Post by: publius on February 18, 2007, 03:16:25 AM
Quote
Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce. The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.
That was 2003. In 2005, Justice Thomas said this:
Quote
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anythingand the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Now Dr. Paul is running for President. Although I disagree with his vote on partial birth abortion because I don't think it is one of the "few and defined" powers of the federal government about which Mr. Madison spoke, I would be happy to cast my vote for him for President again. I can't think of anyone else who is running who could correctly identify a partial birth abortion, or a homegrown cannabis plant, or a homegrown machine gun, or a gun which is carried too near to a school, as something which is NOT interstate commerce.
What do you think? Is a partial birth abortion interstate commerce?
Post by: tyme on February 18, 2007, 04:37:47 AM
Quote
What do you think? Is a partial birth abortion interstate commerce?
Is this a trick question? How the hell would abortion be interstate commerce?Quote from: Ron Paul
As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.
Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization.
...
Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it.
Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization.
...
Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it.
Dr. Paul should tone down his self-righteousness on this issue. A lot of obstetricians disagree with his assessment of what's necessary, and whether it's gruesome and uncivilized depends on whether the foetus is a human at the point of abortion, which is a highly contentious topic that cannot be resolved except through better scientific understanding of human development.
If congress doesn't have authority to outlaw murder, where the *hell* does he think it gets the power to regulate abortion?
Post by: Werewolf on February 18, 2007, 05:17:22 AM
Post by: cordex on February 18, 2007, 07:52:28 AM
Quote
whether it's gruesome and uncivilized depends on whether the foetus is a human at the point of abortion, which is a highly contentious topic that cannot be resolved except through better scientific understanding of human development.
Tyme,I would have stopped at "... cannot be resolved."
Post by: publius on February 18, 2007, 08:58:45 AM
It is if the woman getting the abortion crosses state lines to get it...
I don't think she even has to actually cross state lines. She could cross state lines. An interstate market exists, and Congress has chosen this way to regulate it. At least, that's the argument as it has been made in the past in similar commerce clause cases.
Post by: Car Knocker on February 18, 2007, 09:27:32 AM
It is if the woman getting the abortion crosses state lines to get it...
I would suspect that the instruments used in the procedure crossed state lines, as did some of the building materials used to build the clinic, the electricity used for the sterilizer and lighting, etc. As flexible as the definition of Interstate Commerce is becoming, the air she breathes may fall under the definition.
Post by: jnojr on February 18, 2007, 10:01:37 AM
We want less Federal government powers, not more. That means, even if you are 100% morally opposed to "partial birth abortion", believe it's a mortal sin, and are sure that God commands you to do everything in your power to prevent it, you have to let this go and fight it at the state level. Otherwise, you're bringing on Revelations and The Number of The Beast and all that.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 18, 2007, 10:14:25 AM
Exactly. But more on point. Abortion is a question of the taking of a genetically human life (being), which legally is a "homicide" ("personhood" is irrelevent in homicide). The fact that the Supremes had to sidestep the legal definition and create a "right to privacy" demonstrates the issue would be retained by the states on its proper legal foundation.
"Homicide" is a legal issue that is handled quite well in state statutes, with the definitions of "justifiable" and "criminal" varying a bit by state standards and defined by the people of each state. Abortion should never have become a Federal issue, any more than justifiable self-defense or manslaughter should.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 18, 2007, 12:28:11 PM
Post by: HForrest on February 18, 2007, 03:20:20 PM
Quote
because he will not, for the most part, vote for anything which he believes is outside of the boundaries set forth in the Constitution.
What a nutjob
Post by: publius on February 19, 2007, 01:08:02 AM
Anybody please explain why any of this should be handled at the federal rather than the state level.
I can't explain why it should be, but I believe I know why it is. People like to control other people. Start talking about undermining federal authority, and leftists worry that they won't be able to control how other people acquire and use things like guns, while those on the right worry that they won't be able to control how other people acquire and use things like marijuana. The price of that control for each side is allowing the other side the authority they want, and it's a price both sides are more than willing to accept.
Post by: Art Eatman on February 19, 2007, 04:31:12 AM
About like our oh-so-esteemed Attorney General and his BS about Habeas Corpus...
Art
Post by: Eleven Mike on February 19, 2007, 06:02:59 AM
Barry Goldwater complained about that forty years ago. It can't be much better now.
Post by: roo_ster on February 19, 2007, 08:22:19 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on February 19, 2007, 09:14:31 AM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 19, 2007, 09:19:59 AM
PBA is rightly addressed by the police power of the individual states to outlaw & prosecute homicide.
Or to consider it either "justified" or "non-criminal" under certain circumstances, as the state's voters may decide.
Current polling shows that abortion would be treated fairly uniformly by the states (as would most things if the Feds would stay the heck out of the way). It certainly wouldn't be some horrific patchwork, any more than any other criminal law issue.
Real medical reasons would be almost uniformly considered justified. Rape and incest would probably end up with non-criminalizing exceptions. Girls still dependents of their parents would require parental notification or approval (unless they got judicial authorization, due to documentable strangeness). Discretionary late-term abortion would probably go away most places (Americans still have a pretty strong "you made your bed" instinct).
Post by: LAK on February 20, 2007, 05:27:49 AM
More important than interstate commerce, "partial birth abortion" is the most barbaric and sick level of state sanctioned murder history has ever seen. It surpasses any and all of the crimes commited under Stalin or the thugs of any of the other notorious regimes in history.
------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 20, 2007, 05:36:48 AM
Quote from: LAK
It surpasses any and all of the crimes commited under Stalin or the thugs of any of the other notorious regimes in history.
Sorry, but this is an utterly ridiculous statement. You might want to read up on the details of Soviet GULags, Japanese POW camps, and Nazi concentration camps.
Post by: publius on February 20, 2007, 10:31:50 AM
If the service is advertized to people outside the state, and people from outside states cross state lines to do so I would say so.
I don't believe that was the purpose of the commerce clause. I already provided a link to Federalist #45, in which the primary author of the Constitution, James Madison, explains his view of the division of powers. A relevant quotation:Quote
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
That does not sound to me like he envisioned a federal regulatory state. Furthermore, he wrote this:
Quote
13 Feb. 1829
Letters 4:14--15 James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell
For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
Extending the commerce clause to provide authority for a federal ban on partial birth abortions, homegrown cannabis plants, homegrown machine guns, guns carried too near to schools, or even toads found only in California seems to me to create a federal government with powers that are far from "few and defined." Now, it is true that Chief Justice Roberts did find that a toad found only in California has no significant relationship to interstate commerce, but the rest of those examples are the real law of the land today, and the fact that we even had a court case to decide whether indigenous California toads affect interstate commerce seems pretty ridiculous to me.
Letters 4:14--15 James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell
For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
Post by: publius on February 20, 2007, 10:34:42 AM
I'm not interested in anyone's opinion of the procedure or the relative merits of various human horrors in history. I'm just interested in whether partial birth abortion is a federal matter under the authority of the interstate commerce clause.
Post by: richyoung on February 20, 2007, 10:41:55 AM
Quote from: LAK
It surpasses any and all of the crimes commited under Stalin or the thugs of any of the other notorious regimes in history.
Sorry, but this is an utterly ridiculous statement. You might want to read up on the details of Soviet GULags, Japanese POW camps, and Nazi concentration camps.
I have. With the one exception of the Japanese surgeon who vivisectioned, without anesthetic, the Chinese girl who was carrying his unborn child at the time, I agree with LAK.
Post by: Eleven Mike on February 20, 2007, 10:45:10 AM
Quote
I'm just interested in whether partial birth abortion is a federal matter under the authority of the interstate commerce clause.
It clearly is not, but the way that clause has been used, anything and everything is considered to be interstate commerce. The following quotation is unfortunately very close to the truth.
Quote from: CarKnocker
As flexible as the definition of Interstate Commerce is becoming, the air she breathes may fall under the definition.
Quote from: tyme
Dr. Paul should tone down his self-righteousness on this issue.
That's so cute, how any moral position is dismissed as self-righteousness. Get real.
Post by: richyoung on February 20, 2007, 10:46:28 AM
Quote
What do you think? Is a partial birth abortion interstate commerce?
Is this a trick question? How the hell would abortion be interstate commerce?Quote from: Ron Paul
As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.
Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization.
...
Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it.
Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization.
...
Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it.
Dr. Paul should tone down his self-righteousness on this issue. A lot of obstetricians disagree with his assessment of what's necessary, and whether it's gruesome and uncivilized depends on whether the foetus is a human at the point ...
We are discussing PARTIAL BIRTH abortions. Not any doubt as to the humanity of the child destroyed. Darn little doubt as to the complete lack of necessity for such a vile proceedure.
Quote
of abortion, which is a highly contentious topic that cannot be resolved except through better scientific understanding of human development.
Not an issue with partial birth abortions, which involve the destruction of a viable child while still partially in the birth canal.
Post by: publius on February 20, 2007, 02:36:32 PM
We are discussing PARTIAL BIRTH abortions.
We are? I was trying to discuss the roots of overreaching federal power in the commerce clause. I could have made an "interstate commerce clause thread" about homegrown cannabis plants or homegrown machine guns or homegrown wheat or guns carried too near to a school or rape or indigenous California toads or any number of other things. I chose partial birth abortion because of the pending candidacy of Dr. Paul and his prior statements and his vote on the subject, NOT because I wanted to hear about how horrible the procedure is.
Do you have an opinion on the federal authority to ban the procedure under the commerce clause? If you don't, perhaps a click on that "new topic" button would be a good idea, and you can discuss the merits of the procedure, not the authority behind the federal ban, in a different thread. Thanks.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 20, 2007, 06:11:01 PM
Quote
I have. With the one exception of the Japanese surgeon who vivisectioned, without anesthetic, the Chinese girl who was carrying his unborn child at the time, I agree with LAK.
Look up Josef Mengele (Auschwitz) and Shiro Ishii (Unit 731).
Post by: publius on February 21, 2007, 01:27:16 AM
Look up Josef Mengele (Auschwitz) and Shiro Ishii (Unit 731).
Terrible guys, but in terms of actual effects on Americans living today, I would argue that Mr. Justice Jackson is a greater villian.
Post by: richyoung on February 21, 2007, 04:36:47 AM
We are discussing PARTIAL BIRTH abortions.
We are? I was trying to discuss the roots of overreaching federal power in the commerce clause. I could have made an "interstate commerce clause thread" about homegrown cannabis plants or homegrown machine guns or homegrown wheat or guns carried too near to a school or rape or indigenous California toads or any number of other things. I chose partial birth abortion because of the pending candidacy of Dr. Paul and his prior statements and his vote on the subject, NOT because I wanted to hear about how horrible the procedure is.
Do you have an opinion on the federal authority to ban the procedure under the commerce clause? If you don't, perhaps a click on that "new topic" button would be a good idea, and you can discuss the merits of the procedure, not the authority behind the federal ban, in a different thread. Thanks.
Perhaps you should re-read your original post in this thread, noting the prominence of partial birth abortion in it, and save the sarcasm for an occasion when you aren't wrong. Thanks.
Post by: richyoung on February 21, 2007, 04:40:55 AM
Quote
I have. With the one exception of the Japanese surgeon who vivisectioned, without anesthetic, the Chinese girl who was carrying his unborn child at the time, I agree with LAK.
Look up Josef Mengele (Auschwitz) and Shiro Ishii (Unit 731).
No need - I am already quite familiar with them - and rank the abomination known as "partial birth abortion", which should be called "sticking scissors in a baby's brain, sucking its brain out, and ripping its body to pieces before its fully out of the birth canal, for no known medical reason", right up there with them. Even worse in a way - neither Megele's nor Ishi's activities were common knowledge nor apporved by the polity of their respective countries - technically, what they both did was against their own countries laws. Such can;t be said about PBA, which makes it worse in my book.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 21, 2007, 04:45:55 AM
Post by: publius on February 21, 2007, 07:06:05 AM
Perhaps you should re-read your original post in this thread, noting the prominence of partial birth abortion in it, and save the sarcasm for an occasion when you aren't wrong. Thanks.
I thought I was clear in the first post and subsequent ones that my interest here is in federal authority, but I'll consider your suggestion.
Now, do you have an opinion on the question of whether the authority of the commerce clause should extend to giving the feds power over partial birth abortion? Or any of the other issues I have mentioned which are currently "covered" by the commerce clause?
Post by: richyoung on February 21, 2007, 08:11:54 AM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 21, 2007, 08:31:40 AM
My opinion, for what its worth, is that a better case for PBA as 'interstate commerce" can be built than for home-grown canabis or ho-made machine guns, as its highly likely that some of the equipment and products used in the proceedure moved interstate. That having been said, this presuposes an almost unlimited police power that clearly is not in the Consitution. Howevere, that is the way the clause is now used. If you want to make a case for Ron Paul being a hypocrite for signing hte bill, you have a (samll) point. Sometimes you really DO have to choose the lesser of two evils.
And the lesser of two evils in this case is to retain the controls on homicide at the state level as there is not one whit of Constitutional support for anything else. To allow one's personal feelings to justify one exception to the limitation's on government is necessarily to allow any exception based on any other person's feelings as well, which is the "nose under the tent" that got us this far already. It's either strict interp or nothing in the end.
Doctor Paul needs to fight this particular battle state by state in the proper venues.
Post by: publius on February 21, 2007, 08:46:07 AM
However, that is the way the clause is now used.
It was not always that way, so change is possible. I think it starts with electing people like Dr. Paul, who can see the need for change in the way we think about federal power. I can't think of another candidate who would say what he did about interstate commerce and partial birth abortions. I wish he had not voted the way he did, because it further entrenches what I view as illegitimate federal power, but I do recognize that sometimes there is no perfect choice in life. I still think Dr. Paul is the best available choice at the moment.
Post by: cordex on February 21, 2007, 09:24:41 AM
My opinion, for what its worth, is that a better case for PBA as 'interstate commerce" can be built than for home-grown canabis or ho-made machine guns, as its highly likely that some of the equipment and products used in the proceedure moved interstate. That having been said, this presuposes an almost unlimited police power that clearly is not in the Consitution. Howevere, that is the way the clause is now used. If you want to make a case for Ron Paul being a hypocrite for signing hte bill, you have a (samll) point. Sometimes you really DO have to choose the lesser of two evils.
What a country!In one thread we've got CAnnoneer the Self-Proclaimed Libertarian saying "Use Big Government to support making BabyMade Band-Aids!" and in another we've got RichYoung the Republican saying "Use the Interstate Commerce Clause to ban abortion!"
I guess in some folks minds the ends will always justify the means.
Post by: richyoung on February 21, 2007, 10:08:03 AM
My opinion, for what its worth, is that a better case for PBA as 'interstate commerce" can be built than for home-grown canabis or ho-made machine guns, as its highly likely that some of the equipment and products used in the proceedure moved interstate. That having been said, this presuposes an almost unlimited police power that clearly is not in the Consitution. Howevere, that is the way the clause is now used. If you want to make a case for Ron Paul being a hypocrite for signing hte bill, you have a (samll) point. Sometimes you really DO have to choose the lesser of two evils.
What a country!In one thread we've got CAnnoneer the Self-Proclaimed Libertarian saying "Use Big Government to support making BabyMade Band-Aids!" and in another we've got RichYoung the Republican saying "Use the Interstate Commerce Clause to ban abortion!"
I guess in some folks minds the ends will always justify the means.
You confuse my reporting the state of affairs as it is with endorsement. I in no way favor the extension of the Commerce Clause into an unlimited police and regulatory authority, regardless of the subject of the particular case or my position on it. I merely understand how someone else could do so, holding their nose. And for the record, I am far more libertarian than republican.
Post by: jnojr on February 21, 2007, 10:18:50 AM
IMO, legislating morality is a very, very bad idea. But it's worse to do so at a Federal level... the Federal government was given very limited powers, and "making exceptions" for "really important issues" wound us up where we are now, with a huge Federal government that consumes more of our wealth and liberty every day.
The question here shouldn't be about abortion, or any other issue... it should be, "How much power do we want the Federal government to have over our lives?" My answer is, none.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 21, 2007, 10:29:01 AM
If "partial birth abortion" is such a horrible evil, then the states can ban it.
How realistic is that, considering Roe v Wade, Doe v Bolton, etc? But as for "legislating morality," we're not talking about dancin' and drinkin' here. The people working to ban this do so because they believe it is a form of murder. And you can't really put that in the same category as outlawing smoking or sodomy.
Post by: richyoung on February 21, 2007, 11:46:39 AM
If "partial birth abortion" is such a horrible evil, then the states can ban it.
This would be true, except for a little Supremem Court decision called 'Roe Vs. Wade", which removed the subject of abortion from the state and federal legislative perview, and invented a "right to privacy", and then stretched that right to cover a very non-private act.
Quote
If a state chooses not to ban it, then you're free to pack up and move in protest.
Again, the states have been told, "don't touch!"
Quote
IMO, legislating morality is a very, very bad idea.
All legislation is "legislating morality"; the question is, who's?
Post by: jnojr on February 21, 2007, 01:13:25 PM
That makes it kinda difficult, when they come back and interfere some more, to tell them, "Hey! I don't agree with you this time! You have not been delegated the power to do this!"
Beware of what you wish for, you might get it, and all that.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 21, 2007, 06:45:25 PM
Quote
In one thread we've got CAnnoneer the Self-Proclaimed Libertarian saying "Use Big Government to support making BabyMade Band-Aids!"
We already covered the lack of contradiction in my stance. Also, calling regenerative medicine "band-aid" and a blastocyst "a baby" seriously undermines your credibility.
Quote
I guess in some folks minds the ends will always justify the means.
You will need to walk us through as to how what I have said obtains the above.
Post by: publius on February 22, 2007, 02:06:21 AM
So, then, you're in favor of the Federal government directly interfering in our lives when you agree with them.
Before any real bickering starts, I'd like to point out that this mischaracterizes what richyoung said:
Quote
I in no way favor the extension of the Commerce Clause into an unlimited police and regulatory authority, regardless of the subject of the particular case or my position on it. I merely understand how someone else could do so, holding their nose.
Post by: richyoung on February 22, 2007, 04:45:57 AM
So, then, you're in favor of the Federal government directly interfering in our lives when you agree with them.
That makes it kinda difficult, when they come back and interfere some more, to tell them, "Hey! I don't agree with you this time! You have not been delegated the power to do this!"
Beware of what you wish for, you might get it, and all that.
That makes it kinda difficult, when they come back and interfere some more, to tell them, "Hey! I don't agree with you this time! You have not been delegated the power to do this!"
Beware of what you wish for, you might get it, and all that.
No - and nowhere have I said so - in fact, I've said the exact opposite. I'm in favor of a FEDERAL government exercising ONLY its limited, delegated powers under the Constitution, and NO MORE. That having been said, even the exercise of those powers will be legislating someone's morality: as will be the zealousness of the enforcement of the same. If youthink there isn't a "morality" involved in things like the Civil Rights Act, Americans With Disabilities Act, Clean Air and Water Acts, Endangered Species Act, etc, etc, etc, then you are quite naive.
Post by: publius on February 22, 2007, 03:28:32 PM
If you want to make a case for Ron Paul being a hypocrite for signing the bill, you have a (small) point. Sometimes you really DO have to choose the lesser of two evils.
I wasn't making that case, it's just obviously the case, as Dr. Paul said himself. He doesn't like how the commerce clause is being used, but was willing to use it in that case. I disapprove, but I also recognize that he is the ONLY candidate who has expressed that kind of dislike for how the commerce clause is being used. That makes him the least of the evils to me.By the way, if you read the original article I linked, the use of the commerce clause is really the less-glaring hypocrisy of the two mentioned by Dr. Paul. But that other one has nothing to do with interstate commerce, and doesn't interest me much.
Post by: tyme on February 23, 2007, 07:22:08 AM
Quote from: fistful
How realistic is that, considering Roe v Wade, Doe v Bolton, etc? But as for "legislating morality," we're not talking about dancin' and drinkin' here. The people working to ban this do so because they believe it is a form of murder. And you can't really put that in the same category as outlawing smoking or sodomy.
And the people who stage destructive but non-violent (well, they try for the most part, and harm to humans is rare) protest against animal experimentation and gas guzzlers (ALF, ELF, etc.) are also concerned with preventing murder -- they see themselves as protecting the life of research animals, on one hand, and the life of the ecosystem (or substantial parts of it) on the other.
It's all a matter of perspective. We all understand the concept of murder, and we pretty much all agree it's bad. We just don't agree how far the concept of "murder" should extend. A human foetus is genetically human and alive, but cannot sustain itself biologically until way past 6 months, notwithstanding the recent 23-week delivery that made headlines. Delivery doesn't mean squat. Babies that premature have to stay hooked up to machines for a long time.
Just because something is "human" and also "alive" doesn't necessarily mean it's person with rights. You can take many types of cells out of a human and grow them in a lab, at least for a while. They're alive and they're human, but toss the petri dish in the garbage and you haven't committed murder, hopefully.
If (I think it's more "when") certain cells from an adult body can be stuck in a suitable environment with the right nutrients and hormones and manage to grow into something resembling a human, will killing one of those cells qualify as murder?
The gruesome description of PB abortion is just an appeal to emotion. If someone doesn't believe the foetus qualifies as a human being with rights, PB abortion is yet another in a long list of medical procedures that's not for the squeamish.
Post by: cordex on February 23, 2007, 08:28:32 AM
Quote from: tyme
A human foetus is genetically human and alive, but cannot sustain itself biologically until way past 6 months, notwithstanding the recent 23-week delivery that made headlines. Delivery doesn't mean squat. Babies that premature have to stay hooked up to machines for a long time.
I'd also note that patients with terminal diseases by definition cannot continue to sustain themselves biologically which does not (and I would say should not) remove them from qualifications for civil rights. Similarly, lack of dependency on machines is not currently a requirement for the application of civil rights. Or is that one of those "once human, always human" things at that point?Are you suggesting by "Delivery doesn't mean squat," that a premature baby which doctors are capable of saving (but would require machine support) could be ethically "aborted" after delivery?
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 23, 2007, 09:31:55 AM
In all sincerity, if you won't read my posts more carefully and take the time to understand what I'm saying, then don't respond. The whole point was that laws against abortion would not be in the category of prohibiting prostitution or other petty vice crimes. This doesn't mean that abortion is wrong, it simply means that the "right to privacy" argument is nonsense.
The rest of your post is the typical imposition of pro-abortion beliefs on others. You're welcome to believe that some humans don't have rights because of your fuzzy, arbitrary beliefs about personhood or "viability," but such beliefs are not acceptable justification to kill them.
Post by: tyme on February 23, 2007, 10:14:28 AM
Quote from: fistful
The whole point was that laws against abortion would not be in the category of prohibiting prostitution or other petty vice crimes.
And my whole point was that, depending on your perspective, abortion can be as petty as the lesser crimes of vandalism, or the non-crime of killing an animal for research. There's no medical purpose to most abortions, that's true, but there's certainly a sociological purpose. These are hardly whimsical decisions, particularly at the stage where a D&E abortion is one of the options.
Quote from: fistful
You're welcome to believe that some humans don't have rights because of your fuzzy, arbitrary beliefs about personhood or "viability," but such beliefs are not acceptable justification to kill them.
No more fuzzy and arbitrary than declaring a 1-day-old embryo a human being with rights. You think some of these issues don't make me uncomfortable? They do. I'd just rather try to work through them than fall back on some arbitrary religion that gives me a pre-made paradigm through which to view the world.
Quote from: Cordex
I'd also note that patients with terminal diseases by definition cannot continue to sustain themselves biologically which does not (and I would say should not) remove them from qualifications for civil rights. Similarly, lack of dependency on machines is not currently a requirement for the application of civil rights.
Terminally ill patients can usually express their wishes. Patients who cannot express themselves, including premature babies, have next of kin make medical decisions. In the case of an extremely premature birth, the obvious medical decision-makers are the parents.
Does an incommunicable patient who might recover have a right to every medical treatment he can afford, even if that supersedes his own previously-expressed wishes or the wishes of his next of kin?
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 23, 2007, 10:37:51 AM
Quote
No more fuzzy and arbitrary than declaring a 1-day-old embryo a human being with rights. You think some of these issues don't make me uncomfortable? They do. I'd just rather try to work through them than fall back on some arbitrary religion that gives me a pre-made paradigm through which to view the world.
Again, you're reading things that I didn't write. I haven't argued on the basis of religion. You are much closer to doing that than I am, with your philosophical distinctions about "personhood." I'm simply asking that the rights of children be applied to all of them, across the board, rather than fall back on your abitrary paradigm.
Nor did I say anything about the age of the embryo. I'm drawing the line at conception because it is the only one available. Unlike the random group of human cells you're growing in the lab over there, the zygote is a complete human individual that can grow into an adult with all the same faculties you have. You may now feel free to explain why it should be legal to kill this individual, but not other young children.
Post by: tyme on February 23, 2007, 11:08:26 AM
Quote
Unlike the random group of human cells you're growing in the lab over there, the zygote is a complete human individual that can grow into an adult with all the same faculties you have.
I'm not going to play your semantic game. A zygote is not an individual. An ovum with the implanted nucleus of a skin cell is effectively the same thing, and I don't consider it to be a human individual either. Do you?
Let's consider artificial insemination so that the events are clearly delineated. The moment someone decides to fertilize an egg, do the egg and sperm become protected just like an embryo is? I don't know the actual protocol for artificial insemination, but suppose WLOG that it's in a petri dish, and the egg is not quite through the process of fertilization. Am I a murderer if I hurl the petri dish out a window? What if the nuclei fuse while it's still 2 stories up? Am I a murder then? What if the embryo survives but is killed when an overworked nurse spills a cup of hot coffee from starbucks on the sidewalk where the dish landed? Who's the murderer now... am I, is the nurse, or is Starbuck's corporate? Perhaps the barrista who served that particular cup of coffee 3 degrees hotter than standard?
Quote
You may now feel free to explain why it should be legal to kill this individual, but not other young children.
What individual?
As long as you're on a mission to ensure that society produces as many babies as possible, even when the parents don't want them, why limit the crusade to already-fertilized embryos? Why not turn women into baby factories?
My apologies for assuming your argument was based on religion. What non-religious basis is there for conferring rights upon a single cell?
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 23, 2007, 11:18:27 AM
Quote
What non-religious basis is there for conferring rights upon a single cell?
What non-religious basis is there for conferring rights upon a single human?
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 23, 2007, 11:19:18 AM
Your definition of a child is just as "arbitrary" as tyme's, and that is exactly what she says.
Also, you have to explain to us why one cell is "more human" than another. At least in principle, we can take any stem cell and with the right type of enzymatic reprogramming produce a fetus. We currently know of no fundamental biological limitations in doing that. Therefore, freshly made stem cells that you make all the time in your bone marrow are all potential "children", so if you cut yourself shaving, you would technically be a murderer (albeit of your own clones) under your view system.
Ultimately, advances in molecular and cellular biology will almost certainly wreak havoc with your current belief system and the anti-abortion camp.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 23, 2007, 11:20:45 AM
Quote
What non-religious basis is there for conferring rights upon a single human?
The expedient of reciprocity and efficient social organization.
Post by: tyme on February 23, 2007, 11:50:14 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 23, 2007, 12:10:36 PM
Your definition of a child is just as "arbitrary" as tyme's, and that is exactly what she says.
How so? My definition of a child is based on biological fact. Tyme's is based on personal points of view about personhood and viability. Neither of you have yet produced a difference between the zygote and the two-year-old that would explain why a mother can kill one and not the other.
Nor have you yet produced a science fiction scenario where I get all flustered and abandon my views. But, since you're convinced you'll get me into a William Jennings Bryan, you keep trying. I'll get to tyme's attempt in a minute, here.
Quote
What non-religious basis is there for conferring rights upon a single human?
The expedient of reciprocity and efficient social organization.
Post by: tyme on February 23, 2007, 12:29:22 PM
Quote
My definition of a child is based on biological fact.
Based on biological fact, I'm dead. It'll just take a while longer for biology to catch up with that reality.
I guess that means I have no rights.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 23, 2007, 12:33:39 PM
Quote
My definition of a child is based on biological fact.
Based on biological fact, I'm dead. It'll just take a while longer for biology to catch up with that reality.
Please explain.
Post by: tyme on February 23, 2007, 12:39:44 PM
So I have no rights.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 23, 2007, 01:24:45 PM
Quote
Unlike the random group of human cells you're growing in the lab over there, the zygote is a complete human individual that can grow into an adult with all the same faculties you have.
I'm not going to play your semantic game. A zygote is not an individual. An ovum with the implanted nucleus of a skin cell is effectively the same thing, and I don't consider it to be a human individual either. Do you?
Let me try and make sure I'm clear about what you're talking about. You're talking about somatic cell nuclear transfer? What some would call cloning? Why would that not be a human individual? Would you consider an adult clone to be a human individual? Why or why not? I certainly would.
Why do you resist the idea that the zygote is an individual? It is a new instance of the species, is it not? Doesn't it already have a unique set of genetic instructions that will give it different fingerprints, blood-type, eye-color, etc? Isn't its individuality already apparent?
Quote
Let's consider artificial insemination so that the events are clearly delineated. The moment someone decides to fertilize an egg, do the egg and sperm become protected just like an embryo is? I don't know the actual protocol for artificial insemination, but suppose WLOG that it's in a petri dish, and the egg is not quite through the process of fertilization. Am I a murderer if I hurl the petri dish out a window? What if the nuclei fuse while it's still 2 stories up? Am I a murder then? What if the embryo survives but is killed when an overworked nurse spills a cup of hot coffee from starbucks on the sidewalk where the dish landed? Who's the murderer now... am I, is the nurse, or is Starbuck's corporate? Perhaps the barrista who served that particular cup of coffee 3 degrees hotter than standard?
Well, if you wanted someone to bring a murder case on the basis of an accidental coffee spill, you could talk to CAnnoneer. 
But if you want to ask an honest question, I regret that I can't put that fine a point on it for you. Complete fertilization would seem like a pretty obvious starting point. Though you and I apparently don't know the details well enough, I'm sure we could find someone that could make things very concrete for us. Can't say the same about personhood or viability. Quote
As long as you're on a mission to ensure that society produces as many babies as possible, even when the parents don't want them, why limit the crusade to already-fertilized embryos? Why not turn women into baby factories?
Do I really need to respond to this? Do you want to talk about this, or do you just enjoy wasting space with nonsense? I'll quote it again, just so we can waste some more bandwidth. Quote
As long as you're on a mission to ensure that society produces as many babies as possible, even when the parents don't want them, why limit the crusade to already-fertilized embryos? Why not turn women into baby factories?
Ooh, look, I can even turn it around on you in an equally silly fashion. Watch.
Quote
As long as you're on a mission to ensure that society murders as many babies as possible, even when the parents don't want to, why limit the crusade to embryos? Why not turn maternity wards into centers for the slaughter of new-borns?
Neat, huh? Post by: tyme on February 23, 2007, 01:39:27 PM
Quote
Let me try and make sure I'm clear about what you're talking about. You're talking about somatic cell nuclear transfer? What some would call cloning? Why would that not be a human individual? Would you consider an adult clone to be a human individual? Why or why not? I certainly would.
Yes. Yes. Because it's an unfertilized egg, just with a different nucleus. Yes.You think the act of replacing the nucleus effectively fertilizes it, confers it with a soul, etc.? I'm just not sure how that works in your belief system.
Quote
Why do you resist the idea that the zygote is an individual? It is a new instance of the species, is it not? Doesn't it already have a unique set of genetic instructions that will give it different fingerprints, blood-type, eye-color, etc? Isn't its individuality already apparent?
Because it's a single cell. It has no brain, no other neurons. Even if it were somehow a single neuron, neurons do nothing alone. It's not capable of thinking, sensing, or doing anything much other than multiplying in the hopes of some day becoming a functional human.What about the initial cell resulting from cloning? That is not new instances of the species, yet you consider it human. So all that about having unique genetics is irrelevant. I'm not sure what you're getting at there.
Quote
Quote
As long as you're on a mission to ensure that society murders as many babies as possible, even when the parents don't want to, why limit the crusade to embryos? Why not turn maternity wards into centers for the slaughter of new-borns?
Post by: publius on February 23, 2007, 04:03:55 PM
Who's the murderer now... am I, is the nurse, or is Starbuck's corporate? Perhaps the barrista who served that particular cup of coffee 3 degrees hotter than standard?
Well, you know, corporate may be in another state, so it could be interstate murder. And if the coffee came from another country, well then...Aw, whatever. No one wants to talk to me about interstate commerce anyway, so have at it, guys.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 23, 2007, 05:27:05 PM
Quote
The expedient of reciprocity and efficient social organization.
And how does that lead to the pro-abortion position?
1) Society has a vested interest in allowing the prevention of the appearance of children that would not be properly cared for and thus would likely later present liabilities of various severity. The drop in crime rates in 1990s correlated with the practice of abortion.
2) Society is better served by refusing to limit the unquestionable rights of an unquestionable member (the woman), than limiting them for the sake of potential rights of a highly-questionable member.
fistful, you cannot win a practicality argument against abortion. Your best bet is to stick to a rights argument.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 23, 2007, 05:28:35 PM
She? I may be socially liberal and cranky, but my gender identity still matches my 23rd chromosome.
My fault. I confused your handle with "thyme" whom I believe to be female based on an older thread.
Post by: publius on February 24, 2007, 01:42:23 AM
1) Society has a vested interest in allowing the prevention of the appearance of children that would not be properly cared for and thus would likely later present liabilities of various severity. The drop in crime rates in 1990s correlated with the practice of abortion.
When you say "society" do you mean the State governments, who were supposed to control "all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State"? Or are we talking about a national interest affecting interstate commerce?
Post by: ilbob on February 24, 2007, 04:46:44 AM
Quote
"Homicide" is a legal issue that is handled quite well in state statutes, with the definitions of "justifiable" and "criminal" varying a bit by state standards and defined by the people of each state. Abortion should never have become a Federal issue, any more than justifiable self-defense or manslaughter should.
AMEN!
The only reason the SCOTUS should have gotten involved is if they decided abortion terminated a human life, and thus states could ban it under the 14th amendment, being as every one has an inherent right to live.
Post by: tyme on February 24, 2007, 05:23:22 AM
CAnnoneer's right, we give ourselves rights as an expedient for social interaction, not because we're inherently any more worthy of rights than ants are.
The entire concept of a single biological organism that lives and dies is flawed. It's all about following the genetic material. Biologically, creatures live on through their offspring. There's a continuous chain of living cells that ties us to our most distant ancestors, whether you believe they're humans or single-celled organisms. The distinction we've created between generations -- the point of conception or the moment of birth -- is artificial.
The only distinction that can be reasonably made on some concrete basis is at the point where an organism exhibits sentience in some way we can observe it. That makes people very uncomfortable, because it means we have to give rights to certain primates and even some other mammals. Most people don't want such limitations on society's treatment of non-humans, so as a result we have to reject that concept. We're stuck with the artificial notion of rights existing only for humans, and starting at either conception or birth.
Post by: publius on February 24, 2007, 06:23:11 AM
We're stuck with the artificial notion of rights existing only for humans, and starting at either conception or birth.
Maybe life begins with your first interstate transaction.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 24, 2007, 11:19:34 AM
Quote
Maybe life begins with your first interstate transaction.
The condoms that daddy didn't use passed through interstate commerce. The "massaging oil" momma used passed through IC as well.
That baby is a ward of the state from second #1.
Post by: LAK on February 24, 2007, 09:58:44 PM
Quote
Sorry, but this is an utterly ridiculous statement. You might want to read up on the details of Soviet GULags, Japanese POW camps, and Nazi concentration camps
Aha; you again.
Done alot of that over the last thirty five years.
A surgeon, a doctor - someone who has (or used to) sworn an oath for the preservation of life - sanctioned by a government that sat in judgement at the Nuerenburg trials pulling a child out of the womb by it's legs, and just prior to it's head leaving the birth canal - scrambling his or her brains with a pair of scissors. Then, while it's body is still convulsing, withdrawn, the umblilical cord severed, and slopped into a bin for disposal - or "research".
Why, instead of "endangering the mother" by exposing her to the risk of getting nicked with those sharp scissors (and maybe some fatal infection - often the greatest risk of any operation) don't these "doctors" pull the "thing" out completely and just "off it" on the slab?
You need your head examining.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 24, 2007, 10:05:01 PM
Quote
Aha; you again. You need your head examining.
Alas, that pretty much sums it up for your habitual contribution.
Post by: LAK on February 24, 2007, 10:22:20 PM
Quote
Extending the commerce clause to provide authority for a federal ban on partial birth abortions, homegrown cannabis plants, homegrown machine guns, guns carried too near to schools, or even toads found only in California seems to me to create a federal government with powers that are far from "few and defined."
Well, there is an issue of the ideological - or more accurately IMO of rationality - at stake here.
Murder already is a crime under federal statute. It is only under the jurisdiction of federal courts however when the alleged crime has taken place on federal territory etc [Please - let's not get into this one here: run a search on TFL using "LAK jurisdiction territorial", read it all, and start another thread if you please]
Even for those that insist that this abomination is a mere "medical procedure", it is somewhat different from growing plants at home or making guns without intent to sell them in commerce across state lines. Any medical practice offered as a service for profit that solicits across state lines in the form of advertizing etc would surely fall under the currently accepted guidelines.
Let me make it clear that I do not agree with this measure of federal control in commerce; but if the legality of any of the current applications of the commerce clause are to be upheld partial birth exterminations must be included. I suppose if they were exterminated for free - a sort of non-profit operation - they could be excluded.
CAnnoneer,
And alas, once again, you read none of it, understood none of it, or have some other interesting mental block around it.
-------------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: publius on February 25, 2007, 01:01:58 AM
Let me make it clear that I do not agree with this measure of federal control in commerce; but if the legality of any of the current applications of the commerce clause are to be upheld partial birth exterminations must be included. I suppose if they were exterminated for free - a sort of non-profit operation - they could be excluded.
Quote
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana.
Post by: tyme on February 25, 2007, 04:08:02 AM
Quote
Why, instead of "endangering the mother" by exposing her to the risk of getting nicked with those sharp scissors (and maybe some fatal infection - often the greatest risk of any operation) don't these "doctors" pull the "thing" out completely and just "off it" on the slab?
Because a variety of other cultural anachronisms (with help from the religious right) have managed to keep it illegal to purposely "off it" once it's out of the would-be mother. That's why.
There's also the matter of avoiding hormone-mediated instinctual bonding if the would-be mother sees the little tyke alive, even for a moment. Anti-abortionists would prefer to prolong the experience, having the would-be mother watch it struggle and fail to stay alive on its own.
Quote from: LAK
...partial birth exterminations...
And criminalization of abortion is a mandate for forced baby-making and represents a pathological disregard for the unsustainability of current population levels and for the socio-economic consequences of unwanted children. It doesn't quite roll off the tongue as nicely as your quip, but oh well.
Post by: publius on February 27, 2007, 01:44:39 AM
And criminalization of abortion is a mandate for forced baby-making and represents a pathological disregard for the unsustainability of current population levels and for the socio-economic consequences of unwanted children. It doesn't quite roll off the tongue as nicely as your quip, but oh well.
I can shorten it.
Criminalization of abortion is another abuse of the commerce clause.
Post by: LAK on February 28, 2007, 12:06:38 AM
"Forced baby-making"?
Other than in cases of actual rape - who are these people actually forced to have sex in this "forced baby-making" process you imply?
The "unsustainability of current population levels" is as bogus as "peak oil".
We have billions of acres of land in this country available for us, and even in countries with heavily populated cities - like India - there are billons of acres of unpopulated land. In fact central asia has enormous areas of unpopulated lands.
What we do have is an obsessive control of land by the ruling oligarchs in various countries. The control of food production and distribution is another issue. There are solutions to these problems not requiring the cold-blooded murder of unborn children.
---------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 28, 2007, 06:15:14 AM
Quote
The "unsustainability of current population levels" is as bogus as "peak oil". We have billions of acres of land in this country available for us, and even in countries with heavily populated cities - like India - there are billons of acres of unpopulated land. In fact central asia has enormous areas of unpopulated lands.
Hehehe. Land in and of itself is not enough - it has to be fertile and robust for agricultural purposes. China has huge land mass but only a small portion of it is suitable for agriculture. The result is that without massive imports of food, they will starve to death.
The ecological robustness (non-fragility) is even more important, because it does not help you to feed a population over a decade maybe and then erosion and over-farming permanently destroy it. For good discussions and examples of ecological fragility, read "Collapse" by Jarred Diamond.
The same book will also give plenty of example how societies outgrew their ecological base and subsequently perished. The Church of Unlimited Expasion has been proven to be wrong many times in history, always with disastrous consequences.
While it is true that many farmers in the US are paid not to work their land, and thus there is still capacity left, it is also true that the amazingly high agricutlural productivity is achieved by mechanization and the use of chemicals. Both of these require oil, so in a severe oil shortage, people will have to revert to less intensive agricutlural modes and thus produce far less food from the same parcel of land. The resulting food shortages will be inevitable.
The final big food resource is the ocean, but fishing industries are highly dependent on fuel, spare parts, lubricants, and refridgeration. So, oil shortages will cripple most of the fishing productivity as well.
Unlimited expansion and rejection of peak oil are incompatible. Peak oil can be beaten or at least significantly postponed only if mankind comes to its senses and minimizes population growth to a bit above replacement rates. Population explosions in Africa have been causing tribal wars forever, the most recent huge massacre being Rwanda. In addition, we have population explosions in South Asia, and to a far lesser extent in Latin America. All of these will produce significant ecological, political, military, and economic problems in this century, repeating Diamond's examples on a far grander scale.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 28, 2007, 07:43:38 AM
Among the non-alarmist scientific and materialistic types that is no more "settled" than the human influence on global warming. Similar to GW, every peak oil estimate thus far has been wrong.
Post by: tyme on February 28, 2007, 08:54:46 AM
Quote from: LAK
Other than in cases of actual rape - who are these people actually forced to have sex in this "forced baby-making" process you imply?
Oh, my mistake. I thought we had all progressed beyond the idea that the only purpose of sex is to have children.
Post by: cordex on February 28, 2007, 10:00:05 AM
Quote from: tyme
Oh, my mistake. I thought we had all progressed beyond the idea that the only purpose of sex is to have children.
Yeah, and into a time where there are literally dozens of options for preventing a pregnancy.However, whether we like it or not, heterosexual intercourse is a biological process that can result in the creation of new human life. Some folks have no problem eliminating that life whenever they feel like it because it isn't a person in their eyes unless and until they decide that they want it to be. Tyme, I'm all for freedom, but some choices come with consequences. Sometimes the consequences can affect us for nine months. Sometimes they can affect us for the rest of our lives. We get to make decisions and we get to live with consequences.
That is reality.
A long time ago I heard a skit (I think it was by Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie) that featured a farmer discussing his opinion about abortion. Whenever I hear debates about abortion, I think of it. I wish I could find it ... it is a very funny skit. One part goes:
Quote
When he was sixteen, the boy said he was going to the big city and weren't nothin' the missus and I could do about it. That is when we decided to have an abortion. The boy fought hard. He shot me three times before I was able to perform the abortion. I know the Lord have it in his heart to forgive me. The way I see it, if they ain't votin', they ain't human.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 28, 2007, 10:42:07 AM
Quote
That pre-supposes peak oil is fact. Among the non-alarmist scientific and materialistic types that is no more "settled" than the human influence on global warming. Similar to GW, every peak oil estimate thus far has been wrong.
I think we need to make a distiction between claims for peak oil location on the time axis, and a more general claim for the existence of peak oil at all, past or future. People play the numbers too much to make a reliable estimate for the former, but I think it is essentially impossible to argue against the latter.
Oil is a finite limited resource. The rate of consumption is increasing while the rate of discovery of new deposits is falling and the energy costs of the extraction of new deposits are increasing. Please explain how the inevitable conclusion is not that at a certain point peak oil will be reached (if not reached already).
As far as climate change goes, the controversy is not if we have one; it is how significant that contribution is compared to volcanic activity and inherent climactic behavior of the planet.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 28, 2007, 10:48:38 AM
Quote
who are these people actually forced to have sex in this "forced baby-making" process you imply?
Yes, the fundamental problem in the world is too much fracking! We should cut down on that because abortion is not an option. You first!
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 28, 2007, 11:06:57 AM
Quote
That pre-supposes peak oil is fact. Among the non-alarmist scientific and materialistic types that is no more "settled" than the human influence on global warming. Similar to GW, every peak oil estimate thus far has been wrong.
I think we need to make a distiction between claims for peak oil location on the time axis, and a more general claim for the existence of peak oil at all, past or future. People play the numbers too much to make a reliable estimate for the former, but I think it is essentially impossible to argue against the latter.
Oil is a finite limited resource. The rate of consumption is increasing while the rate of discovery of new deposits is falling and the energy costs of the extraction of new deposits are increasing. Please explain how the inevitable conclusion is not that at a certain point peak oil will be reached (if not reached already).
As far as climate change goes, the controversy is not if we have one; it is how significant that contribution is compared to volcanic activity and inherent climactic behavior of the planet.
Right, if our contribution is significant to GW we need to change our ways, if it isn't we just need to adapt to the new climate paradigm. No need to panic.
As far as peak oil goes, if the point of no return is 50-100+ years out, there is no reason to particularly care now. By that point a slow change to a more sustainable energy source will have occured. Peak oil will be a meaningless fact. It only matters if it will occur (and then rapidly run out) in the next decade or so, and there's no evidence of that. In the case of energy, it's inevitable that technology will provide a solution as economics demands it. If not, then lifestyle change will occur, again without needing forcing by any political authority.
There's just no evidence of any need to panic or mobilize "public resources" to look for a solution for either "problem". Private enterprise will, as always, save the day.
Burn hydrocarbons to your hearts content, you won't change the inevitable one whit. That's my motto.
Post by: publius on February 28, 2007, 02:54:22 PM
On a more serious note, geologists have noted exhausted oilfields being mysteriously replenished. The oil came from somewhere. Perhaps unknown reservoirs, or perhaps oil is not leftover dinosaur slime, but a natural product which the earth generates.
If this thread were about that subject, instead of the abuse of the commerce clause, I might just dig up some articles about those things.
Post by: tyme on February 28, 2007, 03:58:51 PM
Quote
Yeah, and into a time where there are literally dozens of options for preventing a pregnancy.
None of which are 100%, as I'm sure you know. So you're saying that anyone who has sex must risk the life-altering possibility of being the parent of a child, which is either put up for adoption or raised for 18 years? Wow. That's one way to take the fun out of sex. It's effectively the same as saying sex is only for reproductive purposes.
Quote
However, whether we like it or not, heterosexual intercourse is a biological process that can result in the creation of new human life. Some folks have no problem eliminating that life whenever they feel like it because it isn't a person in their eyes unless and until they decide that they want it to be.
Okay, that's it. I'm starting a pro-life campaign to defend the rights of cancers. Clusters of cancer cells represent human life. They're genetically human, and they're certainly alive. Cancer patients can either choose to coexist with their cancer, or they can choose to have the cancer removed and kept alive in vitro. Purposeful attempts to use medicine to shrink or kill tumors, or failure of cancer patients to provide for the nutritional needs of their cancer once it's removed, shall constitute murder.
Post by: publius on February 28, 2007, 04:19:33 PM
Purposeful attempts to use medicine to shrink or kill tumors, or failure of cancer patients to provide for the nutritional needs of their cancer once it's removed, shall constitute murder.
Yeah, but the real question here is, will such attempts be interstate commerce?
Post by: cosine on February 28, 2007, 05:54:07 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 28, 2007, 06:06:20 PM
Who's up for the heroic yet futile (and fatal) hike to get help?
Post by: LAK on February 28, 2007, 10:24:52 PM
Quote
Hehehe. Land in and of itself is not enough - it has to be fertile and robust for agricultural purposes. China has huge land mass but only a small portion of it is suitable for agriculture. The result is that without massive imports of food, they will starve to death.
Right. And the vast tracts of land in central area, south america, russia etc are suited to a variety of crops and livestock. In Alaska, another area of billions of acres of open land, people grow record size vegetables in small family plots.
Peak oil is a myth. We have plenty of oil, and there is hardly a square mile on planet earth that does not have oil beneath it if one drills deep enough. The Russians have some land wells in operation that are located at depths exceeding 40,000 feet.
Most of this nonsense is around people control, keeping populations servile and dependant by controlling their movement into areas of financial independence and levels of self sufficiency.
------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: LAK on February 28, 2007, 10:39:14 PM
Quote
Oh, my mistake. I thought we had all progressed beyond the idea that the only purpose of sex is to have children.
Progressed? Sex is an element in the process by which we reproduce. Not visa versa. The fact that food tastes good does not change it's purpose, rather it is meant to make nourishment a desireable and pleasurable process. People that eat for the sheer pleasure of eating to the point of vomiting, so that they can just eat more and more are rightfully looked upon as freaks.
So the idea is that "progress" means that in order to be able to just rut like animals "for fun" - we need to be able to exterminate all these troublesome children before they draw their first breath of air and become a "burden"?
------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: publius on March 01, 2007, 01:54:40 AM
So the idea is that "progress" means that in order to be able to just rut like animals "for fun" - we need to be able to exterminate all these troublesome children before they draw their first breath of air and become a "burden"?
Or at least before they can affect interstate commerce.
(starting to think my steering wheel may be broken here...)
Post by: cordex on March 01, 2007, 05:22:01 AM
Quote from: tyme
None of which are 100%, as I'm sure you know. So you're saying that anyone who has sex must risk the life-altering possibility of being the parent of a child, which is either put up for adoption or raised for 18 years? Wow. That's one way to take the fun out of sex. It's effectively the same as saying sex is only for reproductive purposes.
Tyme, it doesn't take the fun out of sex. It puts the responsibility into sex. I know it is great fun, but it isn't just great fun. Anyway, pregnancy isn't the only potential consequence of sex. There are a number of possible outcomes when a man and a woman engage in intercourse and if they aren't ready to deal with those outcomes then they aren't mature enough to start the ball rolling.Quote
Okay, that's it. I'm starting a pro-life campaign to defend the rights of cancers. Clusters of cancer cells represent human life. They're genetically human, and they're certainly alive. Cancer patients can either choose to coexist with their cancer, or they can choose to have the cancer removed and kept alive in vitro. Purposeful attempts to use medicine to shrink or kill tumors, or failure of cancer patients to provide for the nutritional needs of their cancer once it's removed, shall constitute murder.
You try so hard ...Even you can recognize that equating cancerous tumors to unborn children is obviously specious.
Post by: CAnnoneer on March 01, 2007, 06:45:47 AM
Quote
Right. And the vast tracts of land in central area, south america, russia etc are suited to a variety of crops and livestock.
Exactly which areas are you talking about, ones that are not yet under agriculture but are robust enough to sustain it? Maybe you suggest we wipe out the Amazon forest to grow veggies for the out-of-control rabbit-people?
Quote
In Alaska, another area of billions of acres of open land, people grow record size vegetables in small family plots.
Alaskan soil is no good, and you know it. I very much doubt those giant vegetables even exist, and if they do, that they were made without massive chemical use. As explained previously, sustained agriculture is only possible with robust soils, and even then overfarming depletes it unless chemicals are made extensive use of, but those chemicals must be made out of something, namely oil. Besides, even if you do have the chemicals, if the soil is ecologically fragile, it will erode quickly and the land will become worthless. Again, stop shooting off the hip and educate yourself about these issues. J. Diamond is a good place to start.
Your argument about deep drilling does not prove anything other than that there are some deposits that are deeper than usual. In any case, getting to them is far more expensive energetically, and thus the net benefit is shrinking. It is also an established fact that fewer new deposits are being discovered, and the ones that are, are more difficult and costly to extract than the older ones. If there is a lot of oil right under where you sit, why aren't you drilling?
Finally, if you believe that sex has no other role than pleasure and procreation, you must have never been in a healthy mature relationship, and you need further formal education.
Post by: tyme on March 01, 2007, 10:43:54 AM
Quote from: cordex
Tyme, it doesn't take the fun out of sex. It puts the responsibility into sex. ... There are a number of possible outcomes when a man and a woman engage in intercourse and if they aren't ready to deal with those outcomes then they aren't mature enough to start the ball rolling.
You can't instill responsibility into would-be parents by making it illegal to abort the product of their irresponsibility. You want to burden everyone else with the social and economic consequences rather than let the real would-be parents acknowledge that they're not mature enough to raise a child. In fact, you're encouraging them to delude themselves into believing they are mature enough to raise a child. And if you encourage adoption, that just displaces some other child from adoption. There are many more unwanted children than there are adults who want to be parents. No thanks to your philosophy.
Quote from: cordex
Even you can recognize that equating cancerous tumors to unborn children is obviously specious.
Um, no, it's actually not. They're both genetically human. They're both alive. According to pro-lifers, those are the only present requirements for something to get legal protection as a human person.
How can you call anything specious after equating abortion with killing a 16-year-old? There's the small matter that one is self-sufficient, self-aware and able to express his wishes, while the other is not even biologically self-sufficient, not self-aware, and like all uncommunicative patients is subject to the medical will of next-of-kin, even if that means death.
Post by: LAK on March 02, 2007, 12:49:58 AM
Quote
Alaskan soil is no good, and you know it.
I know this; you obviously know little about Alaska. People do grow some amazing vegetables there. Fertilizer is commonly used all over the world, and there are no shortage of natural sources for various types in Alaska.
There's plenty of oil worldwide. Period. Peak oil is a stick to keep people waiting with bated breath for their slavemasters to tell them how little or less their disposable income will be one year or another and blame it on their frontmen running the client states with headscarves.
Quote
Finally, if you believe that sex has no other role than pleasure and procreation, you must have never been in a healthy mature relationship, and you need further formal education.
That is not what I stated. But go on; you have the floor. I am all ears ...
------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: cordex on March 02, 2007, 05:19:06 AM
Quote from: tyme
You can't instill responsibility into would-be parents by making it illegal to abort the product of their irresponsibility.
Can you instill responsibility into parents by making it illegal to kill their toddlers? No? Then why is it illegal?Quote from: tyme
You want to burden everyone else with the social and economic consequences rather than let the real would-be parents acknowledge that they're not mature enough to raise a child. In fact, you're encouraging them to delude themselves into believing they are mature enough to raise a child.
You're completely missing the point. The couple who had sex are the ones who want to burden everyone else with the social and economic consequences of their actions. I personally am simply against the killing of their would-be child.Quote from: tyme
And if you encourage adoption, that just displaces some other child from adoption. There are many more unwanted children than there are adults who want to be parents. No thanks to your philosophy.
That's only partially true. There is a massive ... excuse the term ... market for newborns when it comes to adoption. The "unwanted children" tend to be the older kids who are passed over because parents tend to want infants rather than older children with existing problems. Another infant put up for adoption does not necessarily displace anyone.Quote from: tyme
Um, no, it's actually not. They're both genetically human. They're both alive. According to pro-lifers, those are the only present requirements for something to get legal protection as a human person.
I'm sure you're right. I'm sure that there are some pro-lifers out there who use that definition but it is not mine.Tell me, tyme, what defines a person to you? Under what conditions should a squirming mass of cells be given human rights?
Quote from: tyme
How can you call anything specious after equating abortion with killing a 16-year-old? There's the small matter that one is self-sufficient, self-aware and able to express his wishes, while the other is not even biologically self-sufficient, not self-aware, and like all uncommunicative patients is subject to the medical will of next-of-kin, even if that means death.
*laugh* Tyme, I was sharing a skit that I found amusing. Maybe you just had to hear it. If I can find it I'll share it.
Post by: publius on March 03, 2007, 07:20:13 AM
Quote
Under what conditions should a squirming mass of cells be given human rights?
When it first engages in interstate commerce?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 03, 2007, 09:50:31 AM
Quote
Alaskan soil is no good, and you know it. I very much doubt those giant vegetables even exist, and if they do, that they were made without massive chemical use. As explained previously, sustained agriculture is only possible with robust soils, and even then overfarming depletes it unless chemicals are made extensive use of, but those chemicals must be made out of something, namely oil. Besides, even if you do have the chemicals, if the soil is ecologically fragile, it will erode quickly and the land will become worthless. Again, stop shooting off the hip and educate yourself about these issues. J. Diamond is a good place to start.
Yep, they are a myth.
I would suggest you take your last line to heart, as far as Alaska and agriculture are concerned. (Also, Jared Diamond is not without his peer critics, don't cite him too freely)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matanuska_Valley
The Mat-Su Valley alone, where those monster veggies come from, is about the size of W. Virginia (though, true, not all of it is arable). Agriculture is limited by the shorter growing season, but even with that constraint the soil is some of the richest in the world, demanding little in the way of fertilizers or herbicides. Grows today what is arguably the highest quality pot in the US and some of the largest vegetables anywhere.
The reason we don't have a major agricultural effort up here is timing, need and cost. Prior to the Alaska Purchase, the population was mainly Natives (who were hunter-gatherers) and Russian fur traders (who weren't farmers), the mix stayed the same for years after "Seward's Folly". During the Depression 200-odd farmer familys were moved up to the Valley and started successful farms, dairys and ranches. But still the market was pretty much just subsistance, given the cost of shipping out of state. Even when the population grew during and after WWII it has been cheaper to import food from the Lower 48, so much of the nice, flat farmland is now being used for housing development.
But that has nothing to do with the production capacity of the Valley alone, which has never been close to fully utilized, much less pushed to the limit. And that's just the Valley, which ignores other arable portions of the State. As far as SHTF scenarios, the underlying soil of Mat-Su is still fantastic and could be returned to production just by bulldozing houses.
Post by: tyme on March 03, 2007, 09:52:01 AM
Quote from: cordex
That's only partially true. There is a massive ... excuse the term ... market for newborns when it comes to adoption. The "unwanted children" tend to be the older kids who are passed over because parents tend to want infants rather than older children with existing problems. Another infant put up for adoption does not necessarily displace anyone.
What I found in my brief search was that unwanted black babies are plentiful in the U.S., but white babies tend to be adopted from Europe and sovblock states. Maybe there are too many of both, and families just prefer foreign-born infants to U.S.-born infants. Maybe I was wrong about the global adoption situation, but I'm not sure the situation is as simple as you describe, either. If people are selecting infants based on race, maybe the abortion/no-abortion policy decision would best be made on a per-race basis? And because of the ethical problems I can already envision with that proposal, and the fact that the world population is growing unacceptably, doesn't it make sense to minimize the number of delivered babies? Nobody has a right to adoption, even if there is more demand than supply.
Quote from: cordex
I'm sure that there are some pro-lifers out there who use that definition but it is not mine.
Tell me, tyme, what defines a person to you? Under what conditions should a squirming mass of cells be given human rights?
Tell me, tyme, what defines a person to you? Under what conditions should a squirming mass of cells be given human rights?
You realize, I hope, that most animals are "squirming" masses of cells at some point? You can't seriously want to give human rights to them all? It seems to me that you want some magical nexus between "squirming" and human DNA to magically confer protected legal status as a human being. Human DNA doesn't make anything special. Given enough money, humans can now construct arbitrary DNA sequences. Constructing something as long as a human chromosome is probably still virtually impossible, but I doubt it will remain impossible for long. And what about hybrids... humans with some genes removed and some other genes inserted? Are they genetically human? Where do you draw the line?
These following conditions are rough, so please consider the intent as well as the literal meaning. I think it's reasonable to grant infants legal status as humans when:
They exhibit the capacity for problem-solving at a level above that of other primates.
They exhibit the capacity for communication and social-interaction. (This is severely problematic because some primates exhibit this as well, but this is artificially "fixed" by the other two criteria.)
They must be genetically human. Whether this means people with severe genetic mutations, but with human parents, are not humans is open to interpretation. Or this could be re-written as "must have human parents," although then we have the problem of whether a human-equivalent evolved from some other species gets any legal rights.
Those criteria let infants become legal persons by their own merit at roughly age 2-3.
Legal status as human starting at birth is problematic. I wrote a longer screed about it earlier, but decided I didn't want to get involved in such a divisive discussion. But you asked, so...
Parents (and infants) exhibit biochemically-induced psychological bonding with their children (and parents) in a short time after birth. Legal protection for newborns is therefore justified to reduce 3rd-party harm to newborns, which has serious emotional and psychological consequences for the parents. There's also the social problem that parents tend to have an overwhelming urge to seek their own extra-legal justice when something happens to their children. By discouraging harm to infants who do not yet merit human rights on their own, the law can reduce instances of parental extra-legal justice for harms done to those infants.
Even relatives, neighbors, and friends bond with newborns of families in their social circles. They also have an interest in reducing harm to others' newborns, to prevent their own physiological distress.
I think the line should be drawn at whenever a child advances mentally past the abilities of primates. That idea that 3rd party harm is enough to justify prohibiting murder is very sketchy, and I'm sure it has some problems. Nevertheless, I think the core idea is solid. It's easier for everyone to draw the line at birth because everyone, myself included, feels instinctual revulsion at the idea of killing a breathing, crying human baby, even if it's 1 day old. So it makes sense that laws against murder, beginning at birth, are more to give us an outlet to do something about our revulsion over the killing, rather than to punish someone on behalf of a self-aware individual who can no longer seek revenge on his own.
Quote from: cordex
Quote from: tyme
You can't instill responsibility into would-be parents by making it illegal to abort the product of their irresponsibility.
Can you instill responsibility into parents by making it illegal to kill their toddlers? No? Then why is it illegal?Because they should have aborted the toddler earlier. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and there are reasons (outlined above) for drawing that line at birth.
Quote
You're completely missing the point. The couple who had sex are the ones who want to burden everyone else with the social and economic consequences of their actions. I personally am simply against the killing of their would-be child.
What consequences are those? There are only the moral and psychological consequences for those who decide to take upon themselves everyone else's problems, and as a result are traumatized when some other family decides to have an abortion.
Post by: cordex on March 04, 2007, 07:00:50 AM
Quote from: tyme
I think the line should be drawn at whenever a child advances mentally past the abilities of primates.
Ah ... I see. So you're intellectually comfortable with a system that - on a case-by-case basis, I would hope - allows for the termination of voided human embryos (I wouldn't want to use emotionally-charged language like "child", "infant", "baby", "newborn", etc) until and unless they are shown to possess reasoning capabilities at or beyond the level of primates? I can only assume you chose primates because you think that primate intelligence can be better compared to human intelligence than that of other reasonably smart critters.At what stage of primate development are we talking? Obviously you don't seek to compare a freshly extracted human DNA blob with its counterpart primate DNA blob. Are we talking fully mature primates? Presumably some sort of average? If a primate (or other critter, for that matter) is smarter than this average, why shouldn't they be given human rights?
Quote from: tyme
What consequences are those? There are only the moral and psychological consequences for those who decide to take upon themselves everyone else's problems, and as a result are traumatized when some other family decides to have an abortion.
This is no more the case with regard to abortion than with any other termination of human life. When it comes to one member of a society killing another member, folks get meddlesome.Your position is a little more ... interesting ... than many I've spoken with. You're the first who has argued to me that for a human to be given human rights and protections they must be able to beat a chimpanzee at chess, but I'm always willing to hear new ideas.
We are each coming to the table with our own preconceived notions as to what makes a human a human. I have the belief that a fertilized and implanted egg, having the combined human DNA of two human parents and the capacity to grow into a human child somehow through some hocus-pocus grants it the protection of human rights. You believe that human rights should be issued based entirely on some completely arbitrary and nearly impossible to measure scale of intelligence as compared to primates.
I dont know & your system does have some other interesting possible side-effects. It would add a defense against murder in which the accused could express the belief that the victim was acting dumber than an ape, thus the victim had no protection under the law. This bears more consideration &
Post by: CAnnoneer on March 04, 2007, 09:41:35 AM
Post by: LAK on March 04, 2007, 11:14:03 AM
So there is a race of tiny irish peoples in Alaska! I knew it! I knew it was true!!