"Orgies are the way to ease social tensions, claims US judge

Oliver Burkeman in New York
Friday October 1, 2004
The Guardian

He is the conservative bastion of the US supreme court, a favourite of President Bush, and a hunting partner of the vice-president. He has argued vociferously against abortion rights, and in favour of anti-sodomy laws.
But it turns out that there is another side to Justice Antonin Scalia: he thinks Americans ought to be having more orgies.

Challenged about his views on sexual morality, Justice Scalia surprised his audience at Harvard University, telling them: "I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged."

It seems unlikely that this is what President Bush meant when he promised to appoint more judges like Scalia to the court, should the opportunity arise. Crucially, Justice Scalia is one of the judges in favour of overturning Roe v Wade, the landmark judgment protecting abortion as a constitutional right."
From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1317386,00.html

He must of had a skelleton in his closet or a bee in his bonnet.

The Pope is Backed up!!!!!

Jay Leno just did a joke about this.

Well, you all know he is RIGHT on this issue...

Orgies are good. The Romans knew this.

Didn't the Roman culture descend into cultural decline?

What if it's an orgy where sodomy takes place?

The Guardian wrote: "...Roe vs. Wade, the landmark judgment protecting abortion as a Constitutional right."

Sorry, Sir Guardian newspaper, but there's no 'Constitutional right' to abortion -- merely a judicial 'right' which is at odds with the Constitutional "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
The right to life trumps the right to happiness (in this instance, a choice of convenience at the expense of a life) every time.

The original majority opinion written in 1973 is flawed. It says, in part, that it is not within the purview of the Supreme Court to determine when life begins. That's illogical, not to mention immoral.
If the court could not or would not determine when life begins -- and, admittedly there was not the scientific evidence available at that time as there is now -- then it still had no business granting a choice for eclipsing the known potential for this life form (fetus) to continue existing in accordance with the pre-eminent Constiutional provision of right to life.

Truly, there is a choice . . . to snuff out a life, or not to snuff out a life . . . but, which one is protected at the highest level in the Constitutution, choices or lives?
The original majority opinion already knew the answer but avoided the salient issue. The 'right to life' takes precedence over the 'pursuit of happiness' or convenience; i.e., a baby awaiting birth has the inherent right to its life.

Technically, this pre-born baby (except in the very early stage of the first trimester) is already biologically 'alive' in accordance with...
a) having measurable brainwaves;
b) having a heartbeat with warm blood flowing to developed or developing vital organs;
c) having the propensity to feel pressure or pain;
d) having the ability to take in and utilize nourishment;
d) having the ability to make movements.

A so-called 'independent' argument -- pertaining to this unborn baby not being tissue-independent of another organism (the mother) -- is irrelevant in facto and does not negate this baby's right to continue living. A newborn baby is not independent of another organism either. A newborn baby, likewise as a pre-born baby, cannot survive without the constant (direct or indirect) sustaining, nourishment, and nurturing protection from another person.

By way of additonal support for the above:
Rulings by some judges have affirmed the simultaneous homocide of both a pregnant mother and her unborn baby. (In the case of the unborn baby, how can there be a homocide if there is no life to be taken? Plausible answer: Because there IS a life present.)
Also, there are some laws denying the 'choice' of terminating the life of an unborn eagle still within its egg. In other words, the unborn life of an eagle has to be protected.
A germinating seed is alive.
A developing fetus is alive.
Both are vulnerable.

The preceding rationale is not to be considered a complete compendium of biological science, but there's enough for a just decision by way of 'preponderance of evidence', nonetheless.
Those in opposition must somehow detach any urgency to defend their position based on political or personal viewpoints and focus on the biological facts and the Constitutional facts.
Elsewhere (present website excepted), sometimes debates on the issues deteriorate into distractive parlances, or even ad hominem attacks on the 'bringer of bad news'. Neither strategy is a friend of logic. I respectfully implore anyone to keep that in mind before protesting.

Yes, I'm a type of libertarian -- one who believes in the liberties of every living person, born or pre-born.
And, yes, the liberty of life takes pre-eminence.

errata:

"in facto" should have been "de facto"

the repeated d) should have been e)

...plus the fact that I know how to spell 'Constitution', but my keyboard doesn't always comply, and I don't consistently avail myself of a spellcheck program.
Sorry.

Bush was born four hundred years too late.

ok so when do we get to have all of these orgies?

perhaps if more Supreme Court justices like Scalia were appointed to the bench, American's would be less uptight since we'd all be relaxed from all those orgies. Imagine those jackoffs at the RIAA with the attitude "it's just filesharing, when's the next debauch?"

"Technically, this pre-born baby (except in the very early stage of the first trimester) is already biologically 'alive' in accordance with..."

You know me, a stickler for words. I assert the best term (since it applies to all stages in utero, from the fertilization to partuition) is "conceptus".

"Pre-born baby" to me, has always been a silly term, since traditionally, a "baby" is a POST-partuitionally entity.

That's not to say that lay people don't refer to the conceptus as a baby, but again, I think it's a retarded way of describing the PRE-partuitional entity.

It's like calling food..."Pre-shit" or calling iron deposits...
"pre-car door"....

http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=conceptus
con·cep·tus
Pronunciation: kn-sep-ts
Function: noun
: a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus

fetus, as a developmental stage, is nine weeks to birth, thus, if the conceptus can be the fertilized egg, the embryo, or fetus (which is nine weeks to partuition), then it is usable from conceptus to birth.

meant from conception to birth. Even if one limits the term conceptus to "the products of conception", pre-born baby is still to me, a silly, and intentionally emotion laden term that is inappropriate. Tabers 19th edition defines "baby" as an infant (page 202) and from the long definiton there, it is CLEAR they are referring to a post-partuitional entity, i.e. a human being that has been "born", i.e., delivered, existing outside the womb , and defines infant as "a child in the first year of life" . Child is (page 381) "any human between infancy and puberty."
------------------------------------------------------------
And interestingly, traditional Jewish orthodox views have a very clear view of the change in status of the fetus when it exits the womb.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/gl_p.htm
"Partial life: This is a Jewish term to refer to the status of a fetus. In Jewish law, a fetus normally becomes a full human person when its head emerges from the birth canal. Before that event, the fetus is considered of lesser importance than a full human being. The same term has many other meanings in biology and manufacturing."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm
"JEWISH BELIEFS
ABOUT ABORTION


Click Here to Visit our Sponsors.





Background:
Within Christianity, Judaism, Humanism and other religions and ethical systems, the morality of abortion is grounded in the precise belief of the nature of the fetus. There is a general consensus in North America that when the fetus becomes a human person, then abortions should be severely limited. Most would confine abortions at that stage to situations that threaten the life of the pregnant woman; a very few would eliminate access to abortions totally. The problem that generates so much controversy is that no consensus exists in society over the point, between conception and birth, when personhood begins.

Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' " 5 In the case of a "feet-first" delivery, it happens when most of the fetal body is outside the mother's body."

By that quote, I did mean to indicate that Jewish law condones or has no problem with abortion from a philosophical view,
and Rabbis may differ on interpretation. This next Rabbi, from his writings, is anti-abortion, but says this...
"http://www.jewsformorality.org/r_jakobovits_on_abortion.htm
"The Rulings of Jewish Law
While the destruction of an unborn child is never regarded as a capital act of murder (unless and until the head or the greater part of the child has emerged from the birth canal), it does constitute a heinous offense except when indicated by the most urgent medical considerations. The foremost concern is the safety of the mother. Hence, in Jewish law an abortion is mandatory whenever there is a genuine fear that a continued pregnancy might involve a grave hazard to the life of the mother, whether physical or psychiatric (such as the risk of suicide, following previous experiences of mental breakdown).

More difficult to determine-and still widely debated in recent rabbinic writings-is the judgment on abortions in cases of risks to the mother's health rather than to her life; of rape or incest; and of fears of physical or mental defects in children born to mothers who had German measles (rubella) or took certain teratogenic drugs (e.g. thalidomide) during the first months of pregnancy. Quite recently, several leading authorities have reaffirmed the Jewish opposition to abortion even in these cases, branding it as an "appurtenance of murder." But some others have lately given more lenient rulings in these circumstances, provided the operation is carried out within the first forty days following conception, or at least within the first three months. However, whatever the verdict in these particular cases, they are of course exceptional, and Jewish law would never countenance abortions for purely social or economic reasons."

typo-typo-typo!.. I DID NOT MEAN to indicate that Jewish law condones or has no problem with abortion from a philosophical view...

the second post was to show that some Rabbis would say that traditional Jewish law does not condone abortion for merely social or economic reasons.

YET ANOTHER TYPO...the correct spelling is "parturition"...I did multiple typos of "partuition"...need more coffee...please forgive the typos...

code, you're so funny.

Like the joke says, if men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

Woman trumps fetus.

Woman trumps right to life too?

Anyway, 1973: Supreme Court in effect decides there is no right to life before birth, giving power to women over not only their own bodies but also over the life they're carrying inside.

From orgies to birth control..interesting debate.

I have to go with life begins at conception..if that isn't a fact, then how would it continue to grow? I found this site which states that from day one of conception, all the human chromosomes are present.... from day one, baby is human, and at day 22, with a beating heart (isn't that neat?) Can you just see this teeny tiny little heart, actually pumping blood? Three short weeks? Most women don't even know they are pregnant at that time.

Yes, it's the womans choice to make, but lets hope she is presented with all the facts.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/fetaldevelopment.html

As far as "human life" do a Google Search on the HeLa strain of cancer, it is definitely human life, and outlived Henrietta Lacks/Helen Larson...

Cancer must be sacred, since the HeLa strain has proven viable...i.e. living outside the host that died decades ago, and now the HeLa strain is found in colonies literally around the world in labs.

and as George Carlin says, life is an ongoing process that started millions of years ago and just keeps rolling along.
We made up this human life is sacred shit...cuz, as Carlen says..."we're human"...


Any while we're at it, how about sacredness of viral and bacterial life.

You don't see Ghandi or JFK any more talking about the sacredness of human life...why? Cause they're dead! (See...I stole/infringed, almost all of George Carlin's routine)

I'm no JFK fan, but by that kind of Carlinian logic, then JFK's assassination was certainly no moral crime, because life isn't really sacred. It was just an inconvenience that JFK's brain happened to impact with a metal slug. So why all the fuss?

Carlin is a bitter old coot who, if he is funny any more, is probably more accident than anything else. His humor is so maudlin and dark now, it is just sad, not laugh-inducing. Actually, I'm speaking of his interviews, not his standup. But I expect his totally depressed worldview has infected his standup routine as well.

But what I really want to know is what is the RIAA position on orgies.

As for Scalia, everything in the past that I've read about Scalia would lead me to believe that we are not properly understanding the context in which these remarks were made. I haven't found a complete transcript of his speech yet. But for him to be promoting orgies as a social good would be totally out of character with his past positions, as far as I can tell. Has anyone ever heard the phrase "tongue-in-cheek"???

Code, you are being absurd again. The HeLa strain is indeed an immortal cell. But it does not develop into a human being under any circumstance. An embryo certainly does.

There is a difference. Duh!

When I say HeLa immortal, I'm not sure whether a single cell has an unlimited lifespan, but obviously it is a human cell, and is indefinitely self perpetuating. But it is only a single cell without further capabilities to grow and differentiate into the three types of cells from whence arise all other organ systems, organs, and tissues.

Appreciating the posts from autodidact and pepe . . .

'Code, sorry, but I must part company with you in at least one aspect other than what autodidact mentioned.
But, first: Note that I didn't bring Jewish law -- or any other religion into the matter -- my post appealed merely to Constitutional and scientific matters. I'd prefer to keep the issue out of the spiritual arena, even though I can find two instances in the Old Testament of explicit expectation of the fruit of the womb being God's design for life. (David, for example speaks about how God saw him as a person while he was still in the womb.)

On the main point: Okay, scratch the term "pre-born" I had used (that you contested). No problem; a rose by another name is still a rose. A human baby prior to the birthing process technically presents criteria in keeping with a living organism . . . and this organism is more important than a virus or a bacteria (which are NOT protected by our Constitution!)
And even from a practical aspect: If one maintains that a baby doesn't count as a living person until the time of normal birth when the head begins to show in the birth canal, then we have a significant philosophical if not an ethical dilemma.
Let's say the pregnant mother decides to have her baby early, maybe even by C-section. Isn't a baby still considered alive even though it is brought into this world ahead of 'its time'?
Yet, if labor hadn't been induced, let's say, the baby wouldn't have yet been born -- thus still allowing (in this otherwise interim period) for an abortion that isn't tantamount to a life being snuffed out?
Logic would say no.
Again, this is not to deny the fact that people have power or control to make certain choices. Each of us has many choices every day about how to live our lives. But now and then, a choice involves something crucial, something 'pre-emptive' or permanently destructive. That's when ethics or morality should come into play; and not all ethical decisions have to have a spiritual or religious component in order for a reasonably just approach to be considered. And as I said previously, I'm basically a libertarian who believes in the right of everyone to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . . . but life being the most cherished right should entail certain respsonsibilities that extend beyond convenience or even pursuit of happiness.
Life is crucial; matters of life and death are 'pre-emptive' and should trump expedience.
A decision for abortion IS a matter of life and death, a decision that denies the right of a baby to have life (even if we disregard the biological signs of life existing before separation from the mother).

To get back on track here in terms of the RIAA's apocalyptic war against consumers and new technology: I have trouble remembering, so please refresh me, if you may, on what side did Justice Scalia's wind blow in the Eldred v. Ashcroft case? (I have an inkling that he sided with the internationalist WIPO - thus pro-Ashcroft - in spite of his admonitions against foreign laws guiding our own, but I'd still like to be apprised anyway.)

And I do remember Mr. Carlin's "Life Is Sacred" routine very well. He mentioned at one point, one reason you haven't heard, say, Abbott & Costello yammer on about the "sanctity of life" is because they're dead. Well, they didn't go on about it when they were alive either, in no small part because their act was apolitical, this in spite of Lou Costello's reputedly being arch-conservative behind the scenes (to the point that he supported Sen. Joe McCarthy; and also, the duo's relationship with their long-time comedy writer, John Grant, was permanently ruptured because of Costello's anti-Communist politics) -- and if he did believe in the sanctity of life, he likely kept his views to himself (i.e. didn't blare them out to the world).

Code, we're ganging up on ya here Actually, after sitting over breakfast here for an hour pondering your notes, when I came back to actually looking up that HeLa thing....I think I had heard of this years ago and totally forgot about it.

It's really too simple a thing. Considering this cell was taken from Henrietta Lacks body in 1951, and given the name HeLa, the cell, not Henrietta.. of course it is a human cell..but the human came first....

And we are sacred, we are special, we have a soul and that makes us special...

Orgies are good... abortions are bad... sodomy never leads to abortions... ergo, sodomistic orgies are better.

btw, since someone asked, only Stevens and Breyer dissented from the majority opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft.

Considering that Scalia seems to be more and more making controversial and (to himself) humorous quips & statements, the term shouldn't be tongue-in-cheek", it should be "foot-in-mouth".

If we want stand up we'll go see a comic. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court making jokes about topics we would hope he had a more mature attitude of, is just plain scary.

the "Pro-lifers" say "Human Life" and after studying the HeLa strain (which by the way, infiltrated lab specimens worldwide), it is human life....a fertilized ovum, placed in a Petri dish, even in a nutrient medium, will not develop into a full human either, and then, let's talk about cloning the HeLa strain...the techniques for developing an entire person from a cell or two, are reported to already exist.

There is NOTHING sacred about HUMAN life...try to say why it is sacred. Because Humans have a soul? Some religions believe all living things have souls...take the sacred Brahma cattle in India, or the rats which are sacred at a Buddhist temple....

I say all life is sacred or none of it is. My cats life is sacred to me, and if anyone tried to take any of my cats life (except in euthanisa when it would be done to end suffering), I have thirty years of martial arts experience, a 357 magnum with hollowpoints, a katana sword, an express Magnum, full bore 12 gauge, a bowie knife, and a lot more armaments that I would use without ANY hesitation to , if necessary, apply with extreme prejudice in defense of my cats. Hows THAT for some defense of life?

Okay, acknowledged.

But the reason I brought up the issue was because the Guardian's article exerpted at the top of this webpage contained an incorrect statement about . . . well, okay, here is the quote:
". . . Roe vs. Wade, the landmark judgment protecting abortion as a constitutional right."

To successfully refute this newspaper error compelled me to elaborate, making it difficult to avoid controversial details. And, after that, one thing led to another.

My previous post was in response to W-B.

Sorry I got off track on my own thread...BUT (lol) it's odd to me that most of these "Pro-Lifers" are the first ones to want war and all that goes with it, and the first ones to want to put people to death for capital offenses...so they "sacredness of life" apparently isn't extended to criminals or people they happen to want the land or oil of...
(sorry for the dangling participle).

THIS post in response to 'Code:
Who first talked about life being sacred - i.e, putting the issue in a religious context?
Check back to the beginning, was it me or you?

The Constitutional protections do not spell out ALL our rights, but in fact, spell out specific ones that the government cannot interfere with...

Sorry, I'm not just like most anyone else.
And I'm not a typical pro-lifer as your context might imply.

But the Constitution DOES specify how life is the most important right that we as American humans, submitting to government for the common good, possess.

"not interfere with"?
I think the government does (and should) have power to intercede when a life is planned to be snuffed out.
Life is the most important right to be cherished and protected in our society.
That's why Roe vs. Wade in itself could technically be considered unconstitutional.

life , liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...
Bush is trying to interfere with all three.

Wars, Patriot Act, and his sour puss

Jesus says, "Whoever loves his life, will lose it!"
Jesus also said "He who loses his life for my sake, will save it."

Sometimes death before dishonor is the way to go.

Patriots in this country have given up their lives because an ideal was worth dying for. My life, to me, is of far less significance than my wife's and my parents. I would give it up without thinking for them. The Samurai, when he went into battle, did zazen meditation before the fight, and considered himself as dead meat.

Life is important...how one lives it is more important...in my opinion.

the notion of the framers of the Constitution was that, as humans, we DO NOT derive our rights from any government. They are "unalienable" rights. They acknowledged in their papers that there are many rights, but the constitution is meant as a legal protection against the government depriving you of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness without due process...

something that has been re-enabled by the Patriot Act.

At my heart, I believe ALL governments are inherently evil institutions, and the Nazi gov, was only the logical extension of where bureaucrats take governments. Study the early Chinese government, the Aztecs, the Maya...and the worst of the lot...the decadent Romans and their mad emperors!

Patrick Henry..."Give me liberty or give me death."

"Life without liberty is not worth living"-CodeWarrior

The notion that life and safety are the most important thing is the Bush way. As Franklin said, those who would give up a little bit of liberty to have a measure of security, deserve neither.

To all the Marines who gave their lives in WW I, WW II, and , if Bush stays in office, WW III, I deeply appreciate that you guys did not put your own life above everything else!

"I think the government does (and should) have power to intercede when a life is planned to be snuffed out."

Too bad old BushyWhipped didn't share your philosophy when he was governor here, and ending life after life as the death row machine rolled on!

Agreed.
And, as you say, how one lives is more important than just living per se.
But, isn't that all the more reason to allow a human baby to have a chance to live his or her life -- at least, they can always later decide for themselves how they want to live OR even if life for them isn't even worth living for.

This the libertarian in me: Let people have life. And let them live.
But having life, and power over others, should have some limitations when it comes to preventing someone else from having a chance to live out their lives.
Why should that basic right be snuffed out without just cause?

Agreed.
And, as you say, how one lives is more important than just living per se.
But, isn't that all the more reason to allow a human baby to have a chance to live his or her life -- at least, they can always later decide for themselves how they want to live OR even if life for them isn't even worth living for.

This the libertarian in me: Let people have life. And let them live.
But having life, and power over others, should have some limitations when it comes to preventing someone else from having a chance to live out their lives.
Why should that basic right be snuffed out without just cause?

We need consistency in the laws.

If woman trumps fetus, then woman trumps child.

[double post not intended]

I wrote: "I think the government does (and should) have power to intercede when a life is planned to be snuffed out."
Probably an error on my part, omitting the phrase "without just cause".

Code Warrior, if you never write another master quote, thsi one will stand for your best:

"Food is pre-shit."

Heh.

Not bad. I hope that is an original and not stepping on george Carlin's copyrights.

Listen up, I got an amazing amount of stuff on the insane evolution battle going on in Ohio. I'll let Rocknrollwoman (and Kansas) off the hook, Ohio now takes the prize for most illiterate state. God help anyone's child struggling through an education in that place.

Can we discuss this? you'll find it inmperative to arm yourself with the facts about the billionaires behind this religious lunacy. Can we get back to the topic at hand, that is--evolution?

You aren't hearing much in the campaign what the agenda of Bush's people really is----outright takeover of the government by the flat-world advocates. Let's see a raise of hands for discussion. It will blow your mind, and give you additional fodder to hate Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback.

"If woman trumps fetus, then woman trumps child."

That's true.

Ok, ALL life is sacred...it is, no one here is refuting that...I think we're off topic here...I have cats to, I love my cats..Jack Van Impe says my cats are going to heaven..I love Jack...I'm still not sure if that means my cats have souls, I think only humans hold that distinction, but as long as animals are going to be in heaven, thats a great thing... I'm not so sure about snakes

And in Jeremiah 1:5, it is stated that God knew us BEFORE the womb..of course He did..

"A human baby prior to the birthing process technically presents criteria in keeping with a living organism . . . and this organism is more important than a virus or a bacteria (which are NOT protected by our Constitution!)"

The word "human" is not used in the constitution by the by.

The constitution itself only uses the word "Life" once...
"Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. "

The Declaration of Independence is where you find the word
"human"..to wit:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

The Declaration is where one finds the life, liberty...stuff...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The term "human life" does not appear in the declaration.

You will note it just says "Life" and since no special definition is given to the meaning "life" we must use the usual definition of life which is anything which is alive. Plants are alive, birds are alive, etc..

And, if I read it right, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,"......Hmmmmm...Do tell!

God already knows the end of the world, so it's all predetermined...lol...of course we're off topic..but what the heck
I just enjoy talking to smart folks like Pepe and DemandRelevance..and though we occasionally disagree, I respect your debating skills...Well met !

Tom..I wrote a LONG essay on evolution at 6 am this morning...but it'll make your blood boil...so take a glass of cold tea with you to...
http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com

Lucky for me I don't believe in souls or live by bible verses/horoscopes etc.

Addition to my post: At this point I don't care what the law says. It just needs to make sense.

I'm not all that fond of children anyway. But you can't say mother trumps fetus without saying mother trumps child. It's just an abortion of a 10 year old, right? Right. And you can't have someone punch you in the stomach, kill your fetus and call it murder if the fetus doesn't have the right to life. It's assault, that's it. Again, I don't care. At this point it'd be nice to have some logic somewhere.

Sorry, have to respond to a few remaining posts.
Code wrote:
"Jesus says, "Whoever loves his life, will lose it!"
Jesus also said "He who loses his life for my sake, will save it."

That's true. But again, that's returning to a spiritual context, something I thought we were trying to avoid.
And the Constitution doesn't bring it up either; it states life as the most crucial of human rights and lets it go at that.

On the subject you brought up about giving one's life for a good or necessary cause -- in defense of our nation, for example -- obviously, your point is well made.
No problem with us agreeing about that. Obviously, the ultimate gift one can give is to sacrificially surrender their life so that OTHERS can live (hopefully with constitutional rights still in force).

Okay, tomsong, I'm done.
(I hope; unless someone posts something else to keep me going on this.)

I wouldn't worry Code. I'm pretty sure this article is off topic to begin with, right?

I hope they have Trump tell bush he's fired come January....

lol..you're right Sherm!

The Chairman recognizes Tom Barger for five minutes...er....hours!

From the great state of Vurginny...
< wink >

This is an oversimplification of the abortion issue... there are really three categories of abortions: health-related; economic; and lifestyle. Each of these raises different moral issues, so they should be addressed separately.

First, health-related abortions are done when the life/health of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy; or when the child is deformed or suffers from some congenital defect that insures it a short and painful existence. Of course, deformities in the child (like hydroencephilitis) also often pose a threat to the mother. I believe that these abortions should generally be allowed - after all, even women who want to get pregnant and have a baby end up having abortions because of threats to their health or the that of the child.

Second, economic abortions occur where the mother feels unable to provide for the needs of the child... these are not just among poor people, but among middle class people as well. The way to prevent these abortions is not necessarily to prohibit them, but to make it more affordable to get food, clothes, housing, medical care, and education; and to make adoption a less expensive and less bureaucratic option. That being said, I think middle-class women who really can afford a child should not be allowed to have an abortion simply because it will dent their personal spending or put a crimp in their social calendar. They should have thought of that when they were doing the nasty in the first place.

Finally, lifestyle abortions are those that women who have neither health nor economic concerns, but who just don't want to have a baby right this moment. Tough. Should've used a condom. Now go have your baby.

There are some variations that don't fit into these categories, like pregnancies from rape and incest. However, pregnancy from rape is extremely rare, and the morning-after pill is available for that, so I don't think that is a good reason to have an abortion after the first few weeks. And incestuous pregnancies are far more likely to result in congenital defects and deformities. But abortion is really a catchphase that covers a wide range of circumstances, some of which are immoral and others of which are not, and it should be addressed as such.

ok...one last one because I think it's funny (then everyone else has the floor)...

Watching Bush speak is like watching a drunk try to cross an icy street. You know there are gonna be slips, just not when and how bad.

I respect all life as well, and yes, I'd run out into the road to save my cats life, but that still doesn't mean that I'm going to stop eating that steak which comes from that steer/cow/deer with the big dewey brown eyes Now there's another topic...

And I wouldn't eat humans at all, unless they were particularly well prepared

'Code wrote:
"A human baby prior to the birthing process technically presents criteria in keeping with a living organism . . . and this organism is more important than a virus or a bacteria (which are NOT protected by our Constitution!)"
The word "human" is not used in the constitution by the way."

I'll try a paraphrase:
We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men (and women) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (oops, I thought we evolved by accident, sorry, tomsong) with . . . rights . . . among these are the right to life . . .

Umm, I do see an implication that "men" refers to human men without the word "human" being necessary. Thus, it is not a stretch or a reach to make a reasonable conclusion that the "life" mentioned in successive sentences also is people as opposed to other life forms.

Wow, when I went back to bed there were 21 posts; now there are 69. Can't read 'em all.
Woman trumps fetus, because fetus is essentially a parasitic bunch of tissue (technical term!) IN her very own body.
Children are separate.
You knew that though, didn't you.
If you retort with, then fetus=cancer, I guess don't have a problem with that. If it's IN your body,it's YOUR choice.
HANDS OFF MY BODY.

Orgies would be very good for the tourist industry.

To abortionists:

Isn't it interesting: An expectant mother desiring to have a baby considers her internal resident to be something precious.
But a pregant woman desiring to terminate her pregnancy considers her internal resident to be merely discardible tissue.
Is this another case of one person's trash being another person's treasure?
Likely not, since it is an issue about life versus the OPPOSITE of life.
When a person chooses not to continue the life of her internal resident, we call it by a name (abortion), but the act is still the snuffing out of a life.

"If it's IN your body, it's YOUR choice.
HANDS OFF MY BODY."

First: Aren't you glad your mother didn't exercise that kind of 'choice'?

Second: "Hands off my body."
The guy who took another person's life tried that argument when they came to arrest him.
Abortionists won't get arrested; but that still doesn't detract from the ethical position that preventing life from continuing (notice I'm choosing my words carefully) is wrong.

My wife and I just spread fire ant poison on our back yard.

Apprarently, fire ants are not sacred.

Speaking of fetuses and cancer...does anyone know what a trophoblastic carcinoma is? < hint...its when you have a trophoblast go cancer on ya....)

Hint...Google... Gestational Trophoblastic Disease

Treasure and trash is a good way to think of it. Since it's in a speculative state, the holder gets to place the meaning.

Honestly, I would not care if I had not been born. It's a non-issue. The fact that I'm here now, is.

You are twisting the 'hands off my body' thing. You are arguing dishonestly.

"You are arguing dishonestly."

All's fair in love and arguments?
Actually, the unfairness was additionally unintentional. No extra charge.

The Supreme Court was presumptious in 1973 when it acted (per the majority opinion, which see) as if the moment when life begins is irrelevant.
That's illogical when one considers that one of the two founding documents for our nation's inception postulates that the most basic right we have is the right to life.

Several hours ago, I said:
1973: Supreme Court in effect decides there is no right to life before birth, giving power to women over not only their own bodies but also over the life they're carrying inside.
The government does (and should) have power to intercede when an individual arranges for a life to be snuffed out.
Life is the most important right to be cherished and protected in our society.
That's why Roe vs. Wade in itself could technically be considered unconstitutional.

Truly, I feel that your "hands off my body" thing -- meaning you have the personal right to terminate life even according to a whim -- is arrogant and unfair in itself, so even if I inadvertantly used your words against you in a contrived way, well -- boop, boop-a-doop!

Apparently we disagree on the meaning of life.

To be human is to have self-interest.
I'm not telling anyone not to have an abortion. Just don't tell me I can't.

I dont value life much at all. At least human life. I personally feel that we are a plague and will eventually be purged, the sooner the better. I wouldn't mind dying for that cause. If a woman has an abortion then I believe that is wonderful. Less humans running around and destroyign everything they touch with their greed. We have far too much power for such an immature species, and it's going to end up destroying us. I'll be on the sidelines laughing my ass off.

"Honestly, I would not care if I had not been born. It's a non-issue. The fact that I'm here now, is."
Nice job of deflecting my strong point; but a deflection is still just a deflection.

"I'm not telling anyone not to have an abortion. Just don't tell me I can't."

Hmm: You have two negatives -- two 'nots' in there.
If what you MEANT was:
"I'm not telling anyone to have an abortion. Just don't tell me I can't."

Then: I'll counter with: "I'm not telling anyone to be unethical. Just don't tell me I can't be."

Fine. Being unethical is a freedom of choice.
But, in an abortion you stop someone from living a life.
Something that, your previous protest to the contrary, I seriously doubt you are all that non-commital about having had the opportunity for.

So if a parasite is removed from your body, it can then be given the rights to life? Or only if the parasite turns out to be a human.. ?

It's true that an unborn baby is basically a parasite, but at the same time, it is a human biologically. It has the chromosomes and it's alive. So it's not really a parasite, so much as a "human of parasitic nature"

Again, I really don't care about abortion. I just think it makes logical sense that it not be legal, but.. eh.

"Apparently we disagree on the meaning of life.

To be human is to have self-interest."

Are you serious?
Well, what if my self-interest involves a misguided pursuit-of-happiness quest to see a bunch of people get as shook up as possible (and maybe even injured, so what, no skin off my self-centered nose) by my yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater?
Oops, but perhaps my rights end where another person's rights become abridged. Wow, what a novel concept!
Hmm, can we make a few other applications with this?
I wonder . . .

lordperrin, I feel a lot the same. When I see on the news that more people have been shot etc, I really don't care. Bombs blowing people up.. there are too many damn humans... and most of them are stupid.

Once again, you stretch my argument dishonestly. There's probably a debate term for it but that's not my area of expertise.

INSIDE the body is different than other external separate entities.

I'm late for my haircut appointment.
Toodles.
(Are you Gothic Angel?)

Thats kind of interesting, if you hadn't been born, you wouldn't have known you hadn't been born... but, here one is, and now, one must deal with it...

lordperrin How sad. Life can be so interestng and exciting, and people so diversified..I'm sorry, I just find your comments very depressing and have to wonder what awful things have happened to you to make you feel that way.

The self-interest of a mother-to-be should end where the life of her baby should begin.

"Once again, you stretch my argument dishonestly."

That's a good one; I'm going to have to remember to use that if I ever find myself on the losing end of a debate.

What about siamese twins? One often dies before the other when one twin is more tied to the critical organs than the other. That makes the other twin a kind of parasite. Can one siamese twin kill his brother? What about before they're born.. he could kill his brother.. but the mother could kill him, but does she have authority over a parasite of a parasite, since, by association, siamese twin #2 is linked to her? I don't know what I'm talking about.

"HANDS OFF MY BODY."

Actually abortion can be quite an invasive procedure

I'll acquiesce to a qualifier for my other statement, so that it can read:
"Except in compelling medical circumstances, the self-interest of a mother-to-be should end where the life of her baby should begin."

Thanks, Sherm.

DR: a few posts ago you said:
"Then: I'll counter with: "I'm not telling anyone to be unethical. Just don't tell me I can't be."

Fine. Being unethical is a freedom of choice.
But, in an abortion you stop someone from living a life.
Something that, your previous protest to the contrary, I seriously doubt you are all that non-commital about having had the opportunity for."

OK, so it's been established that you feel having an abortion is an ethical choice. If it is to be a choice, then there has to be something to choose.

Which is at least part of the point. People are going to have abortions one way or the other. The legality of the act assures that there will be a degree of safety involved in the process.

I know several parents who have considered having abortions, and have gone through with the pregnancy anyway- but all of them who I've spoken with felt significantly less trapped and more able to embrace the reality of the situation because there was another option there that they could have taken.

On a side note, condoms can break, birth control pills can be ineffective, as can the morning after pill, spermicide, etc etc. Sperm are tough little buggers. This in response to the "oh well, should have used a condom" point raised earlier by someone (whose name I forget).

It would be hard to deny that you make some good points, lyster.

This group (here at our webpages) really are diverse and insightful; I have to give credit where it is due.

Thanks; You've made several good points as well, DR. It's a tough argument either way you slice it.

You're welcome.
And you're correct again; it's a tough and divisive topic.

I'm going to take a break, so perhaps someone else can have a chance to change the subject. I have this intuitive feeling that some of you are ready for that.

On a side note, I've known several unwed mothers, and not one of them regrets keeping her baby. Once a mom holds that precious little baby, they just kind of melt away, and all the cares of the world with it... Sherm, I hope you get to be a dad some day

Code, I think fireants fall into the same category as cow/deer/pig... maybe you should try eating them rather than poisoning them... protein

To punish me or because you think I'd be a good one.. or to teach me a lesson?

I had to laugh when you said you weren't all that fond of children, and I've known a few men (most men and a lot of women as well) who have felt that way, until they had their own children. (That includes my own husband) When you have your own child, it's a whole different ball game, and I think you are smart enough to know that, and I think you would do well at it

Pepe said: "lordperrin How sad. Life can be so interesting and exciting, and people so diversified..I'm sorry, I just find your comments very depressing and have to wonder what awful things have happened to you to make you feel that way."

I am merely stating the obvious. To be human is to be motivated by greed. In our own way, we are all self centered, living in our own little sandboxes of political morality. We think SO highly of ourselves and actually believe that we are above everything else on this planet. Our bodies are bloated and disgusting, we have only survived as a species because of our systematic eradication of everything that gets in our way. We are the very definition of a virus in almost every sense. I would not weep for humanity because I do not consider my spirit human. I have long ago forsaken my roots in humanity. Unfortunately a human is what I am and therefore I must live in the construct of society that we have made for ourselves as I have grown up weak both mentally and physically. I would love nothing more to just disappear in the woods and never return and live on my own. Unfortunately, my upbringing and society has robbed me of the very things that make us alive, our ability to scavenge, hunt, survive... We live out our pointless lives in the pursuit of whatever pitiful little goals take our fancy while thinking that we can somehow make a difference without realizing that no matter WHAT we do, in a few thousand years we will be forgotten. We cling to artificial realities such as religion because our brains are too feeble to comprehend the simple truths of life.

Ramble enough for ya? Heh.

That's a little overdone lordperrin. You're a little too "enlightened"

All animals are motivated by greed. It's how they survive. Humans are no different. We just have more power.

I could be motivated by those orgies...

ok I can't resist

I will guarantee you one thing. I will never have an abortion. (seeing as I am a man)

kinda makes it a non issue to me

We're all told we should never fear living the life we want to live, so on that basis, perhaps you would be happier living in the woods.

http://www.wilderness-survival.net/

It seems to me there's a lot of social tension on the site today....

I survived 46 days lost in the Mojave desert with a broken leg, a pocket knife and a picture of Anne Margaret.

sure was ready for an orgy when I got back

captdunsel..... ShadowMom... You are both really bad... LOL

Orgies probably discriminate against women.

no, orgies discriminate against those who are not allowed to join in (that ususally rules out ugly guys with hairy backs)

"...giving power to women over not only their own bodies but also over the life they're carrying inside."
Yes, and if she decides to have the baby, then all of a sudden it's the man's fault.

My feeling is this... like it was said earlier... if it isn't alive then why does it grow? Crimany, they even use the term "KILL" for germs.
I do not believe in abortion as a means of birth control. If they want to protect a "woman's right to choose" then don't allow the abortion, her choice was made the moment she said "no" to any type of birth control.
At the same time, we need to seriously revamp our adoption laws.

Those are ALL good points you make.