Sorry to say

PeterZ wrote:Didn't accuse you of double standards. I just denoted an apoarent nonsequitor. A community can decide who can join it as can a nation. Asserting that anyone a ignore the wishes of the community and nation and simply move in is more than a little arrogant. If a would be immigrant is unwilling to comply with the wishes of the community the plan on joining, they are likely not to be good neighbors and citizens.

Following the law is essential to living within the social contract we have in the US. That included our immigration laws. If you are unwilling to live in accordance to our social contract, we don't need nor want you.

Oh please. More often than not immigration law has nothing to do with the 'social contract' and everything to do with keeping unpopular elements out. I'm not talking about screening for criminals, but about laws such as those that targeted Southern European immigration to the US early last century or those aimed at preventing Asian immigration to South Africa during Apartheid.

I agree that the law should be obeyed, since the alternative is anarchy, but then the law needs to be fair both in intent and application. Immigration law is one area of law that has been consistently demonstrated, in country after country, to be nothing of the sort.

Immigration is a complex and emotionally challenging issue. But the reality is the entire world population of 7 billion people CANNOT live in the US/Canada/Europe/Australia. The challenge is how to decide, in a fair manner. It's not easy.

Indeed so. As part of the decision process, there is nothing wrong with communities requiring that immigrants integrate themselves in the communities they wish to join and to limit the number of immigrants to an amount those communities CAN incorporate/digest comfortably.

biochem wrote:Immigration is a complex and emotionally challenging issue. But the reality is the entire world population of 7 billion people CANNOT live in the US/Canada/Europe/Australia. The challenge is how to decide, in a fair manner. It's not easy.

Do I have a right to kill a baby?...No! Then why do I have a right to kill a baby in the womb.

The democrats have selectively gone around federal laws against providing funds for abortions. Translated it's illegal to fund abortions under Federal law! Under the Obama administration, the Democratic party decided to reimburse PP for abortions when their party owned both legislative bodies and the white house. This issue used to be a state issue. Now, the Democrats receive a ton of money from PP. Well to fix this problem, no organization receiving federal funds should be able to donate to political party. That fixes the economic incentive to be moral idiots and fixes a number of campaign funding problems within both parties!

The difficulty is in the definition of what constitutes a baby. At one end is a healthy full term new born, at the other end is a sperm and egg. Somewhere in between the baby comes into being a baby.
The viability criteria is vague as it can range from able to survive after birth with no medical intervention, to able to survive with massive medical intervention leading to a tragic life full of difficulty.

Perhaps when significant detectable brain activity starts?

I don't know the line, but I know to kill a viable baby is very wrong, yet I have no problem with early abortion before there is significant development.

smr wrote:Do I have a right to kill a baby?...No! Then why do I have a right to kill a baby in the womb.

The democrats have selectively gone around federal laws against providing funds for abortions. Translated it's illegal to fund abortions under Federal law! Under the Obama administration, the Democratic party decided to reimburse PP for abortions when their party owned both legislative bodies and the white house. This issue used to be a state issue. Now, the Democrats receive a ton of money from PP. Well to fix this problem, no organization receiving federal funds should be able to donate to political party. That fixes the economic incentive to be moral idiots and fixes a number of campaign funding problems within both parties!

smr wrote:Do I have a right to kill a baby?...No! Then why do I have a right to kill a baby in the womb.

Is it your womb?

If so, that's why. It's not complicated. You have final say over your body and what it gets used for. PERIOD. The state does not get to forcibly compel you to undergo a pregnancy and then a birth against your will.


How fucking hard a concept is that to grasp?

(And I'm just ignoring that we're not taking about a baby, since that actually doesn't matter, even though it's annoying to see people inaccurately refer to zygotes and fetuses as babies as a form of emotional manipulation because they have no rational arguments or are just too damn ignorant to know the difference.)

Daryl wrote:The difficulty is in the definition of what constitutes a baby.

It's really not. That's just used to confuse the issue. And to illustrate the point let's deal with something that there's no debate over.

A 1 year old.



Now, our example 1 year old has, through no fault of his own of course, been exposed to a hazardous chemical. As a result his liver has failed.

There is precisely one identified compatible donor. The kid is dead in hours without a liver transplant. There is no time to identify another candidate.

Can we compel the identified donor to undergo the procedure to save the kids life against their will? If they choose not to go through with it the kid will die. Guaranteed.

The answer of course is that we cannot. The kid's right to life does not extend to appropriating the use of another person's body against their will to preserve that life.



What if that person, through a freak coincidence, was the one careless enough with said chemical to cause the accident that has led to us being in this situation?

EVEN THEN, the answer is still a solid and unequivocal NO. They cannot be compelled against their will to undergo a surgical procedure and have bits of them removed.



And let's be clear, donating a piece of liver, while surgery and so obviously not trivial, is not any more of an imposition by any stretch of the imagination that an involuntary 9 month pregnancy and a birth.

You simply cannot force people to use their body for someone else's purposes against their will. Period. And no appeal to that other person's "right to life" alters that one iota.


So even if we consider a zygote or a fetus a "someone" or call it a baby, which it isn't, it changes squat. You still can't force a woman to use her body as an incubator against her will with any appeal to some "right to life"... down that road lies legally defining women's bodies as community property.

I agree with gcomeau.

Howard "True Map-addict" Wilkins, Pointy-Headed Liberal

gcomeau wrote:

smr wrote:Do I have a right to kill a baby?...No! Then why do I have a right to kill a baby in the womb.

Is it your womb?

If so, that's why. It's not complicated. You have final say over your body and what it gets used for. PERIOD. The state does not get to forcibly compel you to undergo a pregnancy and then a birth against your will.


How fucking hard a concept is that to grasp?

(And I'm just ignoring that we're not taking about a baby, since that actually doesn't matter, even though it's annoying to see people inaccurately refer to zygotes and fetuses as babies as a form of emotional manipulation because they have no rational arguments or are just too damn ignorant to know the difference.)

I agree with gcomeau.

I add that "outsiders" who would stop a particular woman
from getting an abortion,
might not even know if she is pregnant!
How can they know if a woman is pregnant,
unless she tells them?
They *do not* have any Right To Know Who Is Pregnant!

She does *not* have any Duty to tell anyone.
Not even her husband (although a wife *does* tell her
husband unless she has such good reason not to that
the marriage is in very bad trouble anyway)!
A pregnant woman certainly has the Right to withhold
that information from anyone else!

If she wants anyone to know, she will tell them.
If she wants help from anyone, she will ask for it.
If she *does not* tell any particular person,
or group of people,
Then it is *not the business* of them or him!
They have *no right* to that data.
Even asking for it is an intrusion.

Acting on such information, or guesses, is *wrong.*
Acting without information, is *worse!*
Attempting to control a woman's body, against her will,
is Tyranny.

Howard "True Map-addict" Wilkins, Pointy-Headed Liberal

gcomeau wrote:

Daryl wrote:The difficulty is in the definition of what constitutes a baby.

It's really not. That's just used to confuse the issue. And to illustrate the point let's deal with something that there's no debate over.

A 1 year old.



Now, our example 1 year old has, through no fault of his own of course, been exposed to a hazardous chemical. As a result his liver has failed.

There is precisely one identified compatible donor. The kid is dead in hours without a liver transplant. There is no time to identify another candidate.

Can we compel the identified donor to undergo the procedure to save the kids life against their will? If they choose not to go through with it the kid will die. Guaranteed.

The answer of course is that we cannot. The kid's right to life does not extend to appropriating the use of another person's body against their will to preserve that life.



What if that person, through a freak coincidence, was the one careless enough with said chemical to cause the accident that has led to us being in this situation?

EVEN THEN, the answer is still a solid and unequivocal NO. They cannot be compelled against their will to undergo a surgical procedure and have bits of them removed.



And let's be clear, donating a piece of liver, while surgery and so obviously not trivial, is not any more of an imposition by any stretch of the imagination that an involuntary 9 month pregnancy and a birth.

You simply cannot force people to use their body for someone else's purposes against their will. Period. And no appeal to that other person's "right to life" alters that one iota.


So even if we consider a zygote or a fetus a "someone" or call it a baby, which it isn't, it changes squat. You still can't force a woman to use her body as an incubator against her will with any appeal to some "right to life"... down that road lies legally defining women's bodies as community property.

I don't want to take a particular side in this discussion at this point.

But I do want to point out that both sides have valid arguments. The reason you guys are having this discussion is that it is a real problem.

The mother-to-be has rights. The child-to-be also has rights - at least at some point. There is no easy solution to this dilemma and whoever thinks they have one are deluding themselves.

One underlying problem is that nature has been neither gender-fair nor politically correct when it came up with how human reproduction works. Now we are stuck with it and have to somehow find a solution that balances out the diffent rights as good as possible.