Another Judge in yet another State rules abortion clinic law unconstitutional

[Atreus21]

Obviously no since the baby has been born.

Why is the baby suddenly non-killable once its 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.

It's not intellectually dishonest. You guys use the same tactic to nail us on pregnancies resulting from rape. It's probing the extremity of the opposition's principles, and that's fair game.

I'm glad to hear you're generally opposed to late-term abortions. You'd run afoul of NARAL and Planned Parenthood with such a radically anti-woman morality (in their eyes).

Uh, dumb laws.

Yes, very dumb. That's the point.

 

[Retro Rob]

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.

You're intentionally limiting the scenario to get a desired outcome.

This is clearly intellectually dishonest.

 

[fskimospy]

You're intentionally limiting the scenario to get a desired outcomes.

This is clearly intellectually dishonest.

No. Just a warning to you, this claim that I am being dishonest will come back to bite you just the same as it has every time in the past.

If you want to claim that the scenario is intellectually dishonest, please explain exactly how. As a reminder, the purpose of the scenario is to determine the relative value of an embryo vs. a baby.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Why is the baby suddenly non-killable once its born?

The 14th Amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Before it's born it isn't a person.

 

[Atreus21]

... 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.

Again, you've come up with an unlikely hypothetical scenario which suits your intended objective. I've done the same thing, and that is for some reason invalid.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, you've come up with an unlikely hypothetical scenario which suits your intended objective. I've done the same thing, and that is for some reason invalid.

What is an unlikely hypothetical scenario?

 

[Atreus21]

The 14th Amendment.

Before it's born it isn't a person.

I mean morally, not legally.

 

[Atreus21]

What is an unlikely hypothetical scenario?

A clinic fire where one has to choose between one baby and some number of embryos.

 

[Retro Rob]

No. Just a warning to you, this claim that I am being dishonest will come back to bite you just the same as it has every time in the past.

OK

If you want to claim that the scenario is intellectually dishonest, please explain exactly how. As a reminder, the purpose of the scenario is to determine the relative value of an embryo vs. a baby.

You're painting the target around the arrow, that's how you're being fallacious and dishonest. You know the result you want, so you're setting it up to where you can ONLY get the result you want.

 

[fskimospy]

OK

You're painting the target around the arrow, that's how you're being fallacious and dishonest. You know the result you want, so you're setting it up to where you can ONLY get the result you want.

Explain, and be specific. If possible, provide an alternative thought experiment that would correct the flaws that you perceive.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I mean morally, not legally.

Morality varies from person to person. I'm against abortions after a certain stage in pregnancy myself; I think that if you're going to make the decision, it should be done early. You shouldn't need 30 weeks to think about it. But I'm not going to try to make my interpretation of the morality of an action into the law for that action; I think it's incredibly narcissistic to assume that your opinion on something is the only correct one, and everyone should be forced to abide by it.

 

[Atreus21]

Explain, and be specific. If possible, provide an alternative thought experiment that would correct the flaws that you perceive.

We've explained it. We've given an alternative thought experiment that proves it.

 

[fskimospy]

A clinic fire where one has to choose between one baby and some number of embryos.

You know what the purpose of a thought experiment is, right? The entire point of it is to force you to choose which you value more. If you have another way to determine what someone values more, I'm open to it.

My experiment allows an individual to make that choice in the world that we live in today, which I would imagine we all agree is the one that we are most likely to continue living in. You required a nuclear apocalypse to arrive at a different answer. I would hope it's easy to see the difference.

 

[fskimospy]

We've explained it. We've given an alternative thought experiment that proves it.

No, you haven't. "But what if there was a nuclear apocalypse" is not a rational alternative.

 

[Atreus21]

Morality varies from person to person. I'm against abortions after a certain stage in pregnancy myself; I think that if you're going to make the decision, it should be done early. You shouldn't need 30 weeks to think about it. But I'm not going to try to make my interpretation of the morality of an action into the law for that action;

Morality does not vary so radically that one views abortion at 12:00 as murder at 12:05. I'm sure your morality and mine agree on that.

Do you think late term abortions should be banned in general?

I think it's incredibly narcissistic to assume that your opinion on something is the only correct one, and everyone should be forced to abide by it.

Having convictions and fighting for what you think is right isn't narcissistic. Claiming that murder is wrong isn't narcissistic.

 

[Brainonska511]

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.

In your absurd twisting of the clinic fire scenario, the baby would still be more valuable. Where, in this nuclear holocaust, are you going to find the equipment and medical personnel to implant millions of embryos into millions of surrogates?

 

[Atreus21]

You know what the purpose of a thought experiment is, right? The entire point of it is to force you to choose which you value more. If you have another way to determine what someone values more, I'm open to it.

The fact that I would choose a baby over a mentally disabled person, if forced to choose who will die, does not mean the mentally disabled person is not a human being.

My experiment allows an individual to make that choice in the world that we live in today, which I would imagine we all agree is the one that we are most likely to continue living in. You required a nuclear apocalypse to arrive at a different answer. I would hope it's easy to see the difference.

The difference is a difference of degree, not of substance. My scenario is more far fetched than yours, but it's not impossible.

If the choice in your scenario was between a deaf, brain damaged quadriplegic and a newborn baby, who would you choose, and what would your choice say about either person?

 

[Atreus21]

In your absurd twisting of the clinic fire scenario, the baby would still be more valuable. Where, in this nuclear holocaust, are you going to find the equipment and medical personnel to implant millions of embryos into millions of surrogates?

As I said in your quoted text, by whatever means. It's assumed that I have the means.

 

[Retro Rob]

Explain, and be specific. If possible, provide an alternative thought experiment that would correct the flaws that you perceive.

I already did, by giving you REAL problems that people WILL experience in this utopian, black and white targeted experiment you're producing.

Adding real-life variables basically nullifies this "value judgement" you seem to think is impregnable.

 

[Brainonska511]

As I said in your quoted text, by whatever means. It's assumed that I have the means.

So we're supposed to go from a semi-rational, simple thought experiment, to the absurd nuclear holocaust, where a nuclear bomb selectively ignites a fertility clinic, leaving you still with millions of able-bodied women lined up for surrogacy, along with medical equipment and doctors to do all that implanting? Yep. That's not absurd twisting whatsoever.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

...uh, abortion destroys a human being.

No, it doesn't. Lie.

The hell they aren't. Prove they aren't.

Prove bachelors aren't married. It's a simple fact, inherent in the definition.

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?

Precisely, legally speaking.

At some point prior to birth, a fetus is a human being.

And at some point prior to marriage, bachelors are husbands, right?

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.

It is already established that it isn't a human being. You are either negligently or willfully remaining ignorant of this simple fact.

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

It doesn't cause pregnancy any more than driving causes automobile collisions, or flying causes plane crashes.

Your problem is very simply that you are delusional -- and I mean that literally. You simply do not have a firm grasp on reality.

 

[Atreus21]

So we're supposed to go from a semi-rational, simple thought experiment, to the absurd nuclear holocaust, where a nuclear bomb selectively ignites a fertility clinic, leaving you still with millions of able-bodied women lined up for surrogacy, along with medical equipment and doctors to do all that implanting? Yep. That's not absurd twisting whatsoever.

Shrug. By manipulating the circumstances, you can always arrive at your intended destination. That's the point.

I concede that in general people value born children over fertilized embryos. I concede also that people value healthy adults over aged adults 5 minutes prior to death. The relative value of human beings weighed against other human beings has exactly nothing to do with abortion. The choice to have a child or to kill it is not a "someone has to die" scenario, as the clinic fire experiment is.

 

[Atreus21]

It doesn't cause pregnancy any more than driving causes automobile collisions, or flying causes plane crashes.

Hee hee. Remember this?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2177330

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

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

You ejaculate non-human sperm?

You might wanna get that looked at...

 

[kage69]

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.

I like how the legal action of self-autonomy and control is comparable in their eyes to the outright murder of another person, or even the long abolished system of slavery - both criminal behaviors involving controlling and inflicting harm on other people, yet the public isn't involved at all in a woman's choice to abort.

At least I presume so, as I have yet to see any indication of harm or adverse effects suffered by anti-choice people when an unknown woman decides to end her pregnancy. They should be thanking these women, or have social conservatives reversed their views on tax dollars going towards welfare babies and single mothers?

Dogma, it's a bitch.