Con_Alma;1405575 wrote:Erroring on the side of not engaging in the "violation of liberty" at the cost of death for another is a reflection of the country's moral barometer.

Careful there...you sound like a socialist...

gut;1405583 wrote:It's called personal responsibility, something liberals have gradually been eroding over the years. 15 years ago a co-worker told me "...that's the Democrats for you - they don't think people should be responsible for anything hahaha". I agreed and chuckled at the time, but over the years it's proven to be an increasingly poignant insight.

No surprise, really, because personal responsibility does not mesh with an agenda where the gubmit is the provider for all things and the solution to all problems.

You are offering a caricature. As one of the few liberals on this board I have certainly never presented any views that could reasonably be construed as suggesting that the government be the provider of all things and the solution to all problems.

BoatShoes;1405650 wrote:Careful there...you sound like a socialist...

I fear not what another thinks I sound like. I would rather hold true to what I believe to be so...no matter where someone thinks it fits ideologically.

BoatShoes;1405653 wrote:You are offering a caricature. As one of the few liberals on this board I have certainly never presented any views that could reasonably be construed as suggesting that the government be the provider of all things and the solution to all problems.

So that's just your answer for the economy then?

Not a caricature of elected liberals - it's blatantly obvious in their agenda.

BoatShoes;1405653 wrote:You are offering a caricature. As one of the few liberals on this board I have certainly never presented any views that could reasonably be construed as suggesting that the government be the provider of all things and the solution to all problems.

His view of liberals is certainly just as accurate as the view that the average conservative is a painfully unintelligent hillbilly unable to frame their thoughts on matters any better than, "THEY TOOK OUR JORBS!!!!".

Of course, from reading this site, most people would probably think that...but that's probably a different topic of discussion.

Con_Alma;1405575 wrote:Oh, we certainly disagree. We greatly disagree.

Having government decide that a life should not be granted rights over a woman's "most intimate private property", no mater the feeling or lack thereof involved of the fetus says much about our society. Erroring on the side of not engaging in the "violation of liberty" at the cost of death for another is a reflection of the country's moral barometer.

I have a genuine question for you, then. Would you consider the same obligation be applied to someone with two healthy kidneys if someone with bad kidneys will die without a transplant, provided they are a match?

Con_Alma;1405666 wrote:I fear not what another thinks I sound like. I would rather hold true to what I believe to be so...no matter where someone thinks it fits ideologically.

I would hope, though, that you would want your own views to not be contradictory. That isn't to say that they necessarily are, but principles applied to a worldview tend to lead the worldview to be relatively congruent, barring any cognitive dissonance.

O-Trap;1405879 wrote:I have a genuine question for you, then. Would you consider the same obligation be applied to someone with two healthy kidneys if someone with bad kidneys will die without a transplant, provided they are a match?...

Since the point of my comment focused on the government not granting rights and that I think they should, my answer to your scenario would be the the individual already has the right of life granted to them. They are not being killed as much as they are being permitted to die.

O-Trap;1405879 wrote:...I would hope, though, that you would want your own views to not be contradictory. That isn't to say that they necessarily are, but principles applied to a worldview tend to lead the worldview to be relatively congruent, barring any cognitive dissonance.

I acknowledge your your hope regarding views being consistent.

Con_Alma;1405919 wrote:since the point of my comment focused on the government not granted rights and that I think they should, my answer to you scenario would be the the individual already has the right of life granted to them. They are not being killed as much as they are being permitted to die.

In saying such, then, you're asserting that a non-person (not yet, anyway) has more right to life than an actual person who already has such a right?

O-Trap;1405805 wrote:I have a genuine question for you, then. Would you consider the same obligation be applied to someone with two healthy kidneys if someone with bad kidneys will die without a transplant, provided they are a match?

I would say no. This would place a certain substantial risk of life on another human being against his/her will with the chance of preserving another. Many pro lifers like myself would draw that line there. If there is substantial risk to the mothers life and the baby is not developed enough within the womb to sustain life outside of it then one life is balanced against another. Most abortions are not performed to save the life of the mother.

I have a genuine question for you. Say an individual with two healthy kidneys chooses to assume the risk and offers to put one of them up on the open market to the highest bidder?

majorspark;1406002 wrote:I would say no. This would place a certain substantial risk of life on another human being against his/her will with the chance of preserving another. Many pro lifers like myself would draw that line there. If there is substantial risk to the mothers life and the baby is not developed enough within the womb to sustain life outside of it then one life is balanced against another. Most abortions are not performed to save the life of the mother.

So who, then, determines the level of risk at which we decide to legislate compulsory use of your person for the rights of something that is, for our purposes, yet to even be a citizen?

And too, suppose we were dealing with something that posed a lower risk, like blood donation. Should donating blood be compulsory, so that those who need transfusions in order to live can indeed do so? Does their right to life supercede my right to my own body?

majorspark;1406002 wrote:I have a genuine question for you. Say an individual with two healthy kidneys chooses to assume the risk and offers to put one of them up on the open market to the highest bidder?

Personally, I would be okay with it, provided they don't have a right to use someone else's later against the potential donor's will.

The abortion argument, IMO, is mostly a theoretical one at this point. From a health and socio-economic perspective, going back just isn't practical, much less prudent.

It is really hard to be cool with birth control and oppose early-term abortions. For the most part, 3rd trimester is a no-no...and, I tend to think if the fetus has some cognition and/or could survive outside the womb (with technology, obviously) that it is now a human being. That's around 20-22 weeks, currently I believe, so 3rd trimester is about right.

gut;1406021 wrote:The abortion argument, IMO, is mostly a theoretical one at this point. From a health and socio-economic perspective, going back just isn't practical, much less prudent.

It is really hard to be cool with birth control and oppose early-term abortions. For the most part, 3rd trimester is a no-no...and, I tend to think if the fetus has some cognition and/or could survive outside the womb (with technology, obviously) that it is now a human being. That's around 20-22 weeks, currently I believe, so 3rd trimester is about right.

This is about where I am. I can't stand on the "going-to-be-human" argument, because that can be extrapolated back to the sperm and egg stage, which gets ridiculous. Moreover, there has to be something that distinguishes a body from a living person. What makes the most sense to me for that is the ability to think.

Now I'm not saying I like abortion, but hell, birth control pills typically have a final defense that is "abortive" in nature, by disallowing a fertilized egg to attach to the uterus wall, forcing it to be "aborted." As such, it just strikes me as cognitively incongruent to not be okay with early stage abortion but to be okay with birth control pills.

majorspark;1406002 wrote:I would say no. This would place a certain substantial risk of life on another human being against his/her will with the chance of preserving another. Many pro lifers like myself would draw that line there. If there is substantial risk to the mothers life and the baby is not developed enough within the womb to sustain life outside of it then one life is balanced against another. Most abortions are not performed to save the life of the mother.

I have a genuine question for you. Say an individual with two healthy kidneys chooses to assume the risk and offers to put one of them up on the open market to the highest bidder?

I dont think its clear that a clearly horrific battery in the form of an involuntary kidney transplant amounts to a substantial risk of life to the transferor. Sneak up behind her with chloroform...then administer anesthesia...from there a kidney transplant is a reasonably routine procedure....the odds of dying are low. It is a gross trespass but not really one that creates a substantial risk of death.

BoatShoes;1406024 wrote:I dont think its clear that a clearly horrific battery in the form of an involuntary kidney transplant amounts to a substantial risk of life to the transferor. Sneak up behind her with chloroform...then administer anesthesia...from there a kidney transplant is a reasonably routine procedure....the odds of dying are low. It is a gross trespass but not really one that creates a substantial risk of death.

Even if it did, though, it doesn't matter. That was just an example, and if threat to the life of the donor is the issue, then the example can easily be changed to blood donation or some other relatively harmless donation.

O-Trap;1405943 wrote:In saying such, then, you're asserting that a non-person (not yet, anyway) has more right to life than an actual person who already has such a right?

I disagree that I have have discussed a non-person at all.

You and I have a different point in which we accept the beginning of human life. That's not going to change.

They are not being killed as much as they are being permitted to die.

+1

In saying such, then, you're asserting that a non-person (not yet, anyway)

-1 ...That would be an example of cognitive dissonace. If you believe that the fetus has a right to life over the "violation of liberty", then you would not consider the "non person". I suppose it is so much easier to abort a 'non person'....

As I have watched this thread evolve into discussion of person vs non person, I have to wonder the what viewpoints of people that believe that life begins at conception is:

If it is a person with rights, is the mother guilty of abuse if she drinks or smokes while pregnant?

Why so much concern over a protected fetus in the womb and virtually none after it is born?

If you are worried about the liberty of the fetus, what about the mother that would reguard it as an unwanted parasite?

Just askin....

Devils Advocate;1406123 wrote:As I have watched this thread evolve into discussion of person vs non person, I have to wonder the what viewpoints of people that believe that life begins at conception is:

If it is a person with rights, is the mother guilty of abuse if she drinks or smokes while pregnant?...

It's not a person with rights. That's what the discussion has been about. The courts do not recognize it as a person with rights.

Devils Advocate;1406123 wrote:...Why so much concern over a protected fetus in the womb and virtually none after it is born?...

Why do you believe there is no concern after it is born? I'm not sure how to answer you question because I believe I do have concern after it is born.

Devils Advocate;1406123 wrote:...If you are worried about the liberty of the fetus, what about the mother that would reguard it as an unwanted parasite?

Just askin....

The mother who regards it as an unwanted parasite has all the rights an liberties to abort it. I am not worried about her because she has those rights available to her.

Con_Alma;1406030 wrote:I disagree that I have have discussed a non-person at all.

You and I have a different point in which we accept the beginning of human life. That's not going to change.

Okay, suppose a fetus is fully a person at conception (as such, we're no longer dealing with the eventuality of life, but the presence of life). It becomes even more like the parallel I mentioned. Does a dying man have an authoritative claim on my blood if it will save his life? Can/Should I be forced to donate of my body in order to save or preserve the life of another? Moreover, if I have already been donating, am I not permitted to cease doing so?

HitsRus;1406035 wrote:-1 ...That would be an example of cognitive dissonace. If you believe that the fetus has a right to life over the "violation of liberty", then you would not consider the "non person". I suppose it is so much easier to abort a 'non person'....

I was actually just using that to try to distinguish the "denying life" versus letting something die. Suppose the fetus is indeed a person, endowed with the same rights as the rest of us. Should any post-birth person (since we're suggesting that a fetus is a person to an equal degree) be able to lay claim to your own body for his or her life? If not, I'd suggest that a fetus ought not either, provided we are indeed treating them with the same rights as a post-birth individual.

Except it's not really a fair comparison with the sick old man. She CHOSE to have sex, and that comes with risks, which includes getting pregnant. The woman's responsibility in this is clear.

Should any post-birth person (since we're suggesting that a fetus is a person to an equal degree) be able to lay claim to your own body for his or her life? If not, I'd suggest that a fetus ought not either, provided we are indeed treating them with the same rights as a post-birth individual.

I don't buy that in that a random person is not responsible for someone else's life. But a person, who has engaged in activity that resulted in a situation that they are responsible for, is another story. If you want to say that because I operated a car negligently, and as a result, someone needed one of my kidney's to save their life, then I would say yes....one of my kidney's should be forfeit. In the same way, a woman who recklessly engages in sexual activity knowing full well what the consequences could be(and given the multiple options for birth control available) should be responsible for tending the life she has created.

O-Trap;1406251 wrote:Okay, suppose a fetus is fully a person at conception (as such, we're no longer dealing with the eventuality of life, but the presence of life). It becomes even more like the parallel I mentioned. Does a dying man have an authoritative claim on my blood if it will save his life? Can/Should I be forced to donate of my body in order to save or preserve the life of another? Moreover, if I have already been donating, am I not permitted to cease doing so?...

He doesn't have an authoritative claim unless you chose to carry out some act that you knowingly created a scenario that it was only your blood that would sustain his life. You chose to create the situation. The greatest difference, however, is that your's is a hypothetical. while mine is not.

O-Trap;1406251 wrote:...I was actually just using that to try to distinguish the "denying life" versus letting something die. Suppose the fetus is indeed a person, endowed with the same rights as the rest of us. Should any post-birth person (since we're suggesting that a fetus is a person to an equal degree) be able to lay claim to your own body for his or her life? If not, I'd suggest that a fetus ought not either, provided we are indeed treating them with the same rights as a post-birth individual.

The person doesn't have such a right. That's the point of the thread. They are legally able to be discarded as nothing more than a bio-hazard.

IN addition, the person doesn't have the choice to be put into the situation whereby they are dependent or not. The adult does have complete ability to act in away that may create life or not.

gut;1406355 wrote:Except it's not really a fair comparison with the sick old man. She CHOSE to have sex, and that comes with risks, which includes getting pregnant. The woman's responsibility in this is clear.

...not just the woman but the man as well.

O-Trap;1406009 wrote:So who, then, determines the level of risk at which we decide to legislate compulsory use of your person for the rights of something that is, for our purposes, yet to even be a citizen?

The states and the people. I don't seek to empower the federal government to lord my beliefs over all 300+ US citizens.

O-Trap;1406009 wrote:And too, suppose we were dealing with something that posed a lower risk, like blood donation. Should donating blood be compulsory, so that those who need transfusions in order to live can indeed do so? Does their right to life supercede my right to my own body?

No not under normal circumstances. If people were dying in large numbers because of lack of voluntary blood donations than yes I could see limited government intervention. But really in this case we would be talking about some type of major emergency situation were civil liberties understandably can be temporarily suspended. Because donating blood presents virtually no risk to the individual and the body regenerates the supply individuals are more than willing to voluntarily donate.

Federal, and some state and local governments do require individuals to donate a portion of their personal labor for things far less vital than preserving life. State and local governments may even require a portion of an individuals personal wealth to maintain ownership of an individuals personally owned property. They are after your money not your blood.

HitsRus;1406371 wrote:I don't buy that in that a random person is not responsible for someone else's life. But a person, who has engaged in activity that resulted in a situation that they are responsible for, is another story. If you want to say that because I operated a car negligently, and as a result, someone needed one of my kidney's to save their life, then I would say yes....one of my kidney's should be forfeit. In the same way, a woman who recklessly engages in sexual activity knowing full well what the consequences could be(and given the multiple options for birth control available) should be responsible for tending the life she has created.

Exactly.