Another Judge in yet another State rules abortion clinic law unconstitutional

[SMOGZINN]

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

Both parents are given a chance to give up the child to adoption. If EITHER of them choose to keep the child BOTH of them are required to support it. A Father can choose to keep the child, and the mother choose to adapt, and then the mother has to pay child support.

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.

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.

I did miss that statement.

There is nothing in the law that would require a woman to give her name when having a child. Safe Harbor laws allow her to do so anonymously. She can not deny the the child support from the father, she can just claim not to know who the father is, and there is no good way to force someone to give information they don't know. If the father chooses to step forward and claim the child a court will grant him his rights.

 

[Retro Rob]

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.

You're attempting to make a non-black and white decision, black and white.

That's not being honest. Other conditions (like harm to self) cannot be ignored, because you're painting a real-life scenario.

 

[Atreus21]

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?

And as we have discussed ad nauseum, the clinic fire example only proves that some lives are worth more than others under certain circumstances, not that some human beings are not human beings.

 

[alzan]

(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.



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

A fertilized egg that does not successfully attach to the uterine wall will get flushed out during the menstrual cycle, ie. destroys a potential human being.

By the way your analogies suck. Try to stay on topic.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

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

Gee, I wonder if my original post covered this idea at all...

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.

Honestly, it's like you people can't read. My post is not meant to say that people can't have an opinion on abortion without having been through pregnancy, but that opinion is uninformed and uninformed opinions should not be the basis for crafting legislation. I don't really care about the opinions of internet commenters; I'm concerned about legislators and judges knowing what the process is like before they pass judgment on it that becomes the law as it applies to every woman in the country.

 

[Atreus21]

No, it destroys a potential human being.

Negative. A sperm or egg is a potential human being. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, the process begins that will develop it into a fetus, then an infant, then a toddler, then an adult. A fertilized egg is a human being at its earliest stage of development.

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

That's right, and we can't help that. Accidents happen. That doesn't mean that deliberately killing them is acceptable.

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

Slave states said the same damned thing, guy.

Don't like murder? Don't commit one. Leave the rest of us alone.

 

[fskimospy]

And as we have discussed ad nauseum, the clinic fire example only proves that some lives are worth more than others, not that some human beings are not human beings.

No, at some point the value is so low that any reasonable person would agree that we aren't talking about the same thing.

Up the embryo count to whatever you want. A thousand. Ten thousand. A million. A billion. Is there any point at which you're saving the embryos instead of the baby?

 

[nehalem256]

I did miss that statement.

There is nothing in the law that would require a woman to give her name when having a child. Safe Harbor laws allow her to do so anonymously. She can not deny the the child support from the father, she can just claim not to know who the father is, and there is no good way to force someone to give information they don't know. If the father chooses to step forward and claim the child a court will grant him his rights.

So in other words the woman is allowed to deny the child the support it is owed from the father.

And its pretty simple to force the information out. Either you provide the father's name or the state takes the child. According to you the child has the right to support from 2 parents seems like to only way to ensure that.

 

[nehalem256]

Honestly, it's like you people can't read. My post is not meant to say that people can't have an opinion on abortion without having been through pregnancy, but that opinion is uninformed and uninformed opinions should not be the basis for crafting legislation. I don't really care about the opinions of internet commenters; I'm concerned about legislators and judges knowing what the process is like before they pass judgment on it that becomes the law as it applies to every woman in the country.

Oddly your argument is that a woman who got an abortion without having gone through a full pregnancy(see your pregnancy analogue post) doesn't have a valid opinion on abortion.

 

[nehalem256]

A fertilized egg that does not successfully attach to the uterine wall will get flushed out during the menstrual cycle, ie. destroys a potential human being.

I fail to see how that has any bearing on whether abortion should be legal.

Does the fact that people get cancer mean that shooting people is okay?

Don't like murder then don't kill anyone. Stop trying to force your personal moral code on others.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Oddly your argument is that a woman who got an abortion without having gone through a full pregnancy(see your pregnancy analogue post) doesn't have a valid opinion on abortion.

Chances are pretty good that one woman's decision to get an abortion will not have far-reaching legal ramifications for every woman in the country. "Sally got an abortion; abortion now MANDATORY for all women" is not a headline you are likely to see in your lifetime. Like I said, individuals can form their own opinions about what they choose to personally believe or do (within the confines of the law, naturally). But when those opinions become law, I want them to come from an educated standpoint. A man can read all about pregnancy to understand the process, but until you've spent nine months going through something like that, I don't believe you have the moral authority to condemn women to that fate for an activity they may not have even willingly participated in. What I want from my elected officials more than anything is compassion; I want them to be able to put themselves in the shoes of those they are legislating.

 

[alzan]

Negative. A sperm or egg is a potential human being. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, the process begins that will develop it into a fetus, then an infant, then a toddler, then an adult. A fertilized egg is a human being at its earliest stage of development.



That's right, and we can't help that. Accidents happen. That doesn't mean that deliberately killing them is acceptable.



Slave states said the same damned thing, guy.

Don't like murder? Don't commit one. Leave the rest of us alone.

So how many potential human beings have you murdered when fapping?

It's still murder according to you.

Abortion is a personal decision. You're welcome to your opinion

There's just a little bit of difference murdering a human being and an abortion; at least to those with the ability to think.

Abortions are legal in this country. Don't like it? Too bad.

 

[Atreus21]

No, at some point the value is so low that any reasonable person would agree that we aren't talking about the same thing.

Up the embryo count to whatever you want. A thousand. Ten thousand. A million. A billion. Is there any point at which you're saving the embryos instead of the baby?

Suppose the clinic fire took place after a nuclear disaster. You need those embryos to repopulate humanity, by whatever means.

In that case, a million embryos is certainly worth more than a single crying baby.

You can always tailor the circumstances to reach a desired conclusion, and that is exactly what the clinic fire experiment does.

It doesn't apply to abortion. In the fire example, someone has to die. In abortion, no one has to.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

In the fire example, someone has to die. In abortion, no one has to.

In abortion, no one does. An embryo is not a person.

 

[Atreus21]

So how many potential human beings have you murdered when fapping?

It's still murder according to you.

No it's not murder. Non-human beings can't be murdered.

Abortion is a personal decision. You're welcome to your opinion.

Is it still personal if the mother decides to kill her baby right after birth?

There's just a little bit of difference murdering a human being and an abortion; at least to those with the ability to think.

Really. Ever seen a demonstration of a late term abortion? Ever seen a child get its brain sucked out through a straw while half-delivered? Ever seen a fully birthed baby get its spine cut at the neck with scissors, as Gosnell did? You gonna tell me that's "different"?

Abortions are legal in this country. Don't like it? Too bad.

Uh, slavery. Jim Crow. Prohibition. Citizens United (for liberals).

 

[fskimospy]

Suppose the clinic fire took place after a nuclear disaster. You need those embryos to repopulate humanity, by whatever means.

In that case, a million embryos is certainly worth more than a single crying baby.

You can always tailor the circumstances to reach a desired conclusion, and that is exactly what the clinic fire experiment does.

The clinic fire experiment explicitly removes all those other conditions so that you're able to make a simple decision of value. Your attempt to add a nuclear holocaust is most certainly trying to tailor the circumstances to reach a desired conclusion, but the initial thought experiment does no such thing.

It's just asking you which one you value more: a million embryos or one baby? It shows that attempts to equate embryos with killing children are fundamentally dishonest as they presuppose some sort of at least remote equivalence to us that does not exist.

It doesn't apply to abortion. In the fire example, someone has to die. In abortion, no one has to.

That doesn't matter. See above.

 

[nehalem256]

Chances are pretty good that one woman's decision to get an abortion will not have far-reaching legal ramifications for every woman in the country. "Sally got an abortion; abortion now MANDATORY for all women" is not a headline you are likely to see in your lifetime. Like I said, individuals can form their own opinions about what they choose to personally believe or do (within the confines of the law, naturally). But when those opinions become law, I want them to come from an educated standpoint. A man can read all about pregnancy to understand the process, but until you've spent nine months going through something like that, I don't believe you have the moral authority to condemn women to that fate for an activity they may not have even willingly participated in. What I want from my elected officials more than anything is compassion; I want them to be able to put themselves in the shoes of those they are legislating.

So then by you argument a woman who had an abortion while barely pregnant hadn't gone through the process and therefore her viewpoint should be ignored.

This may not work how you are expecting. Since it means that conservative older women get a voice, while liberal young women won't.

 

[Atreus21]

In abortion, no one does. An embryo is not a person.

You guys should endeavor to prove that. It stands to reason that if a child is born a human being, it was a human being beforehand. And if you're going to say it's not, you should have some scientific reason.

 

[Atreus21]

The clinic fire experiment explicitly removes all those other conditions so that you're able to make a simple decision of value. Your attempt to add a nuclear holocaust is most certainly trying to tailor the circumstances to reach a desired conclusion, but the initial thought experiment does no such thing.

...Yes it does. It does precisely that. You can think of scenarios in which a single baby is valued over a million embryos. I can think of the exact opposite.

It's just asking you which one you value more: a million embryos or one baby? It shows that attempts to equate embryos with killing children are fundamentally dishonest as they presuppose some sort of at least remote equivalence to us that does not exist.

I also value killing a mentally disabled person over a baby, if forced to choose. Does that mean the disabled person isn't a human being? Does that mean I can just go up to disabled people and kill them because I feel like it?

 

[alzan]

No it's not murder. Non-human beings can't be murdered.

Is it still personal if the mother decides to kill her baby right after birth?

Really. Ever seen a demonstration of a late term abortion? Ever seen a child get its brain sucked out through a straw while half-delivered? Ever seen a fully birthed baby get its spine cut at the neck with scissors, as Gosnell did? You gonna tell me that's "different"?

Uh, slavery. Jim Crow. Prohibition. Citizens United (for liberals).

Obviously no since the baby has been born.

You're being intellectually dishonest and shifting the goalposts by bringing up late term abortions, procedures that are less than .001% of abortions. FWIW I don't agree with late-term abortions as long as the baby is viable and the mothers life is not at risk.

Uh, dumb laws.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

You guys should endeavor to prove that. It stands to reason that if a child is born a human being, it was a human being beforehand. And if you're going to say it's not, you should have some scientific reason.

We do have a scientific reason. Do you know why we have words like embryo, zygote, fetus, blastocyst, larva or pupa? It's because science has determined that there are stages of development that organisms go through, from fertilization through a larval stage and eventually to birth (or hatching or whatever) as a juvenile organism. If you're so keen to show that embryos are humans, why don't we count embryos in the census? Why don't we name them? Why don't we prosecute miscarriages as involuntary manslaughter? Can a human be considered alive if it registers no brain activity? What if it doesn't even have a formed brain, or other organs, yet? You've agreed that a sperm and egg separately are not humans, but at the very second they meet, they become a human? 2 cells that can't be seen without a microscope, and have less than a 40% chance of even implanting in the uterine wall is a human? What if they don't implant? Do we have a funeral?

We can identify stages of development and that gives us a jumping off point for discussions about what stage of development does an embryo/fetus develop certain things, such as internal organs, lungs, limbs, etc. This also gives us context about when we consider the fetus "viable." Only a complete fool would argue that a zygote and a baby are the same thing, so it's clear that at some point in the developmental process there are significant changes that make us become a human being. For my money, a "being" is an individual organism, so a "human being" is a human who is no longer in a gestational stage inside a host body. That doesn't mean I think people should get abortions at 39 weeks, but I also see a fundamental difference between a late-term fetus and a baby. It's not a human being until it's born.

 

[fskimospy]

...Yes it does. It does precisely that. You can think of scenarios in which a single baby is valued over a million embryos. I can think of the exact opposite.

... I seriously don't know what to say other than "no, it doesn't". Your argument requires fantastical scenarios to unfold, mine takes place in the world as we know it today. Assuming absolutely nothing changes from the world as it exists now, everyone chooses a baby over a million embryos.

Needless to say, we probably shouldn't make health law based around what we would be doing after a nuclear apocalypse.

I also value killing a mentally disabled person over a baby, if forced to choose. Does that mean the disabled person isn't a human being? Does that mean I can just go up to disabled people and kill them because I feel like it?

This is an attempt to walk back the clear implications of that thought scenario. We weren't talking about a 1-1 difference or even a 2-1 or a 10-1. We're talking millions and billions. Hell, trillions if you want.

Would you kill a billion mentally retarded people before killing a baby? I sure wouldn't. If I had to choose 1-1 I would probably choose the baby the same as you, but if you even made it 2-1 I'm not at all confident I would make the same choice. If anything, this example shows just how right the clinic fire experiment is.

 

[SMOGZINN]

So in other words the woman is allowed to deny the child the support it is owed from the father.

No, is capable, not allowed. This is not a legal decision, this is a logistical one. She is also capable of using the money a father give in child support to whip her ass and flush it down the toilet.

And its pretty simple to force the information out. Either you provide the father's name or the state takes the child. According to you the child has the right to support from 2 parents seems like to only way to ensure that.

Or instead we could require all men in the united states to submit a DNA sample so that children can be genetically matched to the father. That would make much more sense then taking away the one parent that we know.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Would you kill a billion mentally retarded people before killing a baby? I sure wouldn't. If I had to choose 1-1 I would probably choose the baby the same as you, but if you even made it 2-1 I'm not at all confident I would make the same choice. If anything, this example shows just how right the clinic fire experiment is.

Babies are easier to carry in bunches than full-grown people, mental disabilities or otherwise. You can grab them by the armload, maybe even get one in your teeth if you swaddle it really tightly. So in this increasingly unlikely clinic fire example, your maximum ROI can be achieved in lives divided by weight (since that's going to define your capacity to carry people out), and babies measure very well on that scale.

 

[fskimospy]

Babies are easier to carry in bunches than full-grown people, mental disabilities or otherwise. You can grab them by the armload, maybe even get one in your teeth if you swaddle it really tightly. So in this increasingly unlikely clinic fire example, your maximum ROI can be achieved in lives divided by weight (since that's going to define your capacity to carry people out), and babies measure very well on that scale.

Again, this is simply adding complexity where no added complexity is required. Your complaint is basically like saying "yeah, but when are you actually going to encounter a burning fertility clinic with an unattended baby on the floor?" It doesn't matter.