Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: This is about our courts! It is not a time for integrity! 42

Journal by pudge

NARAL is running one of the most deceptive ads I've seen in many years. They show an abortion clinic being blown up (sir!), and a woman injured by it, and then show that John Roberts was named on a brief that supported the right of people to protest at abortion clinics.

Never mind that Roberts did so as part of his job under the first President Bush, that he was not even the primary submitter of the brief (Kenneth Starr was; Roberts was his deputy), that it happened eight years before the bombing, and that it in no way aimed to protect anyone who would commit violent acts.

This would be as dishonest as describing lynchings, and then saying the ACLU protected the rights of the KKK to speak freely, so the ACLU must be stopped! Actually, this is a lot more dishonest, because the KKK killed and injured far more innocent people than anti-abortion extremists; because it is not (in the collective U.S. view) inherently wrong to protest against abortion, while racism is inherently wrong; and because one cannot reasonably conclude this brief even reflects Roberts' own views.

I'm not even sure why I am spending time rebutting the ad: maybe because I figure it is possible some people won't see through its implicative lies.

I am not going to get too much into this Roberts thing, I hope, and this is exactly why: he is almost sure to be confirmed, and the far left extremists and their politicians will say and do anything to try to prevent it, including lying about his record, lying about the Constitution's requirements, lying about the history of judicial confirmations, and so on.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

This is about our courts! It is not a time for integrity! More

This is about our courts! It is not a time for integrity!

Comments Filter:
  • I like Roberts, and I hate NARAL with a fiery passion.

    Just needed to get that out SOMEWHERE.
    • Perhaps you should check out Liberterians for Life [l4l.org]
      • I probably should. I reject religion-based arguments, it will be interesting to see HOW they argue "personhood starts from conception".

        Granted, in the absense of scientific data showing when consciousness begins (or has its roots, or whatever), I think I'll be a perpetual fence-sitter.

        • Definitely check it out. I'm a pro-life libertarian as well. I do not believe in enforcing my religion on other people through the law, AT ALL. But I do believe protection of the unborn is absolutely required by libertarian principles.

        • I probably should. I reject religion-based arguments, it will be interesting to see HOW they argue "personhood starts from conception".

          The burden of proof is not on those who wish to assert life, but on those who wish to assert the absence of it. In the 9 May 2005 issue of National Review, Daniel Oliver clearly spells out why. He starts with the simple statement: "The first and central issue in the abortion debate is whether the fetus is a person. The second issue is how we should behave if we can't concl
          • Interesting thoughts, all, although I'm more interested in the edge cases he does not address.

            Is a fertilized egg at any stage a "fetus"?

            Only after it's implanted?

            Only after it starts developing neural tissue of some kind?

            Being strictly secularist, I'm tempted to fall into the camp of "allow abortion but only VERY early (first month or first trimester)". I worry about a slippery slope around the time of conception--are emergency contraceptives (or emergency abortificants, depending on where you fall on the
            • Interesting thoughts, all, although I'm more interested in the edge cases he does not address.

              He does touch on those things in the article, but concludes, as noted, that you cannot come to a conclusive answer. So the question then is: so what do you do now? It seems to me you missed the point ... unless you believe you CAN come to a conclusive answer on those questions.

              Being strictly secularist, I'm tempted to fall into the camp of "allow abortion but only VERY early (first month or first trimester)".

              Then
              • I've come to the conclusion it's not "human" life until it has at least something resembling a human nervous system. I don't see how that's "impossible" or how I'm discarding the precautionary principle--if anything it's just a demonstration of the fact we're operating from different axioms concerning what differentiates "J. Random Blob with human DNA" from "a human".

                Conception is just as arbitrary a starting point as anything else, IMHO--why not pick implantation? Or pick ovulation, and say every menstru
                • I've come to the conclusion it's not "human" life until it has at least something resembling a human nervous system

                  First: how? How did you come to that conclusion?

                  Second: so you take back what you said about the first trimester, and instead will agree to six weeks, when brain wave activity begins?

                  I don't see how that's "impossible" or how I'm discarding the precautionary principle

                  Because you clearly don't *know* when human life begins, and yet you are choosing an arbitrary point sometime in the middle of t
                  • First: how? How did you come to that conclusion?

                    I will cover this further down, but I'm including this so you know I'm not intentionally abandoning it.

                    Second: so you take back what you said about the first trimester, and instead will agree to six weeks, when brain wave activity begins?

                    So conceded.

                    Because it is already a unique, living homo sapiens before implantation. It has unique DNA, and is growing.

                    I'll agree with the latter sentence but not the former. I don't believe it can be said to be "alive" until
                    • I don't believe it can be said to be "alive" until at the very least implantation--prior to that, it's just a biological reaction that may or may not amount to anything

                      That is simply false. It is alive, in every biological sense of the word.

                      Prior to that, it may well be life, but it's not anything like an individual human life--there's nothing "there" to HAVE rights, any more than my liver by itself has rights

                      Again, that is simply false. This is a human organism, in every biological sense of the word. A

                    • I don't believe it can be said to be "alive" until at the very least implantation--prior to that, it's just a biological reaction that may or may not amount to anything

                      This is just scientifically inaccurate - as I have said many times, after fertilization, the biological phase of "reproduction" has ended and "gestation" has begun. I strongly suggest you read the whole libertarians for life [l4l.org] artice on this topic. If you want to exit the realm of supernatural mysticism, you need to accept the plain scie

                    • While I respect the Precautinary Principle that pudge brings up, I find it impossible to rationally conclude that a zygote is not a human being.

                      I agree: but some people refuse to come to that conclusion, and instead throw up their hands and say they don't know. Fine, you don't know: it doesn't change a thing, because of the precautionary principle.
                    • I agree that my definitions are arbitrary.

                      However, your "simply false" repetitions seem to me to be handwaving around my points.

                      I don't think you acutally have an arguement here any more than I do (aside from the precautionary principle) -- unless there's a method you can use to "prove" what a human life is (and I admit to not being able to concieve (heh) of such a proof) then we're going to be stuck at this definition point.

                      If you think this breaks the precautionary principle, that's fine. In my value sys
                    • I think, on further reflection, that it's not so much that I'm rejecting the precautionary principle as that I'm modifying it based on my beliefs on what constitutes "humanity".

                      Axiom 1: DNA is not sufficient to determine what's human.
                      Axiom 2: The term "human" can only be attached to a personality (or potential personality), not merely a biological organism with the right DNA.

                      I am aware that there are those who would use my axioms to do things like "kill all the retards and senile old people". I don't think
                    • However, your "simply false" repetitions seem to me to be handwaving around my points.

                      Yes, because your points are a. false and b. beside the point. :-)

                      I don't think you acutally have an arguement here any more than I do (aside from the precautionary principle)

                      But that is the only point I've really pushed.

                      unless there's a method you can use to "prove" what a human life is

                      Again: I am not, in this discussion, attempting to prove what a human life is, or when it begins. I am attempting to prove that *if you d
                    • I think, on further reflection, that it's not so much that I'm rejecting the precautionary principle as that I'm modifying it based on my beliefs on what constitutes "humanity".

                      No, you are not. You've already conceded you do not know when humanity begins, so the precautionary principle therefore applies.

                      Axiom 1: DNA is not sufficient to determine what's human.
                      Axiom 2: The term "human" can only be attached to a personality (or potential personality), not merely a biological organism with the right DNA.

                      Even
                    • So for those of us who aren't taking the principle as axiomatic, we're going to disagree with you.

                      And people who believe their cat is worthy of human rights based on emotional responses that are strikingly similar, in their view, to human ones are, as best I can tell, deluded (based on your choice of response).

                      I mean, as long as we're going to discuss the soul, hell, that box MIGHT have the soul of Lincoln in it. How do you test that?

                      Where do you draw the line for maybe?

                      Also, if in my viewpoint, human life
                    • So for those of us who aren't taking the principle as axiomatic, we're going to disagree with you.

                      A more correct statement would be, "for those of us who don't agree with the principle, we don't agree with the principle."

                      And yet, you've not said what's wrong with the principle, except that you disagree with it.

                      Where do you draw the line for maybe?

                      At some point, the egg and sperm come together and form an organism, that we -- at some point -- recognize as a human life which has certain rights. That is not t
                    • *nods* I think I'm understanding everything I need to here. I'll retreat to my cave to gnaw on it a while.

                      The only remaining thing of interest to me is the burden-of-proof switching you have going on in the middle paragraph. It SEEMS that you're saying that your definition of human life is never the one under the burden of proof--if someone wants to extend human rights, they have the burden of proof. If someone wants to remove them, they have the burden of proof. How did your definition end up being th
                    • The only remaining thing of interest to me is the burden-of-proof switching you have going on in the middle paragraph. It SEEMS that you're saying that your definition of human life is never the one under the burden of proof--if someone wants to extend human rights, they have the burden of proof.

                      No, I specifically noted it is not "never," as I said people who want to say cats are human have the burden of proof. And I explained then what makes this case different.
                    • As far as I can tell, you're more or less using this "precautionary principle" as a mallet to drive off people who want legal abortions, saying "well, generally we define humanity as 'x', and you have to prove why that's not the case.", and you refuse to loan that same mallet to people who want to expand the class of things-with-human-rights, saying "well, generally we define humanity as 'x', and you have to prove why your case fits in that."

                      Your dancing around the topic is clever, but I'm reading your pos
                    • As far as I can tell

                      Which obviously is not very far ...

                      you're more or less using this "precautionary principle" as a mallet to drive off people who want legal abortions, saying "well, generally we define humanity as 'x', and you have to prove why that's not the case.", and you refuse to loan that same mallet to people who want to expand the class of things-with-human-rights, saying "well, generally we define humanity as 'x', and you have to prove why your case fits in that."

                      A cat, nor a box, ever becomes hu
                    • You're arguing from your axioms as though they were solid, proven facts.

                      Your entire argument rests on the BELIEF that human life HAS to be treated as though it begins where you say it begins, and you refuse to even directly address any counter-claims.

                      According to that Hindu, that cow WILL become a human if left uninterrupted, just as soon as it dies and reincarnates, but there's no essential difference. Why doesn't this engage your precautionary principle? Answer: Because your axioms don't account for it
                    • You're arguing from your axioms as though they were solid, proven facts.

                      No, I'm not.

                      Your entire argument rests on the BELIEF that human life HAS to be treated as though it begins where you say it begins

                      You couldn't be more wrong. What I have very patiently and carefully explained is quite the opposite: that you must treat human life as though it begins shortly after conception is not the basis for the argument, but the conclusion.

                      As you still don't get this at all, I am going to give up. I've run out of p
                    • Funny, I feel the same way about you. Your "patient, caring explanations" are just window dressing for your axioms. You have not explained why your belief of what might constitute the beginning of human life is any more valid than the more-inclusive hindu belief, or the beliefs of some that expressed sperm and ova are human life as well. You have merely harped over and over that conception is the point at which we must apply the precautionary principle, the earliest point in a process that inevitably, un
                    • You have not explained why your belief of what might constitute the beginning of human life is any more valid ... You provide no evidence for your seemingly arbitrary choice of a starting point.

                      That's because I never once asked you to believe in that starting point. You continue to simply not get it.
                    • I read up on the damn precautionary principle, just so I'd get a clear read on it.

                      According to Wikipedia, it can be summed up as "If we can't quantify the risk of a decision that might lead to great harm, then we should postpone the decision."

                      You say, we can't quantify when a fetus becomes a human being, so we should not allow abortion by the precautionary principle because a fetus might be a human from conception on.

                      I say, we can't quantify whether a cow has a human soul (as per hindu belief), so because i
                    • Define for me the difference in logic between those two statements, in the absence of a definition of humanity.

                      I already did. More than once. So, for at least a third time: there is no proof, of any sort, that a cow ever becomes a human.
                    • There is no proof, of any sort, that a embryo is a human in any meaningful way until it's born and surviving on its own.

                      This is easy.

                      Answer carefully--you've already asserted that you can't prove where humanity begins, thus your use of the precautionary principle. If there's certainty at any point, the precautionary principle ceases to apply (as I understand the definition) and then we just go into standard risk assessment and whatever beliefs about human rights you have.

        • I probably should. I reject religion-based arguments, it will be interesting to see HOW they argue "personhood starts from conception".

          Put simply [l4l.org] by Dr Edwin Viera Jr:

          The underlying premise in the arguments pro-abortionists give against fetal personhood is that non-persons can change into persons. They are saying that a living being can undergo a radical, essential change in its nature during its lifetime.

          But there is a logical problem here. If the change was biologically inevitable from conception

          • Yeah, that's the best part: to argue that personhood is somehow conveyed at some intermediate stage is itself the religious (that is, faith-based) argument.

            There is only one intermediate stage I can think of that might make sense: the point at which brain waves show up. We use brain waves as a sign of life all the time. Before that, one COULD argue an absence of human life. After that, one really cannot, without going metaphysical, without getting religious, because there is no other significant biologic

            • There is only one intermediate stage I can think of that might make sense: the point at which brain waves show up. Before that, one COULD argue an absence of human life.

              Even a pre-brainwave human fetus is still a human being - that it is a genetically human, and a distinct organism. When you look at how humans perpetuate as a species, at some point reproduction has ended and gestation of a new creature begins - the only logical place for this to occur is after fertilization. One could argue that a pre

              • Even a pre-brainwave human fetus is still a human being - that it is a genetically human, and a distinct organism

                I agree. I am just saying, I can see how some people would insist human life that is accorded human rights does not exist without brain waves. I disagree, but even if we go *that far* -- and it is not reasonable, biologically, to go farther -- you still end up at about 6-8 weeks, far less than the 12 or 24 many people are in favor of.

                If/when Roberts gets confirmed, it is not likely Roe will be
              • Even a pre-brainwave human fetus is still a human being - that it is a genetically human, and a distinct organism. When you look at how humans perpetuate as a species, at some point reproduction has ended and gestation of a new creature begins - the only logical place for this to occur is after fertilization.

                See my comment to pudge above.

                Relevantly summarized here as: "if 'genetically human' is a criteria, why are ovum not human until fertilized? (easy answer, just throwing it to cover all the bases.) If '

                • Relevantly summarized here as: "if 'genetically human' is a criteria, why are ovum not human until fertilized? (easy answer, just throwing it to cover all the bases.) If 'on a road that will end at human barring interruption', why not wait until implantation? Otherwise, you've got a lot of frozen 'people' sitting in fertility clinics and such."

                  You are absolutely right - this why according to one article [embryodonation.org], only 3% of 400,000 frozen embryos are designated for research purposes. It also explains the growing

                  • I think we've boiled this down to the axioms here. As *I* see it, you can pretty rationally defend the position that "life begins at conception", and you can pretty rationally defend the position that "life begins at implantation".

                    Entirely depends on what your axioms tell you human life is--I say axioms because I can't even concieve of a way to "prove" when human life begins, it all boils down to what your gut tells you.

                    If you have a better way, or a way to un-axiom-ize the 'beginning' of human life in a w

                    • Entirely depends on what your axioms tell you human life is--I say axioms because I can't even concieve of a way to "prove" when human life begins, it all boils down to what your gut tells you.

                      According to every rational definition of life, the biological existence of every human being starts at conception - this is commonly accepted biology. Forgetting the term 'person' for a moment, let us consider, say, dogs. Is there a point where fetal dogs become some kind of "dog people"? No, thats just silly.

                    • Those who believe in the value of human life should never engage in the "where does personhood begin" debate, but rather ask "on what basis do we grant human rights".

                      I wouldn't agree, because I use the "where does personhood begin" debate to show that their granting of human rights on any point after "creation of new life" is arbitrary. A bit of the ol' Socratic Method.

                      Though they often don't get it.

                    • There is no real way to dispute this, we have even captured it on video - sperm + egg = new creature. It's not just "it makes more sense this way", its something we can concretely observe.

                      Maybe the pro-abortion folks were kept out of that sex-ed class I got to go to?

                      Forgetting the term 'person' for a moment, let us consider, say, dogs. Is there a point where fetal dogs become some kind of "dog people"? No, thats just silly. An unborn dog of any age is an ontological dog.

                      This is very simple:

                      Human

  • As mostly a lurker & only occasional poster, let me step in and say that I've found this discussion to be easily the best discussion on the topic I've seen. People have been respectful, thoughtful and relatively objective and open-minded--things that abortion discussions seldom are at least in my experience. I don't know that I've ever seen an abortion discussion where I believed the people were actually listening to and considering each others' viewpoints.

    Granted I suppose there hasn't been anyone

Slashdot Top Deals

You're not Dave. Who are you?

Close