you have the rational approach here, and i understand why you maintain the position. But this discussion will have no resolution because i do not acknowledge the rights of a zygote as equal to that of a adult human being.

[/quote]

I am not advocating give the child the right to vote or drive, but simply not killing it is the least we can do. Calling it a Zygote doesn’t make it less human. Why don’t you just admit it’s human and that you think it’s ok to kill humans depending on the state of their development. And yes I am being rational. The said clump is either human or it’s not, there is no kinda, sorta, maybe. It’s not any less human because mom is poor or because she for got to use a rubber that night, or her feelings tell her she shouldn’t be a mom yet.

349

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

She is detaining it having brought it onto her her property with the knowledge of it not having the mobility to free itself. [/quote]

Not relevant. The infant had no objection to it’s being born on the property. It’s never expressed a desire to leave, nor seemingly attempted to. In fact, it’s probably pretty, pretty, safe to say it can’t do any of those things. Much less, participate in ‘voluntary exchange.’ We are talking about a 1 month old infant here. So, any statement otherwise, must necessarily be the bald-faced projections of outside observers. We are again talking about a 1 month old. It hasn’t been forcibly chained to a radiator in a basement, having expressed a desire to go to the mall and participate in some voluntary exchange at the GAP, after all.

[/quote]

You can say the same for a person drugged and kidnapped.

“well, they never expressed any desire to leave or even not be taken in the first place.”[/quote]

DD, come on.

350

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
That’s why Gov. Rick Perry (TX) enacted a state law that requires every abortion clinic to show the pregnant woman the sonogram so they can SEE the baby…it’s size, shape, etc. He knew there was a basic disconnect there. [/quote]

As originally drafted… while viewing the sonogram the the clinic was required to play ‘Muskrat Love’ by Captain & Tennille and the pregnant woman was required to hold a puppy. Now that’s closing a disconnect!!

351

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
But this discussion will have no resolution because i do not acknowledge the rights of a zygote as equal to that of a adult human being.

[/quote]

Of course not. You’re already free of the danger yourself. Meh, I’m on ignore, why did I bother?[/quote]

I think everyone should put everyone else on igore and the level of understanding and agreement would rise considerably.

352

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
As soon as a zygote can survive outside a womb without aid, then it’s become autonomous.[/quote]

So when a kid hit about 3 years old, it’s no longer a zygote?

The ‘zygote’ it a separate living entity from the host, like a parasite. It is not the same as the host. Just because it require a host, doesn’t mean it’s the same living organism.
If a tape worm crawls up your ass, are you and the tape worm one and the same?[/quote]

Every cell in your body is replaced during a seven year cycle. So no, the three year old is no longer the zygote.

I know you think you have the rational approach here, and i understand why you maintain the position. But this discussion will have no resolution because i do not acknowledge the rights of a zygote as equal to that of a adult human being.

[/quote]

I am not advocating give the child the right to vote or drive, but simply not killing it is the least we can do. Calling it a Zygote doesn’t make it less human. Why don’t you just admit it’s human and that you think it’s ok to kill humans depending on the state of their development. And yes I am being rational. The said clump is either human or it’s not, there is no kinda, sorta, maybe. It’s not any less human because mom is poor or because she for got to use a rubber that night, or her feelings tell her she shouldn’t be a mom yet.[/quote]

Need we, who are not christian and do not share your twisted morality, remind you that your christian morality is for christians. Christians do not have dominion over the moral.

And, please, do not mistake your flights of fancy for logic and reason.

353

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

She is detaining it having brought it onto her her property with the knowledge of it not having the mobility to free itself. [/quote]

Not relevant. The infant had no objection to it’s being born on the property. It’s never expressed a desire to leave, nor seemingly attempted to. In fact, it’s probably pretty, pretty, safe to say it can’t do any of those things. Much less, participate in ‘voluntary exchange.’ We are talking about a 1 month old infant here. So, any statement otherwise, must necessarily be the bald-faced projections of outside observers. We are again talking about a 1 month old. It hasn’t been forcibly chained to a radiator in a basement, having expressed a desire to go to the mall and participate in some voluntary exchange at the GAP, after all.

[/quote]

You can say the same for a person drugged and kidnapped.

“well, they never expressed any desire to leave or even not be taken in the first place.”[/quote]

DD, come on.[/quote]

An infant doesn’t need to assert or have the ability to assert its right to liberty any more than a zygote has to assert or have the ability to assert its right to life. Those rights come from their humanity.
The right to liberty and property entails the right to give AND to receive voluntarily(without force or the threat of force) The fact that the child has no ability to form a verbal contract does not remove its right to receive aid in a voluntary exchange.
As an aside, I would argue that in a voluntary exchange, both parties gain by definition. Even in the case of charity, it is the subjective perception of the individual that is being “charitable” that determines the value of what they receive(the feeling of happiness, etc…) in the transaction.

354

So have we determined what makes someone a person yet? Is it as simple as being alive with human dna, irrespective of how long?

355

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[
The right to liberty and property entails the right to give AND to receive voluntarily…[/quote]

A one month old…

Edit: Forget it, too far off topic.

356

[quote]forlife wrote:
So have we determined what makes someone a person yet? Is it as simple as being alive with human dna, irrespective of how long?[/quote]

Yes. We’ve moved on to discussing if it’s ok to take completely innocent human lives, deliberately. And if that’s our inalienable right.

357

[quote]taintedaether wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
As soon as a zygote can survive outside a womb without aid, then it’s become autonomous.[/quote]

So when a kid hit about 3 years old, it’s no longer a zygote?

The ‘zygote’ it a separate living entity from the host, like a parasite. It is not the same as the host. Just because it require a host, doesn’t mean it’s the same living organism.
If a tape worm crawls up your ass, are you and the tape worm one and the same?[/quote]

Every cell in your body is replaced during a seven year cycle. So no, the three year old is no longer the zygote.

I know you think you have the rational approach here, and i understand why you maintain the position. But this discussion will have no resolution because i do not acknowledge the rights of a zygote as equal to that of a adult human being.

[/quote]

I am not advocating give the child the right to vote or drive, but simply not killing it is the least we can do. Calling it a Zygote doesn’t make it less human. Why don’t you just admit it’s human and that you think it’s ok to kill humans depending on the state of their development. And yes I am being rational. The said clump is either human or it’s not, there is no kinda, sorta, maybe. It’s not any less human because mom is poor or because she for got to use a rubber that night, or her feelings tell her she shouldn’t be a mom yet.[/quote]

Need we, who are not christian and do not share your twisted morality, remind you that your christian morality is for christians. Christians do not have dominion over the moral.

And, please, do not mistake your flights of fancy for logic and reason.
[/quote]
I don’t participate in any “christian morality” or canon faith of any kind. The human identity of a zygote conceived by two human parents is an established fact. Two humans cannot produce anything in conception except the entire living body of a genetically unique organism belonging to the species homo sapiens. This human organism can mutate and/or be born and/or die. It can also be killed by the knowledgeable and/or willful act of another human. This act is homicide(killing a human). All of that is established fact.

358

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[
The right to liberty and property entails the right to give AND to receive voluntarily…[/quote]

A one month old…

Edit: Forget it, too far off topic. [/quote]

You don’t need to exercise a right to possess it.
I don’t understand the distinction you’re making.

359

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Every cell in your body is replaced during a seven year cycle. So no, the three year old is no longer the zygote.

[/quote]

say what?[/quote]

Yeah, apparently that idea is nonsense; most cells die and are replaced quicker and more often than once every seven years. Brain cells however last a lifetime. I’m glad you caught that in time![/quote]

Not just brain cells, the entire motor unit and all peripheral and CNS neurons don’t undergo a regular reproductive process.[/quote]

I did not know that. tips hat

360

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
As soon as a zygote can survive outside a womb without aid, then it’s become autonomous.[/quote]

So when a kid hit about 3 years old, it’s no longer a zygote?

The ‘zygote’ it a separate living entity from the host, like a parasite. It is not the same as the host. Just because it require a host, doesn’t mean it’s the same living organism.
If a tape worm crawls up your ass, are you and the tape worm one and the same?[/quote]

Every cell in your body is replaced during a seven year cycle. So no, the three year old is no longer the zygote.

I know you think you have the rational approach here, and i understand why you maintain the position. But this discussion will have no resolution because i do not acknowledge the rights of a zygote as equal to that of a adult human being.

[/quote]

I am not advocating give the child the right to vote or drive, but simply not killing it is the least we can do. Calling it a Zygote doesn’t make it less human. Why don’t you just admit it’s human and that you think it’s ok to kill humans depending on the state of their development. And yes I am being rational. The said clump is either human or it’s not, there is no kinda, sorta, maybe. It’s not any less human because mom is poor or because she for got to use a rubber that night, or her feelings tell her she shouldn’t be a mom yet.[/quote]

You redefine what life is in order to give a clump of cells rights so you can deny a woman’s choice what to do with her body.

No matter how you justify that, that in and of itself relegates women to a second tier.

I think that’s malicious and wrong.