The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Current Events

Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-15-2004, 02:39 PM   #136
Radar
Constitutional Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ocala, FL
Posts: 4,006
Quote:
Endangering a fetus is a crime, if it were not, then she would have been released immediately.
Endangering a Fetus is not a crime. A crime has only been committed when the rights of a non-consenting other have been violated. It may be against the law, but that law would then be the crime because it violates the highest law of all; Natural Law.

Quote:
Natural law actually dicates nothing about rights per se.
Please take a moment to read the following two essays and get back to me. You will find they give a far more complete understanding of the concept than that somewhat inaccurate and short definition.

Both essays are more than 100 years old and like the Declaration of Independence, the principles espoused in them are as fresh today as the day they were written.

[quote]
The Law - By Frederic Bastiat

and

Natural Law - By Lysander Spooner


Quote:
Are you deriving your opinion about the stark difference between the fetus and the child from an established paradigm or is this self-generated? If you're reading it somewhere I'd be interested in reading it myself.
Again, natural law is the easiest thing in the world to understand once you try to think about every problem from the angle of which solution would provide the most freedom and least intrusion by government on our lives; which solution would provide the most freedom at the least cost to the most people without violating the rights of some for the benefit of others, etc.. Natural law self-evident, but reading those links I provided will help you approach it from the right angle to make it clear and unambiguous.

Quote:
Again this is a sort of grey area, a lack of consent is not dissent. Also, there are circumstances where people incapable of giving consent have both had treatment witheld as well as given. Circumstances vary.
I don't find this area gray in the slightest. A fetus is not a person and has no consent to offer even if they could. They have no rights because they are not an independent entity separate from their host. But even using your example of someone who isn't capable of offering consent, someone else usually makes decisions for them including pulling the plug from life support. Do you think a woman who pulls the plug on her husband when he's a vegetable is guilty of a crime? Let's say he never indicated anything to her one way or the other on the subject but she herself would never want to endure being a vegetable and wouldn't want to burden others in such away. And let's say she assumed her husband shared this opinion so she pulled the plug. Is she a criminal?

This isn't really an accurate comparison since the husband isn't a parasite inside of her body. If he were and she chose to remove him and end his life, it would no more be a crime than removing a tumor.

Quote:
No, it wouldn't. Rights operate on a variable scale.
Rights are absolute as long as you're not violating the rights of others. You are born with them. You can't vote on them, have them taken away from you, sell them, or even give them away. You can choose not to exercise them; someone might violate them, but they are always there FROM THE MOMENT YOU ARE BORN (not before).

Many people have a hard time distinguishing the difference between rights and privileges even though they are the opposite of each other. A right is something we don't need ask permission to do. We are born with them. This includes sole ownership of our lives, minds, and bodies and the sole discretion of what to do with them.

Let's say you and I live next door to each other. I go outside and start walking back and forth across my back yard. I can do it all day and don't have to ask anyone. I can do this because I own my property. Neither you, nor the government can tell me not to walk back and forth in my own yard because it is my RIGHT to do so.

Now let's say I want to go to the store and cut through your backyard. You happen to think I'm an ok guy because I am a defender of your freedom and mine so you agree to let me do it.

This is a privilege. I am crossing your yard at your discretion and with your permission which you may revoke at any time. You could let me cross Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, but suddenly decide you don't like me anymore because you lost a debate to me on Friday and suddenly revoke permission. This would not violate my rights. But it would violate your rights if I continued to walk across your property even when you've revoked permission. You own your property and everything within your property that has been obtained honestly and without force or coercion.

Always remember, government has no rights; society has no rights; all rights are individual rights and you must be an individual to have individual rights.

Back to the fetus situation...

You own your body and everything within it. If you have a tapeworm, it's YOUR tapeworm. If you have another parasite such as a fetus inside of you, you own that too until the moment it is born. Up until that very second, it is property. And the moment it is no longer inside of your body, assuming it is alive, it ceased to be property and then is an individual person and is entitled to natural rights.

Quote:
So monkeys, dogs, cats, spiders, trees, etc. are not alive?
All of those things are alive, but they do not possess human life and are not sentient beings. We were discussing human life. Perhaps I should have used the term "human" before life to help you avoid confusion.
__________________
"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
- George Carlin

Last edited by Radar; 03-15-2004 at 02:42 PM.
Radar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2004, 02:40 PM   #137
Radar
Constitutional Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ocala, FL
Posts: 4,006
Quote:
While technically true for the duration of the gestation period, over the lives of the host and the progeny it becomes a case symbiosis.
The gestation period is all that matters, because it is only during this time that the progeny are considered parasites biologically speaking. When the kids grow up and pay for Mom and Dad's prescription pills, that doesn't negate the fact that they were a parasite while in the womb.

Quote:
While I agree that sometimes arbitrary boundaries are necessary, I think that this one may be a bit too much. An organism that doesn't take some precautions for the future is going to have a slim time of it.
We're each entitled to our own opinions, but it is only the opinion of the mother that matters in this regard. While I'd agree the chances of a baby surviving without assistance from the mother are slim to none, this isn't the issue at hand.

Quote:
While conscription has been shown to be of questionable success it is still a common, and apparently acceptable situation.
Acceptable to whom? Successful to whom?

The people of America (and I'd hazard to guess virtually everywhere else) have never failed to voluntarily commit to defending this country by enlisting in the military during any war including unjust and unprovoked wars like Vietnam, Iraq, etc.

Only a completely voluntary military ensures the government won't rush into wars we don't belong in. It means the people (individuals) must support the government's reasons for war and keeps everyone honest. It is only the acceptance of the person whom the government is attempting to draft that matters. If this person doesn't support the reasons for the war (perhaps he's Irish and America is attacking Ireland without provocation), it would be a gross violation of his most basic human rights to use force to send him into danger or death despite his wishes. The government holds no claim over his life and can not make this decision for him.

The only people for whom conscription has been successful are government bureaucrats and politicians who might start a war to appease politically influencial companies, or to secure trade with another country, or for any number of reasons that defy the only reason for having a military which is DEFENSE.

Quote:
You didn't answer the question and are also minimizing the sanctity that people have for the sacrifices of dead service people since the beginning of recorded time.
I don't think the question was directed at me, but sure I'll answer it.

I'm against conscription because it defies natural law, common sense, and freedom and amounts to nothing less than slavery and murder. I am against the death penalty, but only because of the ineptitude of government. Many people who have gotten the death penalty have been later found innocent of the crime. Many others have been found not guilty of the crime before the death penalty but prevented from giving new evidence (DNA) etc. If there were a mountain of indisputable evidence including DNA, video tape of the crime, finger prints, and dozens of very credible witnesses, to a very heinous and nasty murder for instance, and I were on the jury I'd do what I thought best. If I had absolutely no doubt I could send them to die, but I'd try to find every doubt I could.

I also didn't discount the sacrifices of those who have died defending America. This has nothing to do with the argument against conscription. I respect and honor those who have voluntarily joined the military and defended America and even those who were forced to join and were basically murdered by our own government. I'm saddened by the fact that most of these great people died while being used as pawns in unconstitutional wars when the U.S. military wasn't defending America, but rather, defending another country, attacking another country, or otherwise being misused.

Quote:
I don't agree that foreigners should have the same constitutional rights as a tax paying citizen.
What makes you think foreign people who live in the United States don't pay tax? Most green card holders and even illegals pay tons of taxes. In addition to the regular sales taxes, tariffs, excise taxes, etc. they pay social security and income taxes. Yet they are prevented from collecting social security and in many cases from collecting welfare even when they paid into the system.

Rights are not given out by government. They are something you're born with. Remember rights are the opposite of priviledges.

Quote:
What books do you read?
Too many to list....but mainly non-fiction.

For work, I read a lot of computer networking manuals and boring white papers, etc.

For years at home I read classic books, but recently I'm reading more contemporary and socially relevant books like Restoring the American Dream by Robert Ringer, Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do by Peter McWilliams, Libertarianism in one lesson by David Bergland, The Great Libertarian Offer by Harry Browne, Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed And What We Can Do About It by Judge Jim Gray, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, The Emperor Wears No Clothes by Jack Herer, How to Win Local Elections by Judge Lawrence Grey, Drug War Addiction by Sheriff Bill Masters, The Libertarian Reader by David Boaz, etc.

I also like all the Anne Rice Vampire Chronicle books, Sci Fi books like Neuromancer by William Gibson and Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card, etc.

As I said, really too many to list
__________________
"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
- George Carlin
Radar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2004, 02:41 PM   #138
lumberjim
I can hear my ears
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 25,571
Quote:
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
So the difference in "murder" and "homicide" is semantics but "fetus" and "baby" isn't???

right argument, wrong customer.

i think you knew what i meant, and are now just nitpicking.

i'm surprised at you. i see that you have strong feelings about this, and i respect your opinion. let's dont throw stones at each other.....it's not that important.

peace, mama, peace.
__________________
This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality
Embrace this moment, remember
We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion ~MJKeenan
lumberjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2004, 02:45 PM   #139
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
Quote:
Originally posted by ladysycamore
[i]Rowland showed up at Salt Lake Regional Hospital and told a nurse that she left LDS Hospital because a doctor there wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone" and this would "ruin her life," according to court records. In addition, she allegedly told the nurse that she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."[i]

If there are credible witnesses that can say for sure that she said that, that *could* be her ass.
Um. There are many ways that such surgery could "ruin her life" other than scars. I don't know if there was a scar quote, but that one isn't it.

I do suspect some mental illness, though, based on the level of fear and the fact that she had already undergone the procedure.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2004, 02:54 PM   #140
Kitsune
still eats dirt
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 3,031
A fetus is not a person and has no consent to offer even if they could. They have no rights because they are not an independent entity separate from their host.

Your explanation regarding the definition of a "person" versus a "fetus" is probably the best I've seen in the discussion so far, but I find it surprising that a mere umbilical cord makes so much of a difference. A fetus has has no consent to offer, but neither does a one year old. A fetus cannot survive on its own outside the mother, but a one year old cannot survive without the care of its mother -- it is just as much a parasite at that age. Location of the, uh, lifeform doesn't change that.

I have no real opinion on the matter of pro-life versus pro-choice, but I find the argument interesting because of the definitions drawn and how they are defined.
Kitsune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2004, 02:56 PM   #141
warch
lurkin old school
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,796
One year olds can and do survive without the care of their mothers. Some thrive. They need a caregiver, not a host body.
warch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2004, 02:58 PM   #142
ladysycamore
"I may not always be perfect, but I'm always me."
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In Sycamore's boxers
Posts: 1,341
Quote:
Originally posted by jinx
No, because I highly doubt that they are.

Childfree person: "I don't want kids."
Other: "But why? Don't you want to continue your bloodline? Don't you want to give your parents grandchildren? Isn't that being selfish?"
*although in my case, I've usually gotten, "I don't blame ya!" or "Good...don't!", but I don't like hearing others getting questioned like that.*


Person who wants kids: "I want (insert number) of kids."
Other: (goes into a conversation about how they want kids too, etc., and not "Why?").


Well let me clear up that misconception for you.
Once a woman gets pregnant she is a target for an infinite number of questions, coming from anyone who happens to see her. Complete strangers will approach you on the street and demand to know if you plan to breastfeed (after touching your belly without permission). They will demand to know how you plan to give birth and explain to you why you are wrong in your choice. They will demand to know where your baby will sleep, play, go to school...... and will tell you how badly screwed up your child will be if you actually follow thru with your plans. Every decision a parent makes will be scrutinized and criticized by anyone who hears of it.... and doctors and family are the worst offenders.
Sure, but where was the, "but why would you even WANT to be pregnant" question? I'll tell you where...nowhere to be found, because that's not something that many people would even DARE to ask, but yet, as I stated, I know of more people who get 20 questions about how/why they don't want kids. Here's an example: My cousin, who is 21, last Christmas announced she was pregnant. Of course, automatically, everyone was like, "OH, that's wonderful! Congratulations!" and one of my aunts said wistfully, "A child is always a miracle" (which made me cringe, but that's for another topic). At any rate, I sat there, stunned, and was like, "Oh shit..." because I knew that she was in no way financially or mentally ready to be a mother, and that this pregnancy was not planned at all. Yeah, she's 21, but she's not mentally an adult. She's not childish or anything, but just...not mother material...not yet. She hadn't "lived" life...hadn't gotten out there to experience what a 21 year old likes to do. I know when *I* was 21, the last thing I wanted to do is have a baby (and this was before I knew the word "childfree" even existed).

I can only go by personal experiences jinx. I understand what you are saying about being scrutinized, but it's about how to parent, and not why become a parent.
__________________
"Freedom is not given. It is our right at birth. But there are some moments when it must be taken." ~Tagline from the movie "Amistad"~

"The Akan concept of Sankofa: In order to move forward we first have to take a step back. In other words, before we can be prepared for the future, we must comprehend the past." From "We Did It, They Hid It"
ladysycamore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2004, 03:02 PM   #143
Kitsune
still eats dirt
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 3,031
One year olds can and do survive without the care of their mothers. Some thrive. They need a caregiver, not a host body.

Hmm, yes, but some children that are not yet born that have been removed from the womb far before they are ready to be born often thrive without the need for a host body. Does the ability to survive outside of the host body define it, or does the technical aspect of passing naturally from the body graduate the being?
Kitsune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2004, 03:05 PM   #144
jinx
Come on, cat.
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: general vicinity of Philadelphia area
Posts: 7,013
Ah, ok yes, I can see that difference. It would be considered rude to suggest that someone shouldn't have children, but not rude in the least to suggest that someone should (or are making a mistake if they are not). Crappy double standard. Not unlike the people who think it's ok to make negative comments about how skinny someone is. Some people just don't think.
__________________
Crying won't help you, praying won't do you no good.
jinx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2004, 03:07 PM   #145
quzah
Knight of the Oval-Shaped Conference Table
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 375
Quote:
Originally posted by ladysycamore
So, the woman who is pregnant should NOT put the child's welfare above her own (or at least, make sure that the child's health and well being is as "perfect" as possible)???
You have the right to choose to put the child's welfare above your own. But you are not required to do so. It is like the CPR reference I made. I can choose to save your life, but I don't have to. It's also not a crime if I decide not to do so.

Quzah.
quzah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2004, 03:13 PM   #146
Radar
Constitutional Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ocala, FL
Posts: 4,006
Quote:
Once outside the body, the child is still just as dependant on its mother for survival as it was when it was inside her body.
For this discussion, please use the standard biological definition for the term "parasite" and not another. While a child (not a fetus) is dependent as an infant, it isn't necessarily dependent on the mother. It could be dependent on adopted parents, on the father, on a pack of wolves, etc. Let's keep it to the biological definition please.

Quote:
From what most everyone else is telling me, our laws in this country are Christian-based.
Everyone else is giving you false information then. The government and laws of United States of America have NEVER been based on Christianity or the bible. America is not a Christian nation and it never will be.

Quote:
I've had two abortions. I've killed 2 children. Whether I call them fetuses or babies is irrelevant. There are 2 less human beings in the world because of my actions. I am a murderer, just as sure as Travis is.
A fetus is not a person. At best they are a "potential" person. Not fulfilling that potential is hardly "murder" and it's not even the loss of a human life. A fetus does not possess human life which is defined by sentience. An abortion is the loss of potential, not the loss of a life.

Quote:
I just think we need to stop trying to make it sound anything other than what it is.
I agree. So stop trying to make it sound as though it were a crime, or that it violated the rights of another person. No matter how hard you try to word it, a fetus is not a person and an abortion is not a murder. It is a medical procedure. But this wasn't even an abortion. It was simply someone making a choice to refuse to have surgery. Charging someone with a crime for this is no different at all from charging them with a crime for choosing not to take their tonsils out.

Quote:
So, the woman who is pregnant should NOT put the child's welfare above her own (or at least, make sure that the child's health and well being is as "perfect" as possible)???
That is a matter of opinion, not a matter of law. In my personal opinion if I were told that while my wife was in labor that only she or the child would live, I'd hope my wife lived.

Quote:
Just to make it more fun, lets call 'em "human beings" regardless if they exist in the womb, are a larva, pupae, worm, adult, whatever.
Why would we call a fetus a human being when a fetus doesn't possess human life? A fetus is not a human being. Human life is defined by sentience which a fetus doesn't have.

Quote:
I agree. She didn't murder the baby, she purposfully and willfully let it die.
No, she didn't even do that. She chose to accept the risks of having the child without a C-Section and it didn't work out. But as someone mentioned, if a person is drowning in front of you, and you don't save them, you are not guilty of a crime. Nor is this woman.

Quote:
Ok, so does she get ANY type of punishment, or is she allowed to just go home and try again?
She shouldn't be punished other than the feelings of guilt she may have. I would hope she learned a lesson and didn't get pregnant, but it's not up to me, you, or every single other person in America combined.

Quote:
You have the right to choose to put the child's welfare above your own. But you are not required to do so. It is like the CPR reference I made. I can choose to save your life, but I don't have to. It's also not a crime if I decide not to do so.
Very well said.
__________________
"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
- George Carlin
Radar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2004, 03:25 PM   #147
Kitsune
still eats dirt
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 3,031
For this discussion, please use the standard biological definition for the term "parasite" and not another.

But this is where it is confusing. The biological definition of a parasite states that it does not matter if the life form is in, on, or living with another, just as long as it is dependant on the host life form and gives nothing in return that contributes to the well being of that host.
Kitsune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2004, 03:29 PM   #148
Radar
Constitutional Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ocala, FL
Posts: 4,006
The biological term of parasite refers to a host and a parasite. The parasite in this case is physically attached to...or within the host.

The social meaning of the word parasite would describe a baby, a mooching brother-in-law, etc. but is entirely different. Therefore the accurate meaning of the word "parasite" in our discussion is the biological term, not the social one.
__________________
"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
- George Carlin
Radar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2004, 03:32 PM   #149
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
Quote:
Originally posted by Radar
Everyone else is giving you false information then. The government and laws of United States of America have NEVER been based on Christianity or the bible.
Except for vice laws. And most of those are more based on centuries of interpretation than on anything in the Bible.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2004, 03:33 PM   #150
Kitsune
still eats dirt
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 3,031
In understanding the idea behind a parasite, perhaps we were given a definition that had a bit of the social one mixed in with it during biology. I do remember them telling us that parasites were usually harmful to the host in some way.

An Interesting Argument - I was surprised to see this debate exists elsewhere.

Of course, who says fetuses aren't harmful to your health?
Kitsune is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:00 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.