Another Judge in yet another State rules abortion clinic law unconstitutional

[SMOGZINN]

That seems pretty stupid.

Lets say you have a few eggs and some cake mix sitting on your counter do you have a cake? I don't think anyone would say you do.

Now lets saying you mix together all your cake mix and eggs and whatnot and put the batter into a pan and place it into your pre-heated oven. Do you have a cake yet? What about after its in the oven for 5 min? Or is it only a cake after it has fully baked for 30 min? Seems pretty debatable to me.

That is the the crux of the question, now isn't it? I don't think it is a cake until it is frosted. Until then it is at best a potential cake. But if we start getting reductionist then we have to find some way to decide what the essential qualities of a cake really is.

The pro-lifers would like to tell me that a bunch of batter can be called a cake. I don't agree, I think cake needs frosting, but I think that we can come to some compromise where we agree that once it has baked a little it has taken on enough properties of a cake to deserve the name.

This is pretty much exactly the argument that pro-choice proponents have.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The laws are not fair. Unless you are arguing that treating people the same for unequal actions is "fair"?

Saying that current laws on childsupport/abortion are "fair" is like saying that Middle Eastern rape laws are fair, because they stone both the rapist and rape victim for fornication. Treating people the same for vastly different actions is clearly not fair.

You want to make the child support laws about the parents when they are about the children.
They laws don't care what happened before the child came into the world, it does not care who does or does not want it. It only cares that both pay for it.

 

[kage69]

Yes it should, if the woman or man desires to kill someone.

Too bad we're discussing a woman's right to have control over her own body and not Murder 1. Otherwise you'd have a point.

Once again, no one should have the liberty to kill their own children.

And once again you are putting your own views of morality ahead of the rights of others, whom you most likely have absolutely nothing to do with. Killing children is a crime you are injecting into this as per your religious and moral views. A woman should have the last say in what happens to her body, period, and that in no way infringes on or denies you anything - unless this common sense liberty has harmed you in some way, in which case let's hear it!

This "pro-life" state of denial really just continues to smack of ego and arrogance. Your personal beliefs matter more than another adults personal autonomy, in some cosmic sort of way. That's embarrassing for anyone who espouses American ideals. Liberty is choice, and making the hard decision to eject a zygote is an act of self-determination, in no way akin to walking up to a person (related or not) and executing them. You guys need new material.

 

[MrPickins]

That seems pretty stupid.

Lets say you have a few eggs and some cake mix sitting on your counter do you have a cake? I don't think anyone would say you do.

Now lets saying you mix together all your cake mix and eggs and whatnot and put the batter into a pan and place it into your pre-heated oven. Do you have a cake yet? What about after its in the oven for 5 min? Or is it only a cake after it has fully baked for 30 min? Seems pretty debatable to me.

I'd say it's pretty simple.

If you asked someone for a piece of cake and they poured some batter on your plate, you'd wonder if they were drunk or just stupid.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I think that before anyone, male or female, is allowed to make or interpret laws that impact pregnancy and women, they should have to go through the process of pregnancy themselves. You can have an opinion on abortion, but until you've actually gone through the process of pregnancy, your opinion shouldn't have any weight on forming laws, because you have no idea what you're talking about. Now, obviously it's impossible for men to go through pregnancy, but I do think that their opinion can be valid; they just need to go through an analogue of pregnancy. They need to spend 9 months wearing a series of increasingly larger weighted bags on their abdomens (after 4 months the bags can be fitted with a device that simulates fetal kicking directly to the gut several times an hour round the clock), be disallowed from smoking, drinking and eating certain foods, be given random hormone injections that cause fatigue, nausea, cramping and vomiting, and at the end of the 9 months be given a series of increasingly intense and lengthy electric shocks to the abdomen for 15-48 hours to simulate the process of labor. When anyone who goes through that offers me their opinion on a woman's right to choose, I'll gladly listen. Until then, you don't know what you're talking about, and your opinion is useless to crafting policy that impacts people who will actually be going through this exact process.

 

[Atreus21]

What does that have to do with abortion?

...uh, abortion destroys a human being.

Nobody is suggesting that they should.

Look, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Fetuses are not persons. They are not "someone." They are not "children." You are dishonest in the utmost to continue to describe them as such. Take your lack of integrity and kindly fuck off with it.

The hell they aren't. Prove they aren't. When a child comes out of the womb, everyone agrees it's a human being. Are you saying 10 minutes prior to birth it's not a human being because it hasn't been born? At some point prior to birth, a fetus is a human being. The proof should be on the people wanting to kill something that what they're killing isn't a human being, not on us to prove it is.

Frankly, I don't know why I'm arguing with you. You're the guy who says sex doesn't cause pregnancy.

 

[Atreus21]

This is another lie.

Liars for Jesus. Oh, I'm sure he'd be so proud....

indeed.

Try arguing your point.

 

[Atreus21]

Too bad we're discussing a woman's right to have control over her own body and not Murder 1. Otherwise you'd have a point.

How long are you guys determined to avoid the issue we all know is the crux of the debate?

A woman has control over her own body. Whether that control extends to killing her unborn child is the question.

If an unborn child is as much a human being as a born child is, then she should not have the right to destroy it, and hence control over her body stops when that control necessarily costs her child his or her life.

And once again you are putting your own views of morality ahead of the rights of others, whom you most likely have absolutely nothing to do with. Killing children is a crime you are injecting into this as per your religious and moral views.

Killing children is generally a crime, yes. If that's a religious view, then thank God for religion.

A woman should have the last say in what happens to her body, period, and that in no way infringes on or denies you anything - unless this common sense liberty has harmed you in some way, in which case let's hear it!

Murdering someone I don't know also doesn't affect me directly. That doesn't mean I can't condemn it as a crime.

This "pro-life" state of denial really just continues to smack of ego and arrogance. Your personal beliefs matter more than another adults personal autonomy, in some cosmic sort of way. That's embarrassing for anyone who espouses American ideals. Liberty is choice, and making the hard decision to eject a zygote is an act of self-determination, in no way akin to walking up to a person (related or not) and executing them. You guys need new material.

haha. Denial? You and others are determined to frame this in terms of women's control over their bodies, when that's not the issue and you know it. Nobody's control over their body extends to killing someone else (except in self-defense), and so the only relevant question is whether that "someone else" is indeed a human being. If you want to debate that, fine, but stop with the willfully ignorant attempt to divert attention from the real issue.

Liberty is choice, but it has limits. Your right to self-determination is not absolute. Have you guys even thought this through?

 

[Kadarin]

...uh, abortion destroys a human being.



The hell they aren't. Prove they aren't. When a child comes out of the womb, everyone agrees it's a human being. Are you saying 10 minutes prior to birth it's not a human being because it hasn't been born? At some point prior to birth, a fetus is a human being. The proof should be on the people wanting to kill something that what they're killing isn't a human being, not on us to prove it is.

Frankly, I don't know why I'm arguing with you. You're the guy who says sex doesn't cause pregnancy.

Remember though, that at some point prior to birth, a fetus is also not a human being. It's human, but not yet a being.

 

[Atreus21]

Remember though, that at some point prior to birth, a fetus is also not a human being. It's human, but not yet a being.

When, and why?

 

[Retro Rob]

I think that before anyone, male or female, is allowed to make or interpret laws that impact pregnancy and women, they should have to go through the process of pregnancy themselves. You can have an opinion on abortion, but until you've actually gone through the process of pregnancy, your opinion shouldn't have any weight on forming laws, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Well, that universally excludes EVERYONE whose yet to have children, including women.

 

[fskimospy]

If an unborn child is as much a human being as a born child is, then she should not have the right to destroy it, and hence control over her body stops when that control necessarily costs her child his or her life.

Right, but we all know that people don't consider fertilized embryos to be the same thing as human beings, as shown by the tired old fertility clinic fire example. So clearly there is a distinction that is drawn between the born and the unborn, correct?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerpin Taxt
What does that have to do with abortion?

...uh, abortion destroys a human being.


Quote:
Nobody is suggesting that they should.

Look, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Fetuses are not persons. They are not "someone." They are not "children." You are dishonest in the utmost to continue to describe them as such. Take your lack of integrity and kindly fuck off with it.

The hell they aren't. Prove they aren't. When a child comes out of the womb, everyone agrees it's a human being. Are you saying 10 minutes prior to birth it's not a human being because it hasn't been born? At some point prior to birth, a fetus is a human being. The proof should be on the people wanting to kill something that what they're killing isn't a human being, not on us to prove it is.

Frankly, I don't know why I'm arguing with you. You're the guy who says sex doesn't cause pregnancy.

You need to remember that you are dealing with the all knowing, all wise scholar of the Universe-- Cerpin Taxt!!!

 

[Retro Rob]

Right, but we all know that people don't consider fertilized embryos to be the same thing as human beings, as shown by the tired old fertility clinic fire example. So clearly there is a distinction that is drawn between the born and the unborn, correct?

Regardless, it's still alive...which is really the bottom line.

 

[fskimospy]

Regardless, it's still alive...which is really the bottom line.

Not really, as the argument here is that killing an embryo is the equivalent of killing your child. Yet we clearly don't view them as important as our children.

 

[Retro Rob]

Right, but we all know that people don't consider fertilized embryos to be the same thing as human beings, as shown by the tired old fertility clinic fire example. So clearly there is a distinction that is drawn between the born and the unborn, correct?

Your fertility clinic example is flawed, as decisions in the case of a fired are based more on time than anything else.

For example, if you had a to choose between embryos which are right at the front door of the clinic, and perhaps a newborn at the rear of the clinic, I'd argue that time and risk to your own person would influence your decision more than anything else. If both were at the front door, you get both. If both were in the rear, you'd not go in at all.

None of that would stop a fire fighter, though.

 

[nehalem256]

You want to make the child support laws about the parents when they are about the children.
They laws don't care what happened before the child came into the world, it does not care who does or does not want it. It only cares that both pay for it.

Of course its about the parents. Otherwise the "father" could just be assigned by lottery.

Also it appears you missed by statement yesterday which completely and totally disproves what you said:

So why then is it legal for a woman to refuse to name the father and therefore deny it the funds it is owed?

Seems pretty perverse that a woman can deny a child its father's support, but the man cannot./QUOTE]

If it was true that child support was really solely about the child then a woman would be required to name the father at birth. No exceptions.

 

[kage69]

standard anti-choice schtick

Children are born. Your personal, moral, and/or religious convictions don't change that, and the arrogance of demanding that others adhere to your personal views relating to their bodies is decidedly anti-liberty. Put as much lip stick on that pig as you want, but the only woman who you should be concerned with in this regard is your own wife or significant other.
Save your judgement and opinions for those that that give a shit about them. I can assure you any woman dealing with abortion firsthand has more important things to be worried about that what anti-choice men they don't know think of their actions. Particularly ones who lose their shit over government taxation reaching into their wallets, but somehow feel laws 'reaching into vaginas' is perfectly fine.

As it's been said before: don't like abortions, don't have one. I would hope every woman would choose to give birth and at least give the kid up for adoption, but I am under no illusion that my beliefs trump their right of self-determination.

If vocal proponents of some strange new religion took it upon themselves to defend seminal fluids everywhere, and told you that you do not have the right to banish so much life to the depths of your favorite crusty gym sock, you'd probably disagree, wouldn't you? You'd probably object to their narrative that every sperm is sacred, right? Hrmmmmm. What a coincidence.



I like John Stuart Mills take on it from On Liberty...

"the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.” He wrote that we should be “without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong.”


Go ahead and try to frame the issue along whatever subjective concept you want, I think I'll continue to side with the Constitution and the guy who learned Greek when he was 3.

 

[Retro Rob]

Not really, as the argument here is that killing an embryo is the equivalent of killing your child. Yet we clearly don't view them as important as our children.

Technically, they are not the same -- but in another sense, they can be as you cannot have children without fertilized embryos.

In that sense, discarding your unborn *can* be tantamount to murder since you're willfully terminating what WILL become a human life.

I can see both sides, a bit.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Well, that universally excludes EVERYONE whose yet to have children, including women.

Thank you for showing that your ability to read ends at the first sentence of what someone types. I would point out that I went on to say "obviously it's impossible for men to go through pregnancy, but I do think that their opinion can be valid; they just need to go through an analogue of pregnancy" and gave a detailed explanation of what that analogue would involve, but since there's absolutely no way you'll ever read this far in my response (it being the second sentence), it doesn't really matter what I say at this point. Sparmin flondo quarvy blixty floon.

 

[nehalem256]

Thank you for showing that your ability to read ends at the first sentence of what someone types. I would point out that I went on to say "obviously it's impossible for men to go through pregnancy, but I do think that their opinion can be valid; they just need to go through an analogue of pregnancy" and gave a detailed explanation of what that analogue would involve, but since there's absolutely no way you'll ever read this far in my response (it being the second sentence), it doesn't really matter what I say at this point. Sparmin flondo quarvy blixty floon.

So if you need to go through pregnancy or an analogue of pregnancy to have an opinion on pregnancy related topics then a woman who has never given birth should have no say on matters surrounding pregnancy.

Now if you are going to argue that the mere possibility of going through pregnancy in the future counts. Then I would respond that the possibility of going through a pregnancy analogue should count the same

 

[fskimospy]

Your fertility clinic example is flawed, as decisions in the case of a fired are based more on time than anything else.

For example, if you had a to choose between embryos which are right at the front door of the clinic, and perhaps a newborn at the rear of the clinic, I'd argue that time and risk to your own person would influence your decision more than anything else. If both were at the front door, you get both. If both were in the rear, you'd not go in at all.

None of that would stop a fire fighter, though.

You're attempting to add additional conditions into it to make it flawed. As it existed it was a perfect example, free from any flaws.

The example is clear as day: you are in a fertility clinic that is on fire and you have the opportunity to grab either a six month year old baby and take it to safety or a tray of 20 embryos. Whichever one you take will certainly escape the fire unscathed, whichever one you leave will certainly be destroyed.

If you're being honest with yourself you know that basically everyone would choose the baby. That shows quite clearly that we don't value them even remotely equally.

 

[alzan]

...uh, abortion destroys a human being.

No, it destroys a potential human being.

Miscarriages destroy potential human beings. A woman's monthly menstrual cycle destroys potential human beings.

As was posted previously, quit forcing your personal moral code on everyone else. If you don't like abortions then don't get one.

 

[nehalem256]

No, it destroys a potential human being.

Miscarriages destroy potential human beings. A woman's monthly menstrual cycle destroys potential human beings.

(1) What does that have to do with anything?

(2) A woman's monthly menstrual cycle destroys "potential" human beings in the same way that dropping an egg on the floor destroys a potential cake. Anyone who said that would be looked at awfully funny.

As was posted previously, quit forcing your personal moral code on everyone else. If you don't like abortions then don't get one.

By your logic abolitionists were in the wrong. Don't like slave ownership then don't own one.

 

[Retro Rob]

Thank you for showing that your ability to read ends at the first sentence of what someone types. I would point out that I went on to say "obviously it's impossible for men to go through pregnancy, but I do think that their opinion can be valid; they just need to go through an analogue of pregnancy" and gave a detailed explanation of what that analogue would involve, but since there's absolutely no way you'll ever read this far in my response (it being the second sentence), it doesn't really matter what I say at this point. Sparmin flondo quarvy blixty floon.

You're still saying that men have to go through a pregnancy, though, to have a valid opinion.

Not sure what I missed. What you're saying is that men don't have a valid opinion because they can't get pregnant, and since they can't get pregnant they won't have a valid opinion.

Circles, man, circles.