Is A Partial Birth Abortion Interstate Commerce?

[CAnnoneer]

fistful,

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.

[CAnnoneer]

What non-religious basis is there for conferring rights upon a single human?

The expedient of reciprocity and efficient social organization.

[tyme]

She?  I may be socially liberal and cranky, but my gender identity still matches my 23rd chromosome. 

[Perd Hapley]

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.

What non-religious basis is there for conferring rights upon a single human?

The expedient of reciprocity and efficient social organization.

And how does that lead to the pro-abortion position? 

[tyme]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[tyme]

I don't have rights when I'm dead, do I?  In the absence of some incredible medical breakthrough, I'm going to die, right?  If a single cell is a human because it'll become one eventually, I must be dead because I'll be dead eventually.

So I have no rights.

[Perd Hapley]

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? 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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? 

[tyme]

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.

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.

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?

Not neat.  Just like prohibiting abortion, both your and my hyperbole violate the wishes of the guardian(s) and medical decision-maker(s).

[publius]

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.

[CAnnoneer]

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.

[CAnnoneer]

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.

[publius]

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?

[ilbob]

"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.

[tyme]

You might as well give all organisms rights, because eventually, through reproduction, they could become sentient and communicative in the sense that humans are sentient and communicative.  There's a biological basis for considering them worthy of rights, because they could evolve into creatures with our sentience and ability to communicate.

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.

[publius]

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.

[Matthew Carberry]

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. 

[LAK]

CAnnoneer

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.

[CAnnoneer]

Aha; you again. You need your head examining.

Alas, that pretty much sums it up for your habitual contribution.

[LAK]

Publius

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

[publius]

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.

Actions undertaken for free are not exempt. See Raich.

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.

[tyme]

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.

...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.

[publius]

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.

[LAK]

Tyme,

"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

[CAnnoneer]

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.