A Debate about abortion rights with Lee, thehim .....

Cross posted from Horsesass with some editing. Lee is a blogger who identifies himself as a Jew by descent but knows very little about Judaism. He i, however, very opionated on liberal issues and often makes statements of personal belief that he mistakes for facts or reason. This echange originated after I remarked that the abortion issue ought not be the basis for name calling wither way, fundie beliefs in life begins at zygosis are no more unreasonable than some of the belifs held by liberals. In this case, Lee seems to believe that sacrosanct life begins at birth.

(the him is in italics)

I believe that the determination of the value of the life of a fetus is a moral determination that gets made m{b?}y the mother, and therefore it is unconstitutional for the government to interfere with that decision.

Lee ...

There is nothing in science or law about morality. This is a very reasonable statement of thehim's personal belifes, your religion?

I also believe that putting someone in jail for drug use is similarly unconstitutional, so please recognize that I’m not arguing from a conventional wisdom standpoint, I’m arguing from a purely logical standpoint,

You have a very odd idea of the difference between logic and personal belief. What is "logical" abut your statement? Nada. You are stating, as you have every right to do, YOUR

I suspect that what you really mean is that, like Ayn Rand,you reject laws that punish people for victimless "crimes." I suspect you and I would agree on many such laws .. But, none of this has to do with the US constitution.

Baloney.
Fettucine

All of those things you mention (a right to slavery, public nudity, carrying a dagger on an airplane, refusal to use vaccines,)deal with things that directly affect other people. A woman having an abortion does not.

Hunhhhh????? how does public nudity affect others? Do you support the chador then too? You think it is OK to have laws against nude beaches? How does a Sikh carrying his (concealed) dagger endanger others? (on vaccines we agree). BUT ... to argue that a woman aborting a viable fetus does not affect other people only makes sense if you somehow decide that a fetus is not a person and the husband has NO rights?

Even if YOU somehow have figured out that life begins with a foot through the labia, MOST of your fellow citizens disagree with you. Moreover, if I happen to be the father of the fetus in question, obviously I have an interest in the outcome.

Furthermore, imposing any of those rules that you mention does not impose as difficult a predicament upon an individual as forcing a woman to carry out a pregnancy.

I agree but this has no bearing on the law. Lots of laws effect people, that is why we have them.

I suspect that your problem is that your moral system/beliefs/religion has sanctified the role of the Mom. That is fine. my belief system is sort of like that too.

The first amendment guarantees that people have a right to any form of irrational thought, so long as it does not affect another human being. If this is not how it’s interpreted, I find that to be a mistake.

The first amendment, as far I can see, says nothing one way or another about what people believe. What it says is that the state can not establish a belief system (religion). I rather agree that we should have a right to believe what ever verkuchte things we want to believe. What does this have to do with the thread?

U.S. law also forbids homosexual couples from being married. To me, that’s a very clear violation of the first amendment as well. Polygamy is fine by me, as long as the wives are not forced into the relationship. From a legal standpoint, we have some difficulty in defining issues of custody and other legal rights, but the government has absolutely no business telling people they can’t be in polygamous relationships.

We are not terribly far apart on this issue. I believe in full contractual rights between individuals. I call it a NOK law .. next of kin. Each of us should have the right to declare another individual as NOK and in that capacity they have assorted rights.

At the same time I think the argument about "marriage" is idiotic. Biologically (that word science again!) the genders are different and it is reasonable to have a word for the heterosexual pairing. This overly heated issue all goes away if the government just recognizes the obvous right of all of us to designate a NOK and then marriage becomes one of whatever number of different living arrangements folks want to have. In most of Europe there is one form or another of NOK laws and the issue of marriage has become much less important than it is here.

I do think there are issues about family structure vis a vis child raising. These are difficult and fairly rare but
it s perfectly reasonable to argue that all other things being equal a mixed gender family is a better way to raise a kid then a single gender. That said, a gay couple who love and support each other are a damned site better parents (or likely to be) than a "married: couple who don't have those properties.

What I’m saying is that unless the fetus can removed and live on its own, it is a violation of a woman’s rights to deny her the right to an abortion.

This is exactly the present law in our own state. 24 weeks was picked because there is a consensus that the fetus is viable at that point. I am not sure about the "right to an abortion" ... I do not think there is an absolute answer because the issue of life is a religious one.

A fetus is no more sentient than the animals we slaughter for our hamburgers.

This is an absurd statement. I could say that a new born baby is no more sentient than a full term fetus but as a scientist I try not to make statements about undefined terms or about things I do not know how to measure.

For you to give it{the fetus?} more value than that (that what?) reveals how you’re imposing a religious opinion that you’ve somehow convinced yourself is a scientific one. Back to the drawing board, Steve. You messed up.

Lee .. YOU are the one making statements of truth, not I. I have made no claim that life or sentience begins at any special moment. I am not sure I have even stated my personal beliefs on the matter.

(Siamese twins) was meant for John. I know you’re not smart enough to understand it.

Lee, Lets not have a silly name calling exercise. I suspect after an MD, a PhD, and several decades as a professor I know a bit of biology.

Your own ideas of biology are, well, pretty far from current. In the case of the fetus and the mother, only the mother is (... a human being. We become human beings through awareness. We have powerful brains that make us aware of the world around us and makes us comprehend life to an extent that we’ve accepted that every life is precious.

I am not sure I can even parse the grammar here. This seems as religious as the discussion I once read in the Bhagvada Gita about the "essence" of life, "Atman." The Gita, perhaps like thehim, teaches that life IS synonymous with breath. Is this your idea? Figure is from text on website of memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Hindu scriptures say that the Atman dwells in the lotus within the heart. Visualize within yourself a lotus, centered right within the center of your chest, right within your heart. Try to mentally feel and see the heart as a lotus flower right within you. Within the center of the lotus, try to see a small light. Hindu scriptures state that the Atman within the heart looks like a brilliant light about the size of your thumb--just a small light. This light is an emanation of your effulgent being. It is dwelling right within. The Self God is deeper than that. The lotus is within the heart, and the Self God dwells deep within that lotus of light. (image is Krishna in the Lotus.)


But it makes no sense scientifically or logically to believe that a fetus, who has no ability to experience the world yet, can have this awareness. That’s why, previous to birth, there’s no justification for conferring human status to a fetus.

You are Hindu! I have always wanted to understand Krishna!

Just because it’s sentient is meaningless. Insects are sentient.

Really???? In Disney cartoons?? Lobsters too? Guess I better not boil any more lobsters. What do you mean by entient? Is this different from "awareness" since you think humans, but I assume not insects, are aware?


She does have ‘magical’ rights over the baby. She’s carrying it! Jesus, are you that stupid?

Sorry, I thought YOU were claiming to be rational. Women bear kids. That is just biology. I feel we need to have laws that recognize pregnancy, even though the effect is of necessity sexist. That idea is based on the obvious biology. There is nothing scientific about a woman,s right to end a pregnancy of a viable fetus.

The mother loses the right to an abortion when a procedure with no greater risk to the mother can be performed in order to save the fetus.

I think you are getting there, You need t understand that the risk here is relative. Birth itself is a real risk to the mother.

my religion is not defining anything. Read your own words above about "awareness." The you go on with MORE religious statements, some of which are pretty fundie, Life begins at conception. Well, I know that Catholics and Muslims believe this. I am not sure about other religions. In Judaism, OJ anyway, I think there is some idea that life beigns with fetal movements. All this is importnat but arbitrary.

Human life begins at some indefinable after birth. This is not religion. This is both science and common sense. YOU (not I) have argued above that human=awareness and made the statement that awareness only begins after birth (Atmen again?).

I’ve explained why your ideas are wrong. I don't think I have said what I personally believe.

FWIW, Obviously the woman's right to her own life must come first. Other than that, I think the first trimester should be under control of the mother or, in certain cases, the responsible adult (e.g. I do not think a ten year old should be allowed to bear a child). I think the second trimester should begin to invoke some rights of the father, certainly he has the right to know his partner is pregnant and should have some say in any decision. I do not know how to make the balance here, but at a minimum, a second trimester abortion should invoke the father;s right to know and there should be a requirement for consultation between the parents and a responsible third party. After that I would lean to the mom having the final right. Third trimester is very hard. I d believe a woman can be forced to bear a third trimester baby against her will. please note my use of the term "belief."

Jefferson wasn’t an atheist. I did not say that he was, but the definition of atheist may be a bit more than we want to do here. How much of Jeff have you read?? have you read his edited bible?

Right, I’m an atheist and I understand (Indians have inherent rights that could not be over-ridden by the law). Jefferson did not. As always, you don’t have a point.

I don't have a point? If you are a real atheist, then do you believe in natural law? Hve you read Rouseau? Locke? Jefferson himself? Jefferson posited the existence of eternal natural laws. This is part of Judaism I accept. IMO, Jefferson was a devout hypocrite or a pragmatist who conveniently decided to sidestep the natural law when t was in conflict with what he saw as the manifest destiny of America.