Social and Civil Liberty Issues

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 3 (Define fetus as an “individual” in statute )

crazycajun — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:35:20 GMT

i am appalled by your apparent lack of regard for human life.

but you are a citizen of this nation just as i am. and as such, entitled to your opinion.

i am of the opinion that killing innocent people is wrong. you are not.

i am of the opinion that babies in the womb are little people. you are not.

if a baby in the womb is 'born' early, they can and do survive to become 'big people'.

i recognize the rights of that little person. you do not.

nothing in our law says you have the right to choose to do the wrong thing and get away with it.

so, it seems that you are in an untenable position of your own making.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 3 (Define fetus as an “individual” in statute )

jmangan — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 16:31:32 GMT

I didn't intend to answer that.

I'm intrique by your method of discussion, asking questions that answering would sink the discussion further to your level of reasoning. Kind of weird.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 3 (Define fetus as an “individual” in statute )

crazycajun — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:36:18 GMT

did she KEEP that choice throughout her entire life?

in other words, CAN SHE STILL KILL YOU IF SHE WANTS TO ????

you dems treat DOGS better than you treat babys in the womb. there is a NO KILL SHELTER you guys are raising money for on the blogs.

are DOGS more important than babies????

don't answer that, we already know what the answer is...

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 3 (Define fetus as an “individual” in statute )

jmangan — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 04:42:53 GMT

I left my life up to my mother. Matter of fact, so did everyone else. That's the point. She has the choice.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 3 (Define fetus as an “individual” in statute )

crazycajun — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 02:11:25 GMT

by the way, IF that 'person' in the womb COULD talk, as you can, what do you suppose HIS request would be about HIS end of life?

YOU get to make that choice. the child doesn't. should we leave YOUR end of life choices up to your mother, and hope she loves you enough to respect you as a person?

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 3 (Define fetus as an “individual” in statute )

crazycajun — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 02:09:14 GMT

please describe the difference between partial birth abortion, where the child is PARTIALLY removed from the birth canal and killed, and infanticide, where the child is FULLY removed from the birth canal and killed.

please tell us what magic happens in those few inches that makes one acceptable, and the other murder.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 3 (Define fetus as an “individual” in statute )

SaneMichigander — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:21:02 GMT

crazycajun:

how is it that you can rally for your RIGHT TO BREATHE CLEAN AIR over the RIGHT OF A PROPERTY OWNER TO ALLOW SMOKING IN HIS ESTABLISHMENT, but refuse to believe that an unborn human being has the RIGHT TO LIFE?

Equating a woman's body with a piece of real estate is archaic, offensive and outright preposterous.

when did YOUR right to life start?

That is a very good question. I believe it probably started when I emerged from the womb fully formed with a sound heartbeat and capable of breathing on my own after the traditional slap on the backside to get me going. But other people may and probably do differ. That is their prerogative. They should not try to force their beliefs on others. Get it?

does YOUR right to life extend beyond the point that you need to be put on a respirator and other advanced life support methods?

according to you, it doesn't.

I have said no such thing. I do know that my wishes are reflected in my living will, which contains end-of-life instructions to those who those who will assume the right and responsibility to make my end of life decisions should I become profoundly disabled. I trust they will follow my instructions and will not be interfered with by thuggish government in so doing.

you are too frail, to weak, and too feeble to make decisions for yourself. you may be comatose, in which case, like that child in the womb, receiving all it's support from someone else, unable to make those decisions for yourself.

Actually, I am not too frail, etc., to make my own decisions. Else I would not be sitting at a computer wasting time on silly junk like this. I've chosen that course.

Beyond that, what is your point? I've covered end of life instructions in my written instructions, which were prepared anticipating that maybe one day I might be profoundly incapacitated. No fetus I've ever heard about has the capacity to so control or influence its own destiny.

you, like that unborn child, have to rely on the morals and values of those around you. and you, like that innocent life in the womb, must live or die with the consequences.

Precisely. I do not want the government barging in, dictating what is or isn't "moral" or what "values" my family and I must hold and making our decisions for us. It is both our right and and responsibility to make our own choices.

by the way, if your spouse disagrees with your 'expressed wishes', and continues to pay the bills, you will be kept on life support for as long as she wishes, no matter what your wishes were.

That is about 180 degrees off the way my lawyer has explained the situation. It also is why my physicians, and a few trusted other people have been provided copies of my legal directive.

Quite frankly I will rely on my lawyer, who is a competent practitioner, for legal advice, rather that some internet guy who posts to a forum like this under a pseudonym, and who I know from experience quite often -- as in this case -- plays fast and loose with facts.

now, please tell us why we should stand silently while a mother takes away the life of an otherwise perfectly healthy baby at the beginning of their life? you have every opportunity to speak for yourself, that innocent child has no such opportunity.

What you describe is infanticide, and as you describe it infanticide is recognized as immoral and illegal almost universally in America these days. It is not the same thing as abortion, which is the termination of a pregnancy.

you wouldn't like it if we TOOK THAT OPPORTUNITY AWAY, and just decided arbitrarily that, as soon as your butt hits the ventilator, that your life is forfiet, as you are no longer a 'person' while in a coma, now would you?

First of all, no ventilator will be attached to my butt, since that is not where I breathe from or through. Is that where you draw your breath?

Beyond that, you make it clear you think the government should nullify end of life directives and not permit people to make those decisions for themselves. That is another point upon which we disagree.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 3 (Define fetus as an “individual” in statute )

crazycajun — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:29:24 GMT

oh, by the way... can you say that you believe that a woman has the right to CHOOSE to kill her child?

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 3 (Define fetus as an “individual” in statute )

crazycajun — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:26:51 GMT

how is it that you can rally for your RIGHT TO BREATHE CLEAN AIR over the RIGHT OF A PROPERTY OWNER TO ALLOW SMOKING IN HIS ESTABLISHMENT, but refuse to believe that an unborn human being has the RIGHT TO LIFE?

when did YOUR right to life start?

does YOUR right to life extend beyond the point that you need to be put on a respirator and other advanced life support methods?

according to you, it doesn't.

you are too frail, to weak, and too feeble to make decisions for yourself. you may be comatose, in which case, like that child in the womb, receiving all it's support from someone else, unable to make those decisions for yourself.

you, like that unborn child, have to rely on the morals and values of those around you. and you, like that innocent life in the womb, must live or die with the consequences.

by the way, if your spouse disagrees with your 'expressed wishes', and continues to pay the bills, you will be kept on life support for as long as she wishes, no matter what your wishes were. no hospital wants to get in between an ASSISTED SUICIDE LAWYER and a grieving spouse.

now, as an invalid who has lived a long and hopefully happy life, you may wish to fritter away what's left of your life and call it a 'QUALITY OF LIFE' issue and a personal choice.

now, please tell us why we should stand silently while a mother takes away the life of an otherwise perfectly healthy baby at the beginning of their life? you have every opportunity to speak for yourself, that innocent child has no such opportunity.

you wouldn't like it if we TOOK THAT OPPORTUNITY AWAY, and just decided arbitrarily that, as soon as your butt hits the ventilator, that your life is forfiet, as you are no longer a 'person' while in a coma, now would you?

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 3 (Define fetus as an “individual” in statute )

SaneMichigander — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:38:18 GMT

I gather that your actual response to my post begins here:

veritasamo:

I find you hard to follow since everything you don't agree with you excuse with it being 'a sweeping generality unsupported by medical facts.' What medical facts and what medical experts are you referring to? I can find just as many, if not more, who would state that human life begins at conception. And just as many doctors and publications that state that abortion, especially in the later two trimesters is rarely necessary to protect the life of the mother. And I can find research that has followed women who have had these early and later abortions and which have found that the vast majority have them for reasons of convenience and not necessity.

First of all, I have cited sources of my information. You have not cited sources for yours.

Far more important is the remainder of your statement above -- particularly your bit about being able to find many sources supporting your arguments. I'm sure you can. But that does not necessarily validate your arguments. It only demonstrates that the matter is controversial and remains unsettled. And that is the key point. What anti-abortionists seek is for government to step and by fiat declare their position to be the law of the land. In a civil and free society that is a questionable way to settle controversial issues, especially issues like abortion, which are in fact intensely personal matters.

That is why I oppose legislation that restricts access to abortion.

If we want to reduce everything to bare facts, they are these: the child in the womb is indeed a 'living, breathing' human being. He or She is 'breathing' through their blood with the exchange of oxygen molecules made possible by the placenta. Oxygen is absolutely necessary to his or her life just as with a born person. The unborn child also breathes in the fluid surrounding it into its lungs as practice for birth when the babe will have to start supplying its own oxygen from the air around it, instead of the exchange of gasses in the blood.

Actually, you stated things more accurately earlier, by noting the "human life begins at conception." I actually agree with that, even though there is not universal agreement even over when "conception" can be said to occur. But I do not agree that "human life" necessarily equates to "human being," and I have plenty of company on that score. The latter is a far more complex term, that implies "humanity" and "personhood," and the question over when that occurs in the development of an embryo or fetus or even a neonate of infant or child remains up in the air. In fact, it is that question upon which many conflicting views about abortion spin.

The very fact that knowledgeable, intelligent, educated, decent, religious, thinking people of good will can not agree on that point tells us something: It is a very individual matter. As such, and given the diversity of views on the question, it is my belief our government should step out of the debate and leave the question to individual conscience, which will direct individual decisions as to abortion and childbearing.

By the way, your reference to fetal "breathing" is misleading. As long as the fetus remains in the uterus it draws all its oxygen -- an absolute necessity for survival -- from the umbilical cord attached to the placenta, which is attached to the mother.

It is living because it is growing quickly through the cells that divide and rapidly reproduce. In a mere nine months it develops from a tiny embryo to the newborn too big to reside any longer in its mother's body.

Therefore, since it is a human being by virtue of its DNA/chromosomes, and a living being, by virtue of its cell division, need for nutrients, and use of oxygen, why should it be discriminated against solely by where it happens to be residing.

You just keep making the same assertions wrapped in different words. And your use of the phrase "discriminated against" in reference to a fetus sheds far more heat than light on the discussion. In order to be "discriminated against" and have "rights" a fetus would have to be a human person. That is just common sense, and even ant-abortionists recognize its truth by pushing for legislation like the bill in question here. The problem is, the question of "personhood" is a philosophical one that is a matter of individual view, belief and faith, and the answers are diverse. It is not a question that yields to empirical proof -- as we see every time the discussion arises. People can and do look at the same set of verifiable facts and come up with diverse conclusions as to what they mean.

You see here, you are fully entitled to draw your own conclusions, and to air them. I will support and defend your fundamental right to do that to my own death.

As a freedom lover, though, I also will vigorously oppose your efforts to impose, by government force, your beliefs or conclusions on others who do not share them.

You haven't answered any of the points I raised except by excusing them away with their being 'semantic' or 'sweeping' or 'unsupported.' Where is the proof? Where are the facts to support your arguments? I find your arguments very weak and not based at all in fact.

That is because the points you raise tend to be "sweeping," as if they were the only facts or truths of the matter. I have pointed out The arguments you make typically spin around the definition and meaning of words, which is, by definition, an exercise in semantics. Of course, as explained above, that is the whole nut of the argument in the first place -- how we view the fetus, or as you would have it, child or baby -- in the womb as to its personhood and entitlement to rights.

You would give the preborn humanity to a certain degree, but supercede the child's right to life totally to the mother based solely on the fact that the babe is dependent on her for nine months.

What you constantly overlook is that the child, in this situation, has NO right to speak for itself, and you would deny us the right to defend it. The adults you mention above in end of life situation still have the ability to choose for themselves. The unborn doesn't.

I don't really know what to make of your argumentative assertions about my position.

You state that when I am on advanced life support, I have the ability to express my end of life wishes? Do you really believe that? There I lie, unable to breathe on my own, unconscious, with little to no detectable activity in the intellectual centers of my brain, and you tell me that from such a position I can direct my fate? I'm going to be polite and simply say that such an assertion is preposterous. I am completely at the mercy of the people around me, and I must totally rely upon their good will and integrity in carrying out the instructions I crafted in advance. The last thing that I want, or that is right is to have the Michigan Legislature or any other government entity interfere with executing my wishes, which I have expressed in advance, in anticipation of such a dreadful event.

You are correct that the unborn (fetus or baby -- take your choice) never has an opportunity to articulate its desire in this regard. That is because it cannot. It has no free will, and is totally dependent upon its mother and other mature humans around it for survival. Some, because of profoundly damaged brains, never will be able to make their own decisions, on anything even after birth. And so, it falls to the parent to make those decisions, including the life or death ones. You may not agree with a particular parental decision, but it is beyond the scope of your authority and responsibility to overrule it, it at this point. Anti-abortionists seek to change that situation, and dictate by government force intensely personal decisions by others, that derive from individual personal beliefs that rightly belong to those others.

A 'woman's right to choose' needs to be finished with the addition of 'death for her child'. Surely, a woman who finds herself in this situation can choose help for both herself and her child. There are tons of resources for her to go to for this help, but the baby has none.

I don't agree with you on that either, but have it your way as you wish. To be fair though, you should note that advocates of choice do specify either life or death. They advocate for preservation of the right to make a choice.

As they say, if you don't approve of abortion don't have one, but don't interfere with others' right to make their own choices.

By the way, I know many many people who advocate for individual choice, but none who advocate abortion. And certainly none who applaud fetal death.

A pregnancy lasts only nine months, but death is forever. What a horrible choice to force on another human being who has absolutely no way to defend him/herself.

More inflammatory rhetoric that resolves nothing. This is just another way of making your impassioned argument without really supporting it.

As Mother Theresa once said: it is true poverty to decide that another must die for me to live as I wish. (or something like that; I forget the exact words but that's the gist of it.)

Mother Theresa was a remarkable and wonderful and generous person. I think that is a wonderful thought. Perhaps you should use it when you counsel women who are contemplating abortions. Do you think it will give them great comfort as they wrestle with their very personal dilemma of conscience?

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 3 (Define fetus as an “individual” in statute )

crazycajun — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:37:12 GMT

so, sane...

are you saying IT'S OKAY TO KILL THE BABY TO DEFEND LIFESTYLE???

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 3 (Define fetus as an “individual” in statute )

crazycajun — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:33:35 GMT

so, let's boil that down.

if you cannot make your own decisions about your life, you have no right to life.

if you are too weak, to frail, too young, to immature, or too incapacitated, you have no right to life and it's okay to kill you.

did you know that it is against the ethics of doctors to NOT attempt recessitation? that's why there is a legal form you have to sign. they fought against that ideal long and hard. states fought against it long and hard as well. the fact that you had to put it into your will speaks loudly to the importance of the resistance to such an abhorant idea. to them, except in the case of abortion on demand, life should be preserved.

now, i could understand using this proceedure IF the mother's life were in danger from the fetus. but IT NEVER IS. they are NEVER DEFENDING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

they are ALWAYS KILLING THE BABY.

when you MIRACULOUSLY BESTOW LIFE by passing that baby through the birth canal, you ALSO MIRACULOUSLY BESTOW ALL THE RIGHTS AND PRIVELEGES THEREOF, INCLUDING CITIZENSHIP.

we disagree on when those rights should be recognized. you wish to be able to kill babies, and that cannot be done if we recognize that baby as having rights. your LUMP OF FLESH arguement goes out the window pretty quickly, but you stick to it.

even we will recognize that it is occasionally necessary to sacrifice one life to save another, but YOU are not saving any lives by allowing abortions, you are only sacrificing innocent lives. as you cannot show one single circumstance that NECESSITATES that sacrifice, we must take it that there are none.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 3 (Define fetus as an “individual” in statute )

crazycajun — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:19:47 GMT

veritasamo:

jmangan:

crazycajun:

when is a "person" free to kill another person?

only in self defense, or in defense of another "person".

not in defense of INCONVENIENCE, but death or great bodily harm.

You would like to boil this issue down to right or wrong. Such a simple concept. It is always right, or always wrong.

<right here is where you put your foot into your mouth.>

Murder is always wrong, except in defense of ones selve, or in defense of someone else, or in defense of one's country, or when determined by man's law. Or when you decide it is justified.

<MURDER IS ALWAYS WRONG. KILLING IS SOMETIMES JUSTIFIED. it's truly a simple concept that you refuse to grasp. it is NEVER justifiable to kill an unborn in the womb, and you cannot show where it is.>

You think you have the right to decide for a woman, any woman, whether she should give birth to a child. Think of the power that concept gives you over the body of a woman.

<i exercise no power over a woman, i only hold her responsible for her decisions on what she does, just like everyone else. i hold YOU responsible if YOU wantonly kill, but i hold no power over you. you would give a woman the POWER TO KILL AT WILL. THAT is a very awesome power indeed.>

Think about this. If men gave birth, there would be no discussion in this forum about the rights of men to decide whether to have a child or not. Women would not dare question what men do with their bodies.

<if men gave birth and while gestating, killed the infants they carried, women would indeed question what they did with the BEING WITHIN THEIR BODIES. they would hold them responsible for the loss of life. they would uphold the RIGHT TO LIFE of the being in their bodies. and if that being was put there by a rapist or incestuous relative, they would hold that rapist or relative RESPONSIBLE for the crime they committed. >

Your statement about men cannot be proven, isn't true, and is an example of the sweeping statements you so dislike. And besides, it's irrelevant to the argument.

And women who choose abortion ARE giving birth; they're just delivering a dead child instead of a live one. Abortions are forced early births, before nature intended, and are harmful to the woman's body, much more so than delivering on time and naturally.

And women do control their bodies all the time; but they have no right to control another's body. Once a life begins in the womb, it deserves the right to be born. I find the argument that because an unborn child hasn't reached viability, it can then be killed at will extremely noxious. That's just saying that the dependent among us have no rights, and the weaker one is, the fewer rights and protections one has.

Surely you're aware that the early feminists hated abortion and looked on it as something men forced on women to protect themselves.

Real feminists don't kill babies.

well said.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 3 (Define fetus as an “individual” in statute )

veritasamo — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:49:52 GMT

Surely you're aware that the early feminists hated abortion and looked on it as something men forced on women to protect themselves.

Real feminists don't kill babies.

The question is, do you want to base the discussion on unproven facts, sweeping generalities, and irrelevancies, or not. Since you raise the issue, please make a choice.

Now, you assert:

And women who choose abortion ARE giving birth; they're just delivering a dead child instead of a live one. Abortions are forced early births, before nature intended, and are harmful to the woman's body, much more so than delivering on time and naturally.

You are making a semantic argument in the first sentence. That is what always clouds and in the end makes real discussion of this issue difficult, if not virtually impossible.

The second sentence is a sweeping generality that is not supported by medical facts and reality.

I find you hard to follow since everything you don't agree with you excuse with it being 'a sweeping generality unsupported by medical facts.' What medical facts and what medical experts are you referring to? I can find just as many, if not more, who would state that human life begins at conception. And just as many doctors and publications that state that abortion, especially in the later two trimesters is rarely necessary to protect the life of the mother. And I can find research that has followed women who have had these early and later abortions and which have found that the vast majority have them for reasons of convenience and not necessity.

If we want to reduce everything to bare facts, they are these: the child in the womb is indeed a 'living, breathing' human being. He or She is 'breathing' through their blood with the exchange of oxygen molecules made possible by the placenta. Oxygen is absolutely necessary to his or her life just as with a born person. The unborn child also breathes in the fluid surrounding it into its lungs as practice for birth when the babe will have to start supplying its own oxygen from the air around it, instead of the exchange of gasses in the blood.

It is living because it is growing quickly through the cells that divide and rapidly reproduce. In a mere nine months it develops from a tiny embryo to the newborn too big to reside any longer in its mother's body.

Therefore, since it is a human being by virtue of its DNA/chromosomes, and a living being, by virtue of its cell division, need for nutrients, and use of oxygen, why should it be discriminated against solely by where it happens to be residing.

You haven't answered any of the points I raised except by excusing them away with their being 'semantic' or 'sweeping' or 'unsupported.' Where is the proof? Where are the facts to support your arguments? I find your arguments very weak and not based at all in fact.

You would give the preborn humanity to a certain degree, but supercede the child's right to life totally to the mother based solely on the fact that the babe is dependent on her for nine months.

What you constantly overlook is that the child, in this situation, has NO right to speak for itself, and you would deny us the right to defend it. The adults you mention above in end of life situation still have the ability to choose for themselves. The unborn doesn't.

A 'woman's right to choose' needs to be finished with the addition of 'death for her child'. Surely, a woman who finds herself in this situation can choose help for both herself and her child. There are tons of resources for her to go to for this help, but the baby has none.

A pregnancy lasts only nine months, but death is forever. What a horrible choice to force on another human being who has absolutely no way to defend him/herself.

As Mother Theresa once said: it is true poverty to decide that another must die for me to live as I wish. (or something like that; I forget the exact words but that's the gist of it.)

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 3 (Define fetus as an “individual” in statute )

SaneMichigander — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:01:12 GMT

veritasamo:

Your statement about men cannot be proven, isn't true, and is an example of the sweeping statements you so dislike. And besides, it's irrelevant to the argument.

I hardly can disagree with that. But you undermine your own argument in your closing remark:

Surely you're aware that the early feminists hated abortion and looked on it as something men forced on women to protect themselves.

Real feminists don't kill babies.

The question is, do you want to base the discussion on unproven facts, sweeping generalities, and irrelevancies, or not. Since you raise the issue, please make a choice.

Now, you assert:

And women who choose abortion ARE giving birth; they're just delivering a dead child instead of a live one. Abortions are forced early births, before nature intended, and are harmful to the woman's body, much more so than delivering on time and naturally.

You are making a semantic argument in the first sentence. That is what always clouds and in the end makes real discussion of this issue difficult, if not virtually impossible.

The second sentence is a sweeping generality that is not supported by medical facts and reality.

Now:

And women do control their bodies all the time; but they have no right to control another's body.

Women have been denied the right to control what happens with their bodies by law and court decision that bans the use of the medical procedure known as Intact Dilation and Extraction in late term abortions, which the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asserts may be the safest procedure to use, for the woman. The procedure is politically described as "partial birth abortion." Its description is hideous.

However, the same law and court decision leaves open use of a procedure known as Dilation and Evacuation, in which the result for the fetus is exactly the same -- death -- with the added little twist of dismemberment before removal from the womb. It also is a hideous procedure, perhaps moreso than the banned one. In short, the law and court decision protects and preserves not a single fetal life, but prohibits the living, breathing woman from choosing a procedure that may best protect her own health.

Once a life begins in the womb, it deserves the right to be born. I find the argument that because an unborn child hasn't reached viability, it can then be killed at will extremely noxious. That's just saying that the dependent among us have no rights, and the weaker one is, the fewer rights and protections one has.

This is your opinion, passionately stated. I do not particularly agree.

Especially I disagree that the state should dictate and force its will upon competent individuals in these matters.

I disagree greatly with your third sentence, which actually makes an argument for negating the "do not resuscitate" and "no extraordinary life support measures" wishes and instructions in my living will. The difference between me and a fetus -- or baby if you wish to call it that -- or even neonate or infant child that requires technological life support, is that I am a physically, intellectually and emotionally fully developed and competent adult. Thus, I am able to anticipate circumstances and am fully capable of expressing my own wishes as to what is to be done with my body should I become dependent on others for keeping me alive.

A fetus, or a neonate or infant on life support is not capable of those things, and thus is dependent on others not merely for sustaining life but making life and end of life decisions in its regard or behalf. In my opinion the only truly competent people to make those decisions are the mother, and after birth, the mother and father jointly, since both will be held responsible for looking after the child from there on out.