Some things to chew on, and get off my chest

[Natoma]

I have nothing against black people. I just don't think they should be able to sit at the front of the bus. I have nothing against women. I just don't think they should be able to vote. I have nothing against gay people. I just don't think they should be able to marry.

What is the difference between any of those statements wrt differences of prejudice?

hm, to start with, equal protection under the law. the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 (I believe) declared that segregation was legal so long as facilities were "separate but equal." Brown v. Board of Education (the first big Supreme Court case that marked the beginning of the end for segregation) decided that segregation was illegal on the grounds that Plessy v. Ferguson's idea of "separate but equal" in a school environment was impossible; schools separated by race were inherently unequal. it wasn't that "SEGREGATION IS MORALLY WRONG SO WE DON'T LIKE IT AND SAY NO YOU CAN'T DO IT" but instead that segregation in schools wasn't allowed under the law because of its effects. so, that's one. the woman one, you should be able to figure out by yourself. gay marriage... meh. the 14th Amendment states that citizens are granted equal protection under the law. no such protection is granted to groups of citizens (otherwise, a church would be the same as a corporation or union or anything else you'd like). so, it'd take a somewhat landmark Supreme Court decision to simultaneously open up gay marraige nationwide.

and jeez, when I can poke big fat holes in your point, you need some better points.

That example wasn't what has occurred in the judicial system to this point Tim. It was regarding the difference of prejudice. If we go back to a time before the supreme court rulings on segregation, you will have the same situation you have today regarding gay marriage. Same regarding women having the right to vote.

And is it just me, or are people getting this damn "Proxycon" popup whenever they try to hit the submit button?

 

[Natoma]

What is the difference between any of those statements wrt differences of prejudice?

I have nothing against Jews. But I do have something agaist Jews coming into my church and preaching their faith to me.

You are prejudiced against their faith, i.e. you do not believe their faith as Jews, which is of course what would cause that reaction. Of course, if you went further and tried to legislate this, what would the reason for that legislation stem from? Prejudice toward jews.

I have nothing against women and their "rights," But I do have something against women who feel they have the right to abort babies after bringing it to 9 months full term.

So on one hand you are not prejudiced against women's rights, but you then say that you don't like it when they have that right? Isn't that what I said earlier wrt gay marriage, that it all just boils down to "Well I just don't like it" but there's no legal ground to stand upon?

I don't like the idea of abortions either, but I will certainly stand up for a woman's right to have an abortion. I don't let my own prejudices toward Abortion cloud my thinking when it comes to the rights women have over their reproductive lives.

 

[Tagrineth]

Asinine only has one S.

And I suspect that if any anti-Gay-Marriage laws appear (including the Constitutional Amendment), I get the distinct impression it'll be reaching the Supreme Court rather quickly.

thank you for consulting dictionary.com for me

I didn't need to look it up, hun.

Not any more at least....little girl.

I never did, ya big meanie ^^ I'm hyperlexic.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You are prejudiced against their faith, i.e. you do not believe their faith as Jews, which is of course what would cause that reaction.

Correct. I am prejudiced against their faith (just as they are against mine)...but not the Jews themselves.

Of course, if you went further and tried to legislate this, what would the reason for that legislation stem from? Prejudice toward jews.

No, if I went further and tried to legislate against any person who wanted to interrupt my Church's service to preach their own, then I would be prejudiced against any particular person wishing to do that. Be it a some other Christian religion, Jew, Baptist, Athiest, etc.

So on one hand you are not prejudiced against women's rights, but you then say that you don't like it when they have that right?

No...that specific rights. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. I have nothing against white males and their rights either, but I would not support their "right" to own slaves.

Does that make me "prejudiced against whites?"

I'm not prejudiced against blacks, but I am prejudiced agaist the idea of racial quotas.

Isn't that what I said earlier wrt gay marriage, that it all just boils down to "Well I just don't like it" but there's no legal ground to stand upon?

Natoma, you are arguing in circles again. The legal ground to stand on is whatever lawmakers decide. If you will, ANY law is because "thats just what they feel like." You're probably trying to say something like "there's no logical argument for it" which is of course debated ad infinitum, and that's what people debate when they make laws.

I don't like the idea of abortions either, but I will certainly stand up for a woman's right to have an abortion.

Don't play this game. So you won't stand up for an infants right to survive?

I don't let my own prejudices toward Abortion cloud my thinking when it comes to the rights women have over their reproductive lives.

You're letting your own prejudices toward "womens" so-called rights, cloud your thinking when it comes to a baby's life.



Now, I will repeat my own personal view of abortion in case anyone gets the wrong idea. This is not a debate about a woman's "right to choose." This is absurd, and it's akin to arguing about a murder's right to "choose" who should live or die.

It's about the right to define when life begins. This is of course a profound questoin that everyone has a different take on, and is akin to little more than a "faith" in your answer. In other words, if we could all agree on when life begins, there really wouldn't be a debate. Having said this


1) I think everyone would agree that before the egg is fertilized, there is no life.

2) Everyone (I hope) agrees that killing a "new born" (1 minute after birth) is "wrong." Thus, we recognize an infant as having "rights" and should be protected by the law.

So, somewhere between fertilizatoin, and birth, a line should be drawn where we, as a society, could agree that there is life.

While I believe life begins at conception, I don't expect everyone to have the belief, nor do I think it's unreasonable to have a different belief.

However, I would also personally argue that anyone who thinks there is no life after 6-7 month of gestation, is being unreasonable. Therefore, I would support an abortion law that made abortion illegal after 6-7 months of pregnancy.

In the ideal fantasy world, prospective parents would have to answer the following quetion: "When does life begin?" And the parents would give an honest answer. then, it would be illegal for those parents to abort a baby if it is past the time that they believed it to be a life.

Falling short of this fantasy world, "reasonable people" should come to a concensus on "where life begins", and base abortion laws around that.

 

[Natoma]

You are prejudiced against their faith, i.e. you do not believe their faith as Jews, which is of course what would cause that reaction.

Correct. I am prejudiced against their faith (just as they are against mine)...but not the Jews themselves.

That is a very thin line that many people say they can tread, but in reality are unable to. If you're one of those who can, more power to you. I remain somewhat skeptical however.

Of course, if you went further and tried to legislate this, what would the reason for that legislation stem from? Prejudice toward jews.

No, if I went further and tried to legislate against any person who wanted to interrupt my Church's service to preach their own, then I would be prejudiced against any particular person wishing to do that. Be it a some other Christian religion, Jew, Baptist, Athiest, etc.

Not to get away from the point that you're making (though I think I addressed that in my last portion), but isn't Baptist a denomination of christianity?

So on one hand you are not prejudiced against women's rights, but you then say that you don't like it when they have that right?

No...that specific rights. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. I have nothing against white males and their rights either, but I would not support their "right" to own slaves.

Does that make me "prejudiced against whites?"

I'm not prejudiced against blacks, but I am prejudiced agaist the idea of racial quotas.

You put womens "rights" in quotes, which given your sociopolitical alignment led me to believe you were speaking about abortion.

The example of being prejudiced against white males doesn't work because that's one group impinging upon the legal, civil, and human rights of another group. In those cases, the rights of each group supercede something like slavery.

And racial quotas, well, let's not even go there since they don't exist. That's just a hypothetical.

Isn't that what I said earlier wrt gay marriage, that it all just boils down to "Well I just don't like it" but there's no legal ground to stand upon?

Natoma, you are arguing in circles again. The legal ground to stand on is whatever lawmakers decide. If you will, ANY law is because "thats just what they feel like." You're probably trying to say something like "there's no logical argument for it" which is of course debated ad infinitum, and that's what people debate when they make laws.

If you can come up with a legally sound argument to deny gay men and women civil marital rights, I'm all ears.

I don't like the idea of abortions either, but I will certainly stand up for a woman's right to have an abortion.

Don't play this game. So you won't stand up for an infants right to survive?

Where exactly does one draw the line? Right after fertilization? 3 months before birth? As soon as the baby is able to live on its own, without technological assistance? There are so many points in time where the decision can be made that are singularly arbitrary.

Oh, and there is no game for me to play in this regard. My mother told me a few years ago when we were talking about the subject that she was being pressured by some people that I know (she declined to name them for obvious reasons) to have an abortion, but she chose instead to raise me. She was only 23 at the time. So I take a woman's right to choose very seriously and personally. I'm glad that she chose life, but I can't begrudge her for having that choice.

Now, I will repeat my own personal view of abortion in case anyone gets the wrong idea. This is not a debate about a woman's "right to choose." This is absurd, and it's akin to arguing about a murder's right to "choose" who should live or die.

A murderer is killing another biologically autonomous human being. Fetuses aren't biologically autonomous. I don't agree with that example at all.

So, somewhere between fertilizatoin, and birth, a line should be drawn where we, as a society, could agree that there is life.

While I believe life begins at conception, I don't expect everyone to have the belief, nor do I think it's unreasonable to have a different belief.

However, I would also personally argue that anyone who thinks there is no life after 6-7 month of gestation, is being unreasonable. Therefore, I would support an abortion law that made abortion illegal after 6-7 months of pregnancy.

In the ideal fantasy world, prospective parents would have to answer the following quetion: "When does life begin?" And the parents would give an honest answer. then, it would be illegal for those parents to abort a baby if it is past the time that they believed it to be a life.

Falling short of this fantasy world, "reasonable people" should come to a concensus on "where life begins", and base abortion laws around that.

Joe it depends on where the level of technology is. A human being without our current level of technology would have little to no chance of survival before the 9 month birthing period, outside the womb.

It's not that the 6-7 month period is this magical time frame. It's that that's where our technology allows us to keep a baby alive until it's capable of surviving on its own. Of course, 50 years from now we may very well have artificial wombs in which a baby can grow from the moment of conception to birth inside a literal test tube. What then? Are abortion rights therefore suspended completely?

You can get into so many problems trying to classify a fetus. Do you define the fetus as a human life? Do you define it as a tumor, which could be a biologically correct assessment? Do you define it as merely part of the woman until it is biologically separated via the umbilical cord?

My reasoning for upholding a woman's complete right to an abortion is basically this. Am I prepared to have the government tell me what I can and cannot do reproductively? Would I be prepared for the government to tell me that any and all sperm my body creates has to be stored for potential use in fertilization, otherwise I'm killing potential human beings? What about making all men sterile after 25, because the motility and viability of our sperm begins to degrade significantly, shortly after our teen years, therefore endangering future generations?

Are we even discussing this because it is dealing with women and not men? If the shoes were reversed, do you think legislators and every day people would be trying to place these kinds of restrictions on the male gender? Honestly, considering our history, that is a legitimate question imo.

 

[Natoma]

And what the hell is wrong with this thread........

 

[Joe DeFuria]

That is a very thin line that many people say they can tread, but in reality are unable to. If you're one of those who can, more power to you. I remain somewhat skeptical however.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Not to get away from the point that you're making (though I think I addressed that in my last portion), but isn't Baptist a denomination of christianity?

Yes, which is exactly my point. I would have the same problem if a baptist came into my church preaching "his word" as I would a Jew doing the same. It's not that I have a prejudice aginst jews or baptists. It's against this specific act. Clear?

The example of being prejudiced against white males doesn't work because that's one group impinging upon the legal, civil, and human rights of another group. In those cases, the rights of each group supercede something like slavery.

Natoma, the example works as well as any other. Women claim to have the "right" to kill unborn children...because they don't recognize the rights of that unborn child as an equal to themselves. White males have claimed the "right" to own slaves, because they didn't recognize the rights equal to themselves.

And racial quotas, well, let's not even go there since they don't exist. That's just a hypothetical.

Lol...(are you serious?)

http://www.adversity.net/horror.htm

If you can come up with a legally sound argument to deny gay men and women civil marital rights, I'm all ears.

Sigh. Your ears are obviously shut, because as I've said the past 3 posts you are asking a rhetorical question. What's "legally sound" is what a bunch of people get together and vote as legally sound. Nothing more, nothing less.

A murderer is killing another biologically autonomous human being. Fetuses aren't biologically autonomous.

Oh really? Please point me to the "legal reference" that defines murder as such. This is of course after you define for all of us what "bilogically autonomous" means.

Joe it depends on where the level of technology is.

Bullshit. You just told me that it depends on when the child is biologically autonomous is.

I did not say one's definition of when "life begins" is dependent at all on when a child could survive when delivered pre-term. That is indeed one way to look at it.

It's not that the 6-7 month period is this magical time frame. It's that that's where our technology allows us to keep a baby alive until it's capable of surviving on its own.

I wasn't aware that even a perfect newborn could survive "on it's own."

You can get into so many problems trying to classify a fetus. Do you define the fetus as a human life?

This is precisely what I'm saying. Everyone's definition of LIFE is going to be different. But reasonable people should come to a "comprimise consensus" on when a fetus is considered "a life form with rights protected."

It's not going to be when I personally think it should be protected, which is at conception. But it will be somewhere between that, and birth.

How can you not see that as reasonable?!

My reasoning for upholding a woman's complete right to an abortion is basically this. Am I prepared to have the government tell me what I can and cannot do reproductively?

Are you prepared to have the government tell you whether you should live or die?

Like I said, you are recognizing the rights of the parents (and I resent abortion being called a women's issue, BTW), over the rights of the child.

Would I be prepared for the government to tell me that any and all sperm my body creates has to be stored for potential use in fertilization, otherwise I'm killing potential human beings?

I wouldn't think so, because last time I checked, we don't give rights to non-life forms. And as I said, no one would consider at any point PRE conception, that there is a life form.

What about making all men sterile after 25, because the motility and viability of our sperm begins to degrade significantly, shortly after our teen years, therefore endangering future generations?

What does this have to do with the price of Tea in China?

If you want me to go with absurd examples....

Why not give mothers the right to terminate their children as long as they're breast feeding? Before they leave the house and are completely independent?

Are we even discussing this because it is dealing with women and not men?

No, because as I just said above, I personally consider abortion a PARENT's issue, not women in particular. Or do you think that some women aren't pressured into abortions against their own judgement because the father wants it that way?

If the shoes were reversed, do you think legislators and every day people would be trying to place these kinds of restrictions on the male gender? Honestly, considering our history, that is a legitimate question imo.

Sheesh...talk about hypotehticals...and with absolutely no relevance....

 

[Natoma]

Joe, half the questions you asked were answered a sentence later, which you either snipped out, or made it's own "quote" and responded to. Care to reduce the size of your post so we can try this again? I really don't want to line itemize and have to repeat myself, making longer and longer posts in the process.

 

[Natoma]

Holy jeebus the thread fixed itself......

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe, half the questions you asked were answered a sentence later, which you either snipped out, or made it's own "quote" and responded to. Care to reduce the size of your post so we can try this again? I really don't want to line itemize and have to repeat myself, making longer and longer posts in the process.

No, they weren't. And I would appreciate you actually adressing my points rather than say they were already answered. Because if I asked or raised them, then rest assured I don't believe they were answered. I don't ask questions that have already been answered just for the fun of it.

But in short: Why does a parent's right to choose, supercede the child's right to live?

 

[Natoma]

Joe, half the questions you asked were answered a sentence later, which you either snipped out, or made it's own "quote" and responded to. Care to reduce the size of your post so we can try this again? I really don't want to line itemize and have to repeat myself, making longer and longer posts in the process.

No, they weren't. And I would appreciate you actually adressing my points rather than say they were already answered. Because if I asked or raised them, then rest assured I don't believe they were answered. I don't ask questions that have already been answered just for the fun of it.

For example Joe, I brought up a point about a fetus being biologically autonomous, and then you said that I didn't explain it, when a sentence later I explained that it depends on where the level of technology is. The only reason you brought up 6-7 months is because that's the time frame that we can technologically keep a baby alive outside the womb, before its official birthing period. But you broke up that point and missed exactly what I was saying on the matter. You did that a few times, and then asked questions that were in fact answered.

But in short: Why does a parent's right to choose, supercede the child's right to live?

Because the fetus's "right to live" is completely arbitrary. Some will say it happens right after fertilization. Some will say it happens right after birth. Some even argue that it's murder to masturbate. You know the bible story about the man "spilling his seed" instead of impregnating the woman he was sleeping with, and he was cursed by god? Some take that story as a condemnation of any waste of semen.

A parent's right to choose on the other hand is always there until the moment of birth. There is no shade of gray there.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

For example Joe, I brought up a point about a fetus being biologically autonomous, and then you said that I didn't explain it, when a sentence later I explained that it depends on where the level of technology is.

No, you didn't. You said that where "life begins" depends on technology. Not what biologically autonomous is.

Now, if you mean to argue that "life begins" where it is "biologically autonomous", that's something else.

So if I get what you're saying, is that:

1) Life begins at the point where it is "biologically autonomous", which is dependent on technology.

2) But even if a fetus is PAST the point at which you'd agree it is biologically autonomous and therefore a "life", you still don't see a need to protect that life, and believe a parent has the right to terminate it.

The only reason you brought up 6-7 months is because that's the time frame that we can technologically keep a baby alive outside the womb, before its official birthing period.

Ummm..What?!

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Unfortunately, you are completely wrong.

If you need to know, the reason why I brought up 6 or 7 months, is because that's the point where most development is complete, and beyond which the fetus is basically just "getting bigger." This is no different than the condition that describes a new born.

Because the fetus's "right to live" is completely arbitrary. Some will say it happens right after fertilization. Some will say it happens right after birth.

Yes, this is exactly what I said. And the point of making a LAW is to establish a common ground, a comprimise, etc. Take the two extremes, and draw a reasonable line somewhere between it.

No group of people is ever going to agree 100% on anything. Get 50+% to come to a reasonable agreement, and you have yourself a law.

A parent's right to choose on the other hand is always there until the moment of birth. There is no shade of gray there.

Huh?

On the flip side, no one would ague that a fertilized egg doesn't have the potential to grow into a life. There's no gray there either.

And here I thought the liberals were always looking out for the "little guy who can't speak for himself." You still haven't address my question. Why do you completely ignore the rights of the life form, in favor of the parents? You do admit that some people would define life exists as some point before birth, and these people aren't nuts, right? (Whether you agree or not is not relevant.)

 

[pax]

http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm

I thought this info would be relevant here... Im surprised myself but then again priests in the catholic chruch were married up until about the first millenium AD.

 

[Legion]

what a farce.

An infant is not "biologically" independant. It requires care. Likewise would new borns and toddlers be indepedent.

 

[Natoma]

For example Joe, I brought up a point about a fetus being biologically autonomous, and then you said that I didn't explain it, when a sentence later I explained that it depends on where the level of technology is.

No, you didn't. You said that where "life begins" depends on technology. Not what biologically autonomous is.

Now, if you mean to argue that "life begins" where it is "biologically autonomous", that's something else.

So if I get what you're saying, is that:

1) Life begins at the point where it is "biologically autonomous", which is dependent on technology.

2) But even if a fetus is PAST the point at which you'd agree it is biologically autonomous and therefore a "life", you still don't see a need to protect that life, and believe a parent has the right to terminate it.

As I said Joe, you're arguing just to argue. Anyway, I said that technology changes the hurdle of where life begins, where a being can be biologically autonomous.

It's not that the 6-7 month period is this magical time frame. It's that that's where our technology allows us to keep a baby alive until it's capable of surviving on its own. Of course, 50 years from now we may very well have artificial wombs in which a baby can grow from the moment of conception to birth inside a literal test tube. What then? Are abortion rights therefore suspended completely?

The only reason you brought up 6-7 months is because that's the time frame that we can technologically keep a baby alive outside the womb, before its official birthing period.

Ummm..What?!

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Unfortunately, you are completely wrong.

If you need to know, the reason why I brought up 6 or 7 months, is because that's the point where most development is complete, and beyond which the fetus is basically just "getting bigger." This is no different than the condition that describes a new born.

Joe most development, according to the fetal development websites I've read, is actually complete around the 5 months period, halfway through the 2nd trimester. That after that point, the baby is basically just "getting bigger" as you say. How far back do you push the envelope?

The technology we have today makes it almost impossible for a baby to survive pre-third trimester, and even in the third trimester, the chances are only "ok" until the 8th or 9th month.

Because the fetus's "right to live" is completely arbitrary. Some will say it happens right after fertilization. Some will say it happens right after birth.

Yes, this is exactly what I said. And the point of making a LAW is to establish a common ground, a comprimise, etc. Take the two extremes, and draw a reasonable line somewhere between it.

No group of people is ever going to agree 100% on anything. Get 50+% to come to a reasonable agreement, and you have yourself a law.

What you just said is precisely the problem with anti-abortion laws. Where do you draw the line. 20 years from now, late 1st/early 2nd trimester may be the delimiter of viability, rather than the early 3rd trimester it is today. As I said earlier, do you keep rolling back abortion rights until they don't exist?

A parent's right to choose on the other hand is always there until the moment of birth. There is no shade of gray there.

Huh?

On the flip side, no one would ague that a fertilized egg doesn't have the potential to grow into a life. There's no gray there either.

Potential is a shade of gray. It isn't an absolute certainty.

And here I thought the liberals were always looking out for the "little guy who can't speak for himself." You still haven't address my question. Why do you completely ignore the rights of the life form, in favor of the parents? You do admit that some people would define life exists as some point before birth, and these people aren't nuts, right? (Whether you agree or not is not relevant.)

Because the life form hasn't been established as a human being, and the problem with establishing it as a human being is, where do you begin. You can go all the way back to the separate sperm and ova depending on your point of view. In this case, does the right of a living, breathing, palpable human being get superceded by the rights of an amorphous idea of humanity? If you argue that in a court of law, they will side with the clearly definable human being, not because it's the "right thing to do" but because there is no other recourse. How can you give rights to something no one is even sure is "human" or "alive" yet? And this is getting into the deeper psychological question of what makes us "us," which is a whole other can of worms.

The basic problem as has been said round robin fashion is, where do you define "human being." Until that question is answered in a better fashion than "a being that is no longer in the womb," women's rights supercede those of the unborn/non-human/whatever you wish to call them.

 

[Natoma]

what a farce.

An infant is not "biologically" independant. It requires care. Likewise would new borns and toddlers be indepedent.

We're all biologically dependent on one another. You didn't grow that food you eat every day did you? Did you go and get that water you drink on your own? Your point is not what's being discussed at all.

 

[Natoma]

http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm

I thought this info would be relevant here... Im surprised myself but then again priests in the catholic chruch were married up until about the first millenium AD.

Oh come on pax you know they were just friends. Homosexuality didn't exist until after the sexual revolution, roe vs wade, and the pill corrupted us all.

 

[pax]

LOL we learn something new everyday...

 

[nelg]

Joe it depends on where the level of technology is. A human being without our current level of technology would have little to no chance of survival before the 9 month birthing period, outside the womb.

Little to no chance. :? My son was born at 7 months and needed no interventions. This was not uncommon in the NICU.

 

[Natoma]

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, but doesn't NICU stand for Neo-natal Intensive Care Unit? That sounds to me like he needed our level of technology in order to survive his premature birth. Would he have lived 50 years ago without the technology of the day?