Posted on 05/20/2002 2:51:41 PM PDT by dubyajames
We'd be better off advancing our commonalities than arguing our differences in cases of this sort.
But it's a matter of the essential thing being the same only as far back as it really is the same. Sperms and eggs are not separate creatures; the newly concieved baby is. It's from conception forward that there's aren't essential biological differences. The genes are the same, ect, from then on. Not the case before conception, since combining and juggling genes is the whole point of sexual reproduction.
Once you allow the sequence to be aborted at any point -- you have the same ultimate consequences -- the lost to the world forever of a unique human potential. The only recourse is to force women to have babies as fast as they can for as long as they can. An absurd result.
Let's continue the reductio ad absurdum. This sequence you described continues after birth; it goes on to the person in question having children of his own and eventually dying of old age or some disease. So if "allow[ing] the sequence to be aborted at any point" is all the same, regardless whether you do it with a condom or by killing the "product of conception" in question, logically you must either permit murder, or require women to have as many babies as possible. QED?
Obviously, for instance, they couldn't confine a pregnant woman to prevent her going to another state, or country, for an abortion.
Bump from a Goldwater libertarian.
L
Sure, pilgrim. No problem. Btw, here's the link, to the Republican Party Platform. It's called Renewing Family and Community.
"We oppose abortion....."
"The Supreme Court’s recent decision, prohibiting states from banning partial-birth abortions — a procedure denounced by a committee of the American Medical Association and rightly branded as four-fifths infanticide —shocks the conscience of the nation. As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life."
Well... at least this puts the Libertarians miles to the right of the Democrats.
But on an issue that strikes so close to the heart of the principles of the party, don't you find such a split troubling, regardless of your own conclusion on the matter? As far as I can tell, only a relatavist could find disagreement on such a fundamental matter comforting.
I see what you're saying. You just mean that a state can regulate abortion within the limits set by Roe. For some reason, I thought that you were suggesting that there might be some way for a state to avoid compliance with Roe.
I've met a great many republicans who aren't Republicans. Anyone who supports filling offices by election rather than heredity is a republican. Except for a few of the more radical Kennedy supporters, that covers the whole Democratic Party.
You're a conservative, aren't you? Does that make you a member of the Conservative Party? There is such an entity, you know. Do you pay taxes? You must also be a member of the Taxpayer's Party. (I think they changed their name, but at least you were a member.)
The difference between the Republican platform and the Libertarian platform is like the difference between light and darkness.
Words is hard.
For all practical purposes, Roe, in combination with Doe v. Bolton, found an unfettered right to abortion throughout pregnancy. You seem to be trying to make the case that states lack the political will to challenge the decision, but the right to unrestricted abortion has been challenged by several states numerous times with little success, precisely because the court has so broadly defined the "right" to abortion.
I'd rephrase this slightly differently.
Sperm and egg are separate. They have their own independent lifecycle. Left unkilled, they will die a natural death a few hours or days later, still as sperm or egg.
After conception, a fertilized egg (or embryo, or fetus, or baby) will also have an independent lifecycle. Left unkilled, it will also die a natural death many years later - as a man, or woman.
There will be unlimited points in this new lifecycle when this life may die without interference, or when an outside person may choose to end this new life. These points will not end after birth (as illness, accident, and murder cases demonstrate). But they certainly begin at the point of conception, when this new life takes shape.
Okay, work with me here. When a bullet hits someone in the head, that's attempted murder (or murder if it kills him.) Is it still attempted murder BEFORE the bullet reaches the head? Surely there is a difference between a bullet in flight and a bullet expending its kinetic energy inside soneone's noggin. Or further back still, when the weapon is aimed and the trigger pulled. Or further back yet, when the person's impulse is to kill. Well, there we have lost the trail -- we can't see into his mind -- but some people know their own minds -- "oh I would have killed him if ..."
Yeah, a unjoined sperm and egg are different than a joined egg and sperm -- but a launched sperm will potentially make it to the egg unless prohibited by, say, a condum. And a fertilzed egg will make it to a newborn baby unless prohibited, say, by RU486.
This is the problem with "potential" and "sequence interruption." Any waypoints are arbitrary.
This sequence you described continues after birth ... logically you must either permit murder
Quite so. In fact you have to forget sequence and potential, it is unenlightening.
Instead, the uniqueness of the human, that which makes a human a human, is not his genetic potential, not his gene code, it is his mind. And the mind doesn't develope right away. I can't tell you when the mind reaches the stage of a human, but it isn't when it is a small clump of cells right after conception.
Not to be argumentative, but there is no real, "Conservative Party" in America. The home of the conservative movement in America, is the Republican Party. If, one day, there was a true grassroots movement to create a viable "Conservative Party", I would consider joining it. Until and unless, that happens, I will remain in the Republican Party.
And as long as they can count on you to stick around, they'll continue to play you for a sucker.
Football teams exist to win football games, political parties exist to win elections. They'll say what it takes, do what it takes, to win elections. That's the long and short of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.