i mean, really......Doesn't the fact that you have to ask say something? How often do people come up to you and say "man, you're cool." and mean it? Do you think that you're so cool that this might actually occur? In public? .........snicker.





PS. My mom thinks I'm cool.

I feel bad for Andrea Yates and her entire family. Tragic. I think I could off Susan Smith myself though... with something dull.

Moms are required to maintain such and similar delusions about their children. It's a survival trait.

I think you'll find that any ideology that is so profoundly self-evident generally isn't to anyone else.

The analogies I like to use in situations like this are microsoft and pop music. Just because they are popular doesn't mean that they are good.

The ideas of natural law and natural rights are so self-evident, the US Government and its laws are based on it, and it's been written about for the last 300+ years.

Then certainly you'd have no quibble with the decisions of voters for whom these rights are self-evident.

There has to be a threshold somewhere.

Many recognize that rights are self-evident, but are stupid enough to be misled into thinking they can vote on anything or that a group of people have more rights than a single individual even over their own body which is obviously false. Some are under the impression that rights are granted to us by government; probably because they were educated by the government. Many don't realize that their rights don't include telling other people how to live their lives, what they may or may not consume, etc. These tend to be the same people who want to shove their religion down your throat through legislation and violate the important principle of separation of church and state our nation was built upon. These people chip away at the foundation of freedom and individual rights this nation was built on.

So, I would have no quibble over the decisions of voters, as long as they are only voting on issues they have a legitimate authority to vote on. Issues like gay marriage and abortion don't qualify. Those aren't up to anyone but those taking part and can never be legitimately voted on.

I'm not asking you to believe anything. And a newborn baby really doesn't have sentience either (self-awareness). They don't know they have hands or the ability to remember things 5 minutes ago, let alone have the ability to grasp concepts pertaining to ones self.

What I was saying though is that whether or not the baby (babies are post birth, a fetus is inside of the womb) is fully sentient it has been removed from its host and is now a separate person. While a fetus is within the woman up until the moment of actual birth it is a parasite and has no claim on the life of its host. Nobody may tell another what they may or may not do with thier own body, even if they happen to live inside of it.

You're asking me to believe that the vagina is a miracle portal, and that passage through it imbues sentience, feelings, and conciousness, and that every moment before that, the baby has none.

This is what I find most interesting about the entire argument and is probably something that will never be fully agreed upon. George Carlin, I think, once said during one of his rants that life never really stops and just keeps going on and on. There really isn't a division line between a fetus and a baby no more than there is a defining moment when a clump of cells becomes something more than a clump of cells. It is a smooth transition from the very first division of cells all the way to turning 18, packing up, and leaving home.

I'm not fully convinced that you can call a fetus a parasite, either, as it has never been recorded in any text I can find that a parasite can be of the same species. I also cannot find any text in which a parasite is not an invader of external origin.

but when it comes to a human life, wouldn't you rather err on the side of caution?

How so?

So some voters are initially right but are stupid and then misled; others are merely wrong; and in either case the great majority on which they vote is completely invalid to start.

Either A) we really still await the source of this self-evidence which is obvious, or...

B) politics must quell the masses no matter what percentage of them figure out what is actually correct, since ALL of them believe that their view is actually correct.

quote:Oh and by the way: YOU are the one arguing with yourself about the whole "the fetus is not a person and has no rights". I don't care about that part of the equation, because it's not the sticking point with me. What IS, however, is that people seem to be satified that the behavior of the mother will be somewhat jusitfied because of her right to behave in such a manner.

Quote:

At least you agree that it is her right to behave in such a manner and that the fetus has no rights.

Uh, no. What I did say was that I don't CARE about whether the fetus has rights or not. That's for the abortion debate.

Quote:

This means you agree that she is not a criminal and while you and the vast majority of those who disagree with you may find her actions distasteful, selfish, or morally reprehensible, none of us has the authority to tell her what to do or the justification to punish her legally.

No. I DO want her to be punished in some way (and not necessarily with jail, etc.) There's something "not right" if people feel that she should just go along her merry little way like nothing happened.

Quote:

I am most certainly not attempting to condone or criticize her choices with her own body. It's just none of my business, none of your business, and none of the government's business.

Since when did that stop anyone from being critical? :confused: Since we're talking about "rights", then everyone has the "right" to speak out, so I will continue to be critical of her choice .

Quote:

I can appreciate your anger as a mother.

Argh, bite your tongue! I have no children, no do I plan on having any. :mad:

Quote:

I felt the same way about Susan Smith and Andrea Yates. I think an adequate and fair punishment for Andera Yates in particular would include being anally raped with a broken glass dildo dipped in the ebola virus or to have injections of aids and cancer to see which would kill her slower. She should be lowered alternately inch by inch first into a wood chipper, and then into lemon juice. Susan Smith on the other hand should just be boiled in oil and dragged behind a train from LA to New York. But that's just my opinion.

This is interesing. So, this woman in Utah shouldn't suffer a similar "punishment" by you? What's the difference between her and the other two women? As far as I can see, they ALL made horrible choices and decisions about their children.

You know what? You ARE cool..for real! :D

*doesn't play around with compliments*

Thank you.

Hey, Lumberjim.

:flipbird:

This general discussion reminds me of when we talked about refusing to serve a pregnant woman a drink. I would refuse to serve. But I would not desire law enforcement arrest her and charge her with a crime. I would not restrain and imprison her for the term of her pregnancy, force her under the control of government sanctioned treatment, have her sterilized, nor cut her open without her consent, no matter what is going on inside. Her envelope of skin. Her insides. Her body, her domain -until the baby is on the outside by her choice or by biological timing.

Perhaps the best thing would be for the government to require by law that all new life be created in vitro. Well monitored. Cleaner. Morally Crisp. None of that messy body threashold to deal with. (you could charge the lab tech that dropped the vial with murder- clearly)
And the government can penalize parents for not selecting the expertly defined "best" zygote for their offspring- because any crapshoot would be cruel to the new life. Or they could be fined or incarcerated for not producing a healthy female to balance out the projected census figures...

Nope, negligence unless you can prove malice aforethought.

Originally posted by Radar [Emphasis added by me]

That's pretty sick. For someone who claims to hold natural law and its expression in the Constitution in such high regard, you sure seem to have a callous disregard for the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. I also recall in a thread a few months ago that you had called for the ebola-enhanced, shattered-glass anal enema for President Bush.

Your fascination with extreme torture is... well... interesting and a little unsettling. Since you do not mention it as a remedy to any observed inadaquacies in the justice system and given the carefully crafted and downright gleeful descriptions you have provided here and elsewhere, I gather that this is just something that would give you great personal satisfaction to either witness or personally administer.

Fortunately, we do have a legal system that stands between convicted criminals and those who would have their way with them.

edited to attribute the quote - no other changes

If you don't care whether the fetus has rights, you don't care if someone gets rid of them or chooses not to have a c-section and one doesn't make it.

No, but there is something very twisted and wrong about someone who thinks she shouldn't be allowed to go along her merry little way for making a decision abouther own body. There is something extremely wrong about those who think someone should get any kind of punishment other than the own bad feelings they might feel towards themselves.

Who said you didn't have the right to speak out or be critical? I said I wasn't going to be critical and that it's none of your business or mine or the government's.

Pardon me. I presumed you had children due to your irrational attack against a woman who is illegally being arrested and taken to court for making a decision with regard to her own body. Let me take a moment to thank you for not having children.

What's the difference? The two women I mentioned murdered their children coldly and violated the most sacred bond of all, that between a mother and her children. The woman in Utah didn't kill a child, period. She's not a murderer. Making such a ludicrous comparison is laughable. It's like saying a guy who trips and falls off the grand canyon by accident is the same as someone who commits suicide by jumping off or the same as someone who was pushed off.

In my opinion it's not cruel, especially when compared to how she treated her children, and I'd be willing to use this on several of the most vicious and heinous murderers out there. The rule is that punishment must be cruel AND unusual so a punishment might be unsual or cruel and still be Constitutional.


I know. I was being nice on him back then. He deserves far worse now.

What can I say, some people are interested in collecting stamps; I'm interested in torture.

What can I say? Some people just need killing and are so vile, a standard killing won't provide adequate justice for their actions. I can tell you without being ashamed in the slightest, that I would be genuinely happy if George W. Bush were rightly convicted of treason and I were given the opportunity to pull the switch.

I agree. I do offer the presumption of innocence to those being tried in a court of law who I personally don't know whether or not they committed a crime. I know the two women I mentioned committed the crime, they admitted it themselves and the punishment I suggested would be adequate justice. Bush deserves something far worse.

;)....just fucking around, popeye.

Good thing my ego is so prodigious as to withstand such a puny assault as yours isn't it?

:)

Citation please.

indeed. A strong Ego has ever been the best defense against good intentioned ribbing. I was reading an old luvbugz thread, and to watch how she would manufacture offense in a thread was quite disturbing.

there seem to be a whole lot of sane people on the cellar of late. present company excepted, naturally. Radar is a serviceable loon, but he really makes too much sense to really get (most) people fired up. we could use a good contrarian or restless agitator.

guess i'm just feeling frisky

oh, and:



if the vagina isn't a miracle portal, then I don't know WHAT is!



---thanks, i'm here all week.

And that's no shit.

Ah. Therein lies the story. I have the feeling that many people choose childbirth as the threshold because it's easy, observable, and allows them to have closure on the issue. I don't buy it.

Carl Sagan (RIP) had an article on this subject based on the development of the fetus and so forth. It was a while ago, but I think he decided that the beginning of the second trimester was the magic crossover spot. I don't know about that, but I do think birth is too late.

He probably based it on the fact that that is, approximately, when the fetus runs the risk of surviving outside of the mother if removed early.

there seem to be a whole lot of sane people on the cellar of late.

Is that "sane" relative to the population or "sane" relative to just The Cellar? This is important because it certainly determines which group I fit in.

...or maybe not.

You missed the subtext where Radar is the only rational being on the planet.

It has been said several times throughout this thread that she had other c-sections and so should have known that they wouldn't have cut her from pelvic bone to breast bone. She is claiming she has never had a c-section before. So we have a woman who is hyped up on drugs being told she needs surgery and since she has never had it before I can understand how she may have misunderstood what the surgery consisted of (because the drugs aren't making her think straight).

:D :D :D :D :D :D

Amen!

Did you ever see the movie Gattaca? What you described above is very like the whole movie.

quote:Uh, no. What I did say was that I don't CARE about whether the fetus has rights or not. That's for the abortion debate.

Quote:

If you don't care whether the fetus has rights, you don't care if someone gets rid of them or chooses not to have a c-section and one doesn't make it.

So wait: are you saying that just because I don't care about the issue of the right of the fetus that I should just not care about the mother making a choice that caused her fetus to die? Allll-righty then! LMAO! Wow.

quote:No. I DO want her to be punished in some way (and not necessarily with jail, etc.) There's something "not right" if people feel that she should just go along her merry little way like nothing happened.

Quote:

No, but there is something very twisted and wrong about someone who thinks she shouldn't be allowed to go along her merry little way for making a decision abouther own body.

Hm...freedom of thought and having an opinion is now "twisted and wrong"...since when???

Quote:

There is something extremely wrong about those who think someone should get any kind of punishment other than the own bad feelings they might feel towards themselves.

LOL, mmm'kay then.


quote:Since when did that stop anyone from being critical? Since we're talking about "rights", then everyone has the "right" to speak out, so I will continue to be critical of her choice .

Quote:

Who said you didn't have the right to speak out or be critical? I said I wasn't going to be critical and that it's none of your business or mine or the government's.

You seemed to imply that since it was "none of my business" therefore I couldn't speak my mind about it (at least, that's how *I* read it). Plus, it's pretty redundant to keep saying how it's none of my business...I realize that, but again, I WILL continue to critize her decision. I'm sure things that are none of YOUR business doesn't stop YOU from being critical in some way. All anyone has to do is look up any number some of your more flamable posts and see for themselves.

quote:Argh, bite your tongue! I have no children, no do I plan on having any.

Quote:

Pardon me. I presumed you had children due to your irrational attack against a woman who is illegally being arrested and taken to court for making a decision with regard to her own body. Let me take a moment to thank you for not having children.

*laughing* Oh the melodrama!!! You're quite welcome. Please allow me to strongly request that you do not further pollute the gene pool either.

Wow...I don't agree with what she did, and that's an "attack"...hm.....you sure like to redefine words doncha?

attack: 2 : to assail with unfriendly or bitter words.

Nah, that seems to be more *your* style.

At any rate, if you have such a problem with the Utah authorites arresting her, then you need to take issue with THEM, and not me. I didn't arrest her. All I'm doing is offering my opinion, which isn't going to affect what happens to her one damn bit. It's not like my opinion is somehow going to mystically travel to Utah and seal her fate for crying out loud! Sorry hon, I don't have that kind of power. :rolleyes:

quote:This is interesing. So, this woman in Utah shouldn't suffer a similar "punishment" by you? What's the difference between her and the other two women? As far as I can see, they ALL made horrible choices and decisions about their children.

Quote:

What's the difference? The two women I mentioned murdered their children coldly and violated the most sacred bond of all, that between a mother and her children. The woman in Utah didn't kill a child, period. She's not a murderer. Making such a ludicrous comparison is laughable.

Glad that you got a giggle out of that. Try laughing more often...it's good for one's character. :p

While I agree that the first two women did indeed murder their own children, I'm looking at it from the POV that each woman made piss-poor judgement calls that ended up with their offspring dead. I'm not saying that the Utah woman murdered her fetus, I'm saying that the choice that she made put the fetus at risk that led to its' death. If you are fine with her going on with her life with the possibility of doing it again, GREAT! WONDERFUL! That is certainly your prerogative, just as is it mine to say that I think/feel that what she did was wrong and irresponsible.

Look: as far as I know (as of this posting), nothing's been decided yet, so in the meantime, calm the hell down, and if what the authorities decide doesn't sit well with you, then you are more than welcome to take a trip to Utah to express your feelings about the matter.

Case __

There has to be a threshold somewhere.

---

Slarti ___

but when it comes to a human life, wouldn't you rather err on the side of caution?
----

Placing this threshold someplace too far up a human's timeline means that you might be killing a bona fide person. For example, the fifth birthday is obviously way too high up the timeline. I am saying when you place a threshold for something so significant as being a full fledged human being, it is better to make a mistake towards the conservative side than run the risk of misclassifying a person as a non-person.

(oh, I can here radar now... 'but its NOT a person')

Just checking, I hate having to infer too much form a small post when I'm not entirely sure how to angle people's posts. I don't know all of you well enough yet.

But there's really only two or three of us here. We just use a lot of different logins. :cool:

this is me again.....it's my most annoying login

Yeah. recently too. I didnt realize! I suppose that and a lot of genetic engineering, reproductive bioethics talk at work. Gene(sis)

And if you take it far enough, you end up with the practice of outlawing birth control and criminalizing male masturbation (Onanism).

Of course, people protesting this will have to have bumber stickers with "They'll take my Penthouse away when they pry it from my cold, KY-covered hands".:thumb:

In a side-related matter, I got an article in my newsmax.com newsalerts this morning.

Seems as though the Vatican thinks that since per Il Papa conception begins at the time of fertilization all fertilized embryos are people and you're committing a sin to destroy them, implanted or not.

Interestingly, although this statement declares embryos as human, the church also considers fertilization of an egg that is not part of the 'conjugal union' to be a sin.

Sounds like you're damned if you do and damned if you don't here ...

DINGDINGDING! But this is not a new position

From a Catholic religion point of view, the soul is present from the moment of conception. That rules out all abortion (even ones in the cases of rape and incest) on the argument that it is an innocent fully human being that is destroyed.

Now if the mother needs life-saving surgery that would indirectly kill the fetus, that is allowed as long as the killing of the fetus is not a direct act.

With in-vitro fertilization, I had heard from Catholic sources that it was not allowed as there is a step where several egg cells are fertilized, and only the ones that look like they are developing properly are implanted, in effect aborting all the others.

obviously stem cell research is right out with this POV.

Wolf____
Sounds like you're damned if you do and damned if you don't here ...
------------

I don't catch what you mean here wolf. Damned if you do what, or if you don't do what?

Richlevy___
And if you take it far enough, you end up with the practice of outlawing birth control and criminalizing male masturbation (Onanism).
---------------

let's all sing together a verse from the book of Python...

every sperm is sac-red, every sperm is great
if a sperm is was-ted, God gets quite irate...

This is an exaggeration, but its a very funny one.

What I meant was ...

If you "do" use any form of artificial insemination, you're damned.

If you "don't" let all of the embryos resulting come to term, your damned.

But hey, if your Catholic, you just do it anyway, go to confession, coupla Hail Marys, an our Father or two, a good act of contrition, and you got your get outta purgatory free card anyway ...

(Recovering Cathaholic here ... they called it confession when I was still doin' it, so that's what I call it now. I forget the fancy new term, Sacrament of Repentence or Reconciliation or something more PC?)