LOL... Virginia Governor Northam had a Train Wreck Week

[Peter]

On 2/12/2019 at 6:34 PM, Brant Gaede said:

The only thing you have said about pantheism in all those words is It's monism. And what is that?

For me it's very simple: reality generally and in every particular is God.

---Brant

to be respected, not worshipped, but if you want worship so right ahead

atheism is an ugly word which excludes people who aren't while pantheism draws them in but rips them off their irrational foundation

You are correct that "atheism" is a derogatory term to the majority of the world, but to me pantheism connotes a certain amount of "flakiness." On the upside I think fewer and fewer people use their religion to harm or coerce other people though 10 percent of Muslims agree with terroristic acts if I remember correctly, that are committed by a sliver of a percent of Muslims. 

[Jon Letendre]

On 2/3/2019 at 5:53 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Rudy sees what I see in Northam's words.

Even more than slaughter, I like the term "cold blooded murder."

Because, after trimming away all the rationalizations, that's exactly what it is once the baby is born and breathing.

Michael

 

"By a vote of 53-44, the Senate has failed to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would have required doctors to provide medical care to infants born alive after an attempted abortion procedure. The bill — sponsored by Senator Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) and cosponsored by 49 of his fellow Republican senators — needed 60 votes to overcome the legislative filibuster.

Just three Democratic senators crossed the aisle to vote with Republicans in favor of the legislation: Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), and Doug Jones (Ala.).

All six of the Democratic senators currently running for the 2020 presidential nomination voted against the bill: Cory Booker (N.J.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kamala Harris (Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), along with Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont."

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/born-alive-bill-fails-to-pass-senate-vote/

 

[Jon Letendre]

POTUS Evaluating Legal Options (Executive Order)

2897

Q!!mG7VJxZNCI25 Feb 2019 - 7:26:19 PM

Anonymous25 Feb 2019 - 7:03:26 PM

perfect.jpg

>>5385001 LAST BREAD


If a baby is born alive, doesn't he/she have AUTOMATIC entitlement as a human being to life saving measures?


If a baby is born alive, isn't it MURDER to kill him/her?

Why was this bill ever needed? Don't drs take the Hippocratic oath to save lives?

>>5385640
POTUS is currently evaluating legal options re: EO.
Watch the news.
How can anyone support such EVIL?
Q

 

https://qmap.pub

EO = Executive Order

[Peter]

Roger nails the philosophical / political ramifications of late term abortions. Peter

From: RogerEBissell To: Atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Individual Freedom Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:22:27 EST. Yet another vicious lie from Ellen Moore, who writes: >Roger Bissell once again claimed to defend what he calls "natural rights" but he is an anti-abortionist.  He is not a defender of individual rights

Ellen Moore knows ~very well~ that I favor keeping the ~vast~ majority of abortions safe and legal, and that I want to outlaw ~only~ those abortions of third-trimester fetuses that are normal and not threatening the life of the mother. This is a ~miniscule~ fraction of the total number of abortions. Yet, she persists in calling me an "anti-abortionist." That's like calling me anti-cinema, because I want to make "snuff films" illegal; or anti-sports, because I want to make "human hunting" or "death boxing" illegal. The analogies are not far-fetched -- except, of course, to those who are intransigently in denial about the basic developmental and behavioral and cognitive similarity of third-trimester fetuses to newborn babies. But then, that's exactly the problem with Ellen Moore's unending attempts to prevent recognition of the right to life of late-term fetuses, and with her unjust accusation that I am not a ~defender~ of rights.

The basic fact about human beings relevant to rights is their having a rational faculty. When do they have it? Bill Dwyer says not until they engage in reasoning. I say as soon as they begin perceiving, for perceiving, for humans, is the beginning of reasoning. Bill does not want to argue for some kind of weeding out or evaluative process of deciding what person does or does not have the ability to reason conceptually, so instead he uses the arbitrary "bright line" of birth, which cuts off fetuses every bit as capable or more so than some live babies. Thus, he is suggesting that the latter have rights and the former don't, which I strenuously disagree with. I also disagree strenuously with his other arguments about whether a fetus is a "part" of the mother's body ~even when~ it has a distinct center of consciousness, which is building up a store of perceptual experiences that will be incorporated later into concepts and propositions, etc. His whole understanding of the physical and biological relationship between a fetus and its mother seems ill-informed. One reductio, at least, is the odd conclusion that a pregnant mother has a body part that has its own brain and is accumulating perceptual experiences that the mother has no direct knowledge of. Talk about being alienated from the evidence of "your" senses! Like I said, it's absurd. I'm hoping that Bill will rethink his position and spare himself further embarrassment.

Now, I know that my own criterion, perception's onset, is not an easy thing to apply, but it ~is~ based on an observable attribute of the fetus, namely, its structurally and functionally possessing a rational faculty. This happens more or less around the 26^th week of pregnancy. You've all heard me argue the evidence, both in terms of capabilities of preemies and in terms of the EEG measurements of preemies and fetuses. This should no longer be any more controversial than the fact that newborn babies already are visually perceiving entities and not just the Jamesian "bloomin', buzzin'" confusion of sensations, as Rand thought back in the 1960s. Yet, many Objectivists are strangely resistant to incorporating this information into their thinking about human nature and rights, and they prefer to sweep it all under the rug and instead insist on the fully developed rational faculty or nothing -- then, inconsistently, to extend legal protection on down to newborns who could not conceivably be reasoning conceptually, and even more inconsistently ~deny~ that same protection to fetuses who are as or more capable cognitively. <sigh>

My own proposal for implementing the perception criterion is to use the lower bound of EEG readings that show preemies or fetuses to have brain waves and perceptual ability that is essentially similar to that of newborns and adult humans, and essentially dissimilar to first-and-second-trimester fetuses.

Then, add 4 weeks buffer (since women can be a month off in calculating the beginning of pregnancy and thus the age of their fetus) and set that as the latest date to allow abortion. E.g., if the buffer date would be 26 weeks minus 4 weeks, or 22 weeks, then a woman who is 24 weeks pregnant could ~not~ automatically get an abortion. She would have to rebut the "margin of error" presumption by having EEG measurements to detect whether her fetus was in fact well enough developed to have crossed the threshold of perception (and thus the onset of functioning of its rational faculty). If the EEG readings came up blank, then she could go ahead. And naturally, if she wanted an abortion at any later point, and could show that the fetus was brain dead or that her own health was at grave risk, then she could have an abortion.

Sure, there is a more sophisticated process here than we have seen applied in some cases of rights controversies, and it involves more "red tape" and meeting of legal standards for carrying out an abortion. But the whole point is to ~establish~ an ~objective criterion~ ("bright line") that can be used as the ~rebuttable presumption~ for a woman's freedom to get an abortion. That criterion/line is how I propose that the law determine the status of any given fetus's rights when they are at issue. I want all women to have the unclouded freedom to obtain an abortion during the period in which there is no question that their zygote, embryo, or fetus has a functioning rational faculty -- and the obligation to live up to their own ~chosen~ legal responsibility toward the helpless rational being she has created by ~voluntarily allowing~ it to develop into the third trimester and thus become essentially similar to newborn babies in cognitive and behavioral capabilities.

The specter of imprisoning women and forcing them to bear their unwanted babies has some people very upset. Well, I'll tell you: it doesn't upset me any more than imprisoning people who attempt to physically maim or kill their children. Such parents need to be restrained until the children can be removed to safety. And so does a pregnant woman who attempts to abort her late-term fetus that is healthy and not a real threat to her own survival. (Needless to say, I am 100% opposed to any such actions being taken against the vast majority of pregnant women; those seeking abortions during the first two trimesters of pregnancy, would in no way be threatened by such a legal measure.)

So, can we stick to my ~stated views~ and bash ~them~ around for a change? Thanks!  Best to all, Roger Bissell

[Jon Letendre]

33 minutes ago, Peter said:

Roger nails the philosophical / political ramifications of late term abortions. Peter

 

From: RogerEBissell To: Atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Individual Freedom Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:22:27 EST. Yet another vicious lie from Ellen Moore, who writes: >Roger Bissell once again claimed to defend what he calls "natural rights" but he is an anti-abortionist.  He is not a defender of individual rights

 

Ellen Moore knows ~very well~ that I favor keeping the ~vast~ majority of abortions safe and legal, and that I want to outlaw ~only~ those abortions of third-trimester fetuses that are normal and not threatening the life of the mother. This is a ~miniscule~ fraction of the total number of abortions. Yet, she persists in calling me an "anti-abortionist." That's like calling me anti-cinema, because I want to make "snuff films" illegal; or anti-sports, because I want to make "human hunting" or "death boxing" illegal. The analogies are not far-fetched -- except, of course, to those who are intransigently in denial about the basic developmental and behavioral and cognitive similarity of third-trimester fetuses to newborn babies. But then, that's exactly the problem with Ellen Moore's unending attempts to prevent recognition of the right to life of late-term fetuses, and with her unjust accusation that I am not a ~defender~ of rights.

 

The basic fact about human beings relevant to rights is their having a rational faculty. When do they have it? Bill Dwyer says not until they engage in reasoning. I say as soon as they begin perceiving, for perceiving, for humans, is the beginning of reasoning. Bill does not want to argue for some kind of weeding out or evaluative process of deciding what person does or does not have the ability to reason conceptually, so instead he uses the arbitrary "bright line" of birth, which cuts off fetuses every bit as capable or more so than some live babies. Thus, he is suggesting that the latter have rights and the former don't, which I strenuously disagree with. I also disagree strenuously with his other arguments about whether a fetus is a "part" of the mother's body ~even when~ it has a distinct center of consciousness, which is building up a store of perceptual experiences that will be incorporated later into concepts and propositions, etc. His whole understanding of the physical and biological relationship between a fetus and its mother seems ill-informed. One reductio, at least, is the odd conclusion that a pregnant mother has a body part that has its own brain and is accumulating perceptual experiences that the mother has no direct knowledge of. Talk about being alienated from the evidence of "your" senses! Like I said, it's absurd. I'm hoping that Bill will rethink his position and spare himself further embarrassment.

 

Now, I know that my own criterion, perception's onset, is not an easy thing to apply, but it ~is~ based on an observable attribute of the fetus, namely, its structurally and functionally possessing a rational faculty. This happens more or less around the 26^th week of pregnancy. You've all heard me argue the evidence, both in terms of capabilities of preemies and in terms of the EEG measurements of preemies and fetuses. This should no longer be any more controversial than the fact that newborn babies already are visually perceiving entities and not just the Jamesian "bloomin', buzzin'" confusion of sensations, as Rand thought back in the 1960s. Yet, many Objectivists are strangely resistant to incorporating this information into their thinking about human nature and rights, and they prefer to sweep it all under the rug and instead insist on the fully developed rational faculty or nothing -- then, inconsistently, to extend legal protection on down to newborns who could not conceivably be reasoning conceptually, and even more inconsistently ~deny~ that same protection to fetuses who are as or more capable cognitively. <sigh>

 

My own proposal for implementing the perception criterion is to use the lower bound of EEG readings that show preemies or fetuses to have brain waves and perceptual ability that is essentially similar to that of newborns and adult humans, and essentially dissimilar to first-and-second-trimester fetuses.

 

Then, add 4 weeks buffer (since women can be a month off in calculating the beginning of pregnancy and thus the age of their fetus) and set that as the latest date to allow abortion. E.g., if the buffer date would be 26 weeks minus 4 weeks, or 22 weeks, then a woman who is 24 weeks pregnant could ~not~ automatically get an abortion. She would have to rebut the "margin of error" presumption by having EEG measurements to detect whether her fetus was in fact well enough developed to have crossed the threshold of perception (and thus the onset of functioning of its rational faculty). If the EEG readings came up blank, then she could go ahead. And naturally, if she wanted an abortion at any later point, and could show that the fetus was brain dead or that her own health was at grave risk, then she could have an abortion.

 

Sure, there is a more sophisticated process here than we have seen applied in some cases of rights controversies, and it involves more "red tape" and meeting of legal standards for carrying out an abortion. But the whole point is to ~establish~ an ~objective criterion~ ("bright line") that can be used as the ~rebuttable presumption~ for a woman's freedom to get an abortion. That criterion/line is how I propose that the law determine the status of any given fetus's rights when they are at issue. I want all women to have the unclouded freedom to obtain an abortion during the period in which there is no question that their zygote, embryo, or fetus has a functioning rational faculty -- and the obligation to live up to their own ~chosen~ legal responsibility toward the helpless rational being she has created by ~voluntarily allowing~ it to develop into the third trimester and thus become essentially similar to newborn babies in cognitive and behavioral capabilities.

 

The specter of imprisoning women and forcing them to bear their unwanted babies has some people very upset. Well, I'll tell you: it doesn't upset me any more than imprisoning people who attempt to physically maim or kill their children. Such parents need to be restrained until the children can be removed to safety. And so does a pregnant woman who attempts to abort her late-term fetus that is healthy and not a real threat to her own survival. (Needless to say, I am 100% opposed to any such actions being taken against the vast majority of pregnant women; those seeking abortions during the first two trimesters of pregnancy, would in no way be threatened by such a legal measure.)

 

So, can we stick to my ~stated views~ and bash ~them~ around for a change? Thanks!  Best to all, Roger Bissell

I like a lot of those thoughts from Roger. I too have discussed the issue with Bill Dwyer, maybe five years later. Sounds like Bill's view was about the same. Like Roger, I can't go with Bill's "bright line" of birth at all.

Roger's and my dates may line up coincidentally, but I arrive at it differently — not neural development or neural actions, but physical competence as an individual biological entity. Meaning, if it fell out right now and didn't even need any special treatment to live, then it is a rights-bearing person, engaged in "a process of self-sustaining action." From clinical data we know about when that is. If mom really wants her out right now, well we can talk about getting her out, she just can't kill her on her way out.

Today the Senate failed to pass a bill that would protect viable babies from slaughter, who are already born! On the grounds that if that's what the mother wants, then ... 

[Jon Letendre]

James Woods

 

[Peter]

13 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

James Woods

 

James woods should have said "these people should hang." Even if the moral code of the country shifts to favoring the death penalty for heinous crimes, we are decades away from anything on the federal level and perhaps even on the state level. Here is a weird thought. Try and execute evil murderers on the county or city level. Of course America might start to seem as bad as an Islamic state, so forget about it and stick to life in prison with no chance of parole. If you state something will happen or it is destiny, you need to have scientific proof.  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 2/27/2019 at 2:11 PM, Peter said:

James woods should have said "these people should hang."

Peter,

I saw an article the other day by a dude saying he is so pleased that his wife can now perform an abortion to get rid of a gay child when so detected by genetics.

I think it was tongue-in-cheek, but it shows some hilarious unintended consequences of being too fanatical.

I wonder if there is a Democratic Party gene. After all, these people keep trying to show "scientific" studies about the genetic differences between conservatives and liberals.

If we can get to that point, the Dems won't even have to hang. We will be able to abort them in the womb before they can do any harm to the world...

 

(And make no mistake about it, when push comes to shove, the Dems will not have to power to do that to Repubs. When you look at an electoral map of the USA, it's mostly red. Everywhere. Guess which side has the most guns?  )

Michael

[Peter]

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Peter,

I saw an article the other day by a dude saying he is so pleased that his wife can now perform an abortion to get rid of a gay child when so detected by genetics.

I think it was tongue-in-cheek, but it shows some hilarious unintended consequences of being too fanatical.

I wonder if there is a Democratic Party gene. After all, these people keep trying to show "scientific" studies about the genetic differences between conservatives and liberals.

If we can get to that point, the Dems won't even have to hang. We will be able to abort them in the womb before they can do any harm to the world...

 

(And make no mistake about it, when push comes to shove, the Dems will not have to power to do that to Repubs. When you look at an electoral map of the USA, it's mostly red. Everywhere. Guess which side has the most guns?  )

Michael

Push comes to shove? Call the Midwife!  Is it time to start watching the  Rasmussen Polls and Real Clear Politics? 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. Yeah. November of 2019 will be one year away from the election. There has been no shift in Trump supporters but I always worry about the independent and undecided voters in a national election. The "off year loss" of 2018 would be an ominous omen in Roman times and it did give a teeny bit of leverage to Pelosi.  

[william.scherk]

On 2/3/2019 at 3:23 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Abortion needs to be dealt with in the legislative branches, not legislated from the judiciary.

The Alabama abortion bill contains some hair-raising provisions ... 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

The Alabama abortion bill contains some hair-raising provisions ... 

William,

This is the danger of legislating from the court, even the Supreme Court.

Roe vs. Wade is a legal abomination. 

Abortion aficionados would be well advised to spend some quality time learning how law is made in the USA. Then do that instead of trying to cheat all the time.

For the understanding challenged, this means pass a bill in both chambers of Congress and have the President sign it into law. Obama had this in his hands and could have done it with the snap of a finger, but he and his people were too arrogant to even consider it.

The result?

I guess abortion aficionados will have to develop a taste for hoisted hair. Either that or stage a coup, install a dictatorship and change the nature of the US government.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 5/11/2019 at 2:08 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This is the danger of legislating from the court, even the Supreme Court.

Roe vs. Wade is a legal abomination. 

And the Alabama anti-abortion law passed Alabamian Congress, both houses.

If signed by the governor, even doctors who perform abortions in Alabama go to jail.

Now watch the left and the establishment cronies keep doing stupid shit to cheat and mock instead of making an actual case at law-making time when the lawsuits start. And watch them keep trying to legislate from the bench. Or keep beating the mantra: Orange Man Bad.

Jeff Sessions is back in Alabama. I wonder if his finger is in this. Also, lots of people are pissed about what the establishment did and tried to do to Judge Roy Moore. The anti-Moore people don't get it that Alabamians felt under attack.

I get the feeling that this abortion thing was Alabamians going into "well fuck it then" mode. Nobody takes them seriously and the media always turns Alabamian culture into a caricature (dumbass fatass Southern white trash). So Alabama came together and said enough. Let's start with this abortion thing, shall we? Go on and keep laughing. Har-dee-har-har. 

What? It's not funny?

The old phrase comes to mind, "Can you hear me now?"

Michael

[william.scherk]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

On 5/11/2019 at 12:08 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Roe vs. Wade is a legal abomination. 

And the Alabama anti-abortion law passed Alabamian Congress, both houses.

If signed by the governor, even doctors who perform abortions in Alabama go to jail.

Now watch the left and the establishment cronies keep doing stupid shit to cheat and mock instead of making an actual case at law-making time when the lawsuits start. And watch them keep trying to legislate from the bench. Or keep beating the mantra: Orange Man Bad.

 

https://www.bamapolitics.com/alabama/bills/2019rs/hb/hb-314/

"What would Ayn Rand say?"

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by william.scherk
Added link to text of Alabama HB314

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

31 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

"What would Ayn Rand say?"

William,

Maybe that they are evil? Unspeakable? Immoral? And so on?

Then nothing, of course, would happen.

Just like mocking these people, pretending they don't exist, and showing up only during election-time to cheat them into candidates and positions that they don't really support will not change their minds.

Let's turn this around. What do you say? Do you complain? I know you don't respect these people. Do you expect respect from them? How? Why? Just because?

Or is just cheating and coercing them--when you (or people who agree with your ideas) can get away with it--enough for you? After all, they are subhumans in your view, right?

Here's some practical advice. If you ever need an abortion one day, don't try to get it in Alabama.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Besides, how loony do people have to be to think they can give standing ovations for "post birth abortions" without a backlash?

Michael

[anthony]

7 hours ago, william.scherk said:

"What would Ayn Rand say?"

'Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives.[...]" The Ayn Rand Letter

AR said: To equate a potential with an actual is vicious. The essential issue concerns only the first three months. One may argue about the later stages. 

So when does an actual become "actual"?

(I think) viability is the new birth.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

(Quoting Rand):

Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term.

Tony,

These words are not Rand's finest moment. I'm not even thinking about the pro or against abortion stance. Just cognitively.

1. Whenever I hear someone tell me not to think, I start thinking--immediately and without any doubt that thinking is exactly what I should do at that moment. Rand said "never mind the vicious nonsense." Oh, but I will engage my mind. Especially since she did not present anything that looked vicious to me, nor anything that looked like nonsense. Just calling a different argument nonsense does not make it so. See the next point.

2. She also said, "a piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term." An embryo has "no life" "in the human sense of the term"? Really? What species does it belong to then? Canine? Feline? That is what sounds nonsensical to me.

Pretending that a human embryo is not human is a proposition lots of people make, but the reality is that human embryos are human. They are living so, yes, they are human life. They will not and cannot grow into a different species. Using the rhetorical device of switching to a neutral term like protoplasm does not eliminate that reality. All it does is hide reality. Elsewhere, Rand called this form of thinking "evasion" and "blanking out."

I'm not trying to put her down. But I won't jump off an epistemological cliff just because she felt guilty about--or didn't want to confront the reality of--her own abortion, either.

Michael

[william.scherk]

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

https://www.bamapolitics.com/alabama/bills/2019rs/hb/hb-314/

"What would Ayn Rand say?"

Yikes.

I'd be less yikesy in the face of pertinent comments from the OL Ladies Club.

[anthony]

Michael, 

Quite simply, we don't agree. I always speak only on what I've experienced and thought about, and it so happens I find Rand's words, as far as she goes on the matter, correct, not because Rand said-so. So I agree too with Roger Bissell's earlier analysis, which I'd like to have had on hand during an abortion argument I've just been in, and came to very similar conclusions as he (while not as well articulated). Quite ironically, I argued the opposite end from this. I came out vehemently against the touted "late-term/full-term" abortion - by an amoral politician - which I think is morally abhorrent. (It's my hope this furor helps scupper the Democrats).

Above everything, the human cost would weigh heavily on a "potential" mother (not forgetting a father, and anyone else involved) - one can only imagine what any woman, not intensely looking forward to having and raising her child goes through by being pressured against her will, to carry one to birth--and, who knows, maybe committed to its care, long after.  Perhaps she'd have a conflicting, resentful emotion like having an invader or parasite in your body, but one you think-feel you 'ought to' value and can't. Additionally, one can appreciate how her life will be turned upside down for the duration.Skipping much besides, and from only practical considerations, a law against all abortions in society could produce a surfeit of infants, likely exceeding the number of willing adopters, and then Social Welfare would step in to take over the rearing of orphans... nobody wants that. Then, logically, abortion would be driven underground, back-street - etc. to further human costs. I am sure all this - and sacrifice - was on Rand's mind, and my estimate is that her abortion didn't sway her, subjectively.

Abortion - before third trimester, approx. when vital brain activity becomes measurable - must remain a woman's option, ethically and individual rights-wise, I think. I am not going at present into what is human life.  ;)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

I am not going at present into what is human life.

Tony,

And there is our problem of communication. That's the only thing I have been talking about at root.

Rand talked about it and determined that a fetus is not human life. She didn't give any reasons. She merely did argument from intimidation.

Michael

[Peter]

5 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

And there is our problem of communication. That's the only thing I have been talking about at root.

Rand talked about it and determined that a fetus is not human life. She didn't give any reasons. She merely did argument from intimidation.

Michael

Well thought and expressed Tony and Michael. For the record, this is not for youse guys, but I just want to express my previously held position on the issue of abortion. For legal and Constitutional reasons I would not classify an unthinking embryo as a person or a citizen. The consequences of endowing a “conceived, one second old embryo” with rights would mean that if harm were done to the mother then legally there would be harm done to two “people” or four people if the mother were having triplets, and that is not right. So “a person” does not exist at conception. Rather a *person* with rights exists when a person is actually there, which is when the embryo starts to think . . . maybe around the 23rd to 28th week after conception. When the baby has its first thought, then it is an existing person.

Also it is important to remember that even after birth a child is not granted the exercise of all its rights. A child needs to be taken care of. A child by its nature cannot be responsible enough to drive a car, or to do a myriad of things without adult supervision. That does not mean that it does not have all the rights of an adult, it simply means that a parent or guardian exercises its rights FOR the child.  

Yet . . . what does this mean morally? The nature of an unthinking human embryo endows it with more importance than any other life form and if it is to be aborted at any time, I think the abortion should be given the utmost consideration. (Growing up in a military family we always referred to such an absolute as “due consideration,” and that is not a frivolous term.) From the instant after fertilization, a human embryo should be given more consideration than inanimate matter and more consideration than all other creatures in the vast, animal kingdom. Peter

[Peter]

And one last thought about abortion. if you know someone who is a member of a church or an organization that is vehemently opposed to abortion after conception do not give your opinion on the issue.  If you do, even in a conciliatory way, you will be classified as one of those evil people who kill babies and they may cease speaking to you and may never speak well of you again. To them it really is a black and white moral issue on a par with murder.  It is not worth the loss of a relationship.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Now watch the left and the establishment cronies keep doing stupid shit to cheat and mock instead of making an actual case at law-making time when the lawsuits start. And watch them keep trying to legislate from the bench. Or keep beating the mantra: Orange Man Bad.

The Alabama guv signed.

Now it's law.

But to be clear, I think the path Brit Hume laid out yesterday is likely the one that will happen. 

The new law will be challenged in court soon and will lose based on Roe vs. Wade. It will go to appeal and lose based on Roe vs. Wade. It will be submitted to the Supreme Court and they will not hear it, thus the appeals court ruling will stand and it will be annulled.

The only problem with this scenario is that there are about 16 or 17 states going about the same thing in their own different ways. I imagine at least one of them will come up with a form that will be heard by the Supreme Court.

Then it's anybody's guess. But I think sound legal reasoning will prevail. We'll see.

But Roe vs. Wade needs to go the way of the Dread Scott decision. Constitutional law needs to be established correctly so everyone will abide by the same rules. This constant cheating of "passing" new provisions in the Constitution from the courts only serves to embolden cheaters and the power-hungry.

Michael

[anthony]

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

And there is our problem of communication. That's the only thing I have been talking about at root.

Rand talked about it and determined that a fetus is not human life. She didn't give any reasons. She merely did argument from intimidation.

Michael

To be accurate, Michael, she said "an embryo" has no right to life. "A piece of protoplasm", distinct from a formed fetus. Backing this up, "the essential issue concerns only the first three months" (after which abortion is "arguable"- leaving the debate open, one infers). What she *would have* said if confronted with more recent knowledge by fetologists of when fetal brain activity occurs, and the modern medical, high rate of survival of a very premature baby in an incubator, one can only extrapolate. 

I think she'd have endorsed Bissell's most rational solution. The beginning of sense-perception is the "bright line" boundary and "objective criterion" of individual cognition and autonomous life.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

To be accurate, Michael, she said "an embryo" has no right to life. "A piece of protoplasm", distinct from a formed fetus.

Tony,

Are you seriously telling me Rand did not use these terms as synonyms in the extract you quoted?

Take a look.

22 hours ago, anthony said:

(Quoting Rand):

Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term.

They're synonyms, dude. Embryo and piece of protoplasm are synonyms in the quote. Rand was not a lousy writer. She was very careful about her word choices and did not write to try to trick people.

And then you want to tell folks what she would have said instead of what she did say?

Come on. I know the idea of seeing a disagreeable or contradictory meaning in Rand goes against every fiber in you (as it used to in me), but Rand's meaning is right in front of you. "Would have" is not right in front of you. That's in your head as you channel the dead Rand.  

Rand considered embryos as "pieces of protoplasm" and not human, or at least, not "life in the human sense of the term." This could not be clearer since I am quoting her exact words. She said something about "three months" for some reason, but did not tell anyone why. 

What's more, simple biology contradicts her. 

Rand's definition of human is flawed. An individual human being begins at conception and ends at death. The individual human being doesn't begin later just because someone says so. Leave the embryo alone and anyone can watch that individual human being develop. Something else doesn't grow. That individual human being grows.

She, as you, set a measure on when you believe it is OK to kill an individual human being in its early stage of life, then decide to call it not human to justify that.

An embryo is human life, not human excrement. Life grows. Excrement rots.

Apropos, I have given my position on abortion more times than I can remember, so I see no need to repeat it except to say that, in my ideal legal configuration, the mother has sovereignty over her body, thus she decides what rights a fetus in her has or doesn't have, including the right to life. If she wants to kill it or protect it, that's within her sovereign power, not the government's. But if she kills it, she is killing a human being. I, for one, will not pretend otherwise just to feel better about it.

(On rereading this, the tone is a bit harsher than what I intended. But my meaning is so clear, I'm going to let it stand. Just discount the tone if it sounds like I am haranguing you. I'm not.  )

Michael