Support NeoGAF

[Atrus]

All right, I was screwing with you earlier, but this is just a load of shit. Lawyers argue for changing the law everyday in court rooms all across America in order to achieve a better result for their client. It's how the law evolves and progresses. With this is mind: of course you can reject any definition assigned to a term by a court and argue for a new, in your mind better or, perhaps, more accurate, definition. How do you think modern jurisprudence has reached the state its at now? By never changing? Let's all hang our hats on stare decisis and be done with it?

Lawyers argue for changes within the bounds of the court. If you intend to change it one must first accept and understand why the current one exists. Pretending it doesn't exist or needs be changed because it just doesn't agree with them is a measure for making a legal system that holds a bias to your cause.

It is a lot more complicated and entrenched than what people like Jaydub seem to think. It affects everything from tax law, the rights and duties of doctors, and human rights. It may be nice to posture around with your thumbs in suspenders citing that 'well your honor I'm no big city lawyer but...'

However, that is what is bullshit. It's self-fellating feel-good but accomplish nothing nonsense. You don't think the best conservative legal teams have tried to fight their cases in courts across Europe and Canada? Do you think that what was born within the legal system is going to be beaten by yokels who 'believe' the law should be what they want and ignore that their beliefs, their emotions, and their ad hoc logical conclusions are worthless, or do they believe that of all the legal teams before them, they're the special ones with a unique outlook that hasn't been thought of before?

Why else do you think the progression of civil liberties enabled abortion rights across the Westernized world? Where do you think such liberties are fought for and won?

 

[JayDubya]

Atrus. You cited a specific legal status as immutable fact when that is the central point of objection. An appeal to status quo is not an argument. How would change ever occur if "it is so, thus it should be so" was the name of the game?

 

[VictimOfGrief]

You believe life begins at conception. America doesn't. If you don't agree with your country, why do you live here?

wat

 

[TheFightingFish]

Close. Reading that, you'll see that the functions are still rudimentary. I'm cool with the current standing on 3rd trimester based on the rest of the reading of that article and the development of the brain. I'd be cool with 1/2 way through the second, frankly, but that's not what anybody is arguing.

Now, I'm guessing you are nowhere near where I want *you* to be. Bad start.

So you said something silly (perhaps an attempt at internet argument hyperbole?) and I corrected you. Lemme dig up your actual quote:

Fetus != human.

No brain. No rights.

Now you are going to back up and try to redefine your terms and pretend like you never made the above statement after I showed that a fetus does have a medically defined brain by the 11th week:

Close. Reading that, you'll see that the functions are still rudimentary.

So now it's no longer "no brain. no rights." but "brain, but just rudimentary. no rights." I imagine that you can keep backpedaling as long as needed but why don't we just cut to the chase and have you just go ahead and define your position.

What exactly changes halfway though the second trimester (since you mentioned that as a time that you would be ok with) that changes a lump of tissue into a human being with rights? Honestly I'm not a huge jerk on this, if you just define when a lump of tissue becomes a human being and why you believe this is the proper point to make that change. Well...I'll still argue with you, but at least you will done the research and taken a position and I can respect that.

 

[levious]

Yes, they all fuck children. That South Park episode was a documentary, I forgot.

the South Park priest did not fuck children, he was the voice of reason

And calling scientific fact a belief is just silly. Do I believe in gravity? I suppose one actually could say they believe in gravity, it's just not something one would say.

it's only a theory

 

[worldrunover]

One incarnation of the Supreme Court != America. Roe represents quite possibly the most repugnant act of any federal government branch in the past half-century, and that's saying something.

And calling scientific fact a belief is just silly. Do I believe in gravity? I suppose one actually could say they believe in gravity, it's just not something one would say.

Semantics are fun.

Your belief =/= fact.

 

[Big-E]

You believe life begins at conception. America doesn't. If you don't agree with your country, why do you live here?

Well said.

 

[JayDubya]

Your belief =/= fact.

When an organism's lifespan begins is not a matter for belief, it is a matter for scientific fact.

When or if an incorporeal soul enters a body is a matter for belief, but your church happens to believe that moment corresponds with the beginning of a human's lifespan.

 

[Diablos]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4oxch8af0I

People like this shouldn't be allowed to preach.

Skip to 4:40 for the major lulz, if you are pressed for time.

 

[worldrunover]

When an organism's lifespan begins is not a matter for belief, it is a matter for scientific fact.

When or if a incorporeal soul enters is a body is a matter for belief.

Which is what I meant by life. Human life. OBVIOUSLY a tadpole is also alive as much is a cow fetus as much is a fruit fly. You don't care about those things though.

 

[Worm_Buffet]

The AFAYK is what I'm trying to remedy, and the earlier example of the logical consequences of the difference was meant to do precisely that.

And I suggested a specimen is attributed its ability to reproduce through the species to which it belongs.

If the entire human race lost its ability to reproduce, i.e. procreate and produce new walking talking human beings as opposed to replacing the epidermis, wouldn't that disqualify it from the stricter definition of life that also excludes viruses?

 

[speculawyer]

Slippery slope.

What about brain damage, persistent vegetatives, severely retarded people, nintendo fans, etc.?

Would you deny them rights too?

It is not really a slippery slope. For adults, if you are conscious sentient person, you have rights . . . that includes people with limited brain damage, severely retarded people . . . and even nintendo fans.

But if you have absolutely no consciousness left, you can be allowed to die. The vast majority of the country agreed that the government went to far sticking their nose into the family matter of Terry Schiavo. She was brain dead long ago . . . her husband just allowed her body to follow. I think the Terry Schiavo case was the high water mark of GOP theocracy . . . they've been losing ever since. Pointless wars killing lots of innocent people but then an emergency government intervention to save a vegetable . . . people saw that logic was gone.

 

[JayDubya]

Which is what I meant by life. Human life. OBVIOUSLY a tadpole is also alive as much is a cow fetus as much is a fruit fly. You don't care about those things though.

If it's all so obvious to you, tell me, when humans become pregnant, what species do you think their young is?

Note: minotaur and centaur are not options. Nor are half-Elf or half-Vulcan.

 

[speculawyer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4oxch8af0I
People like this shouldn't be allowed to preach.
Skip to 4:40 for the major lulz, if you are pressed for time.

Sure they they should. Let people see it for nonsense that it is.

 

[speculawyer]

nm . . . I'm not getting into this.

 

[levious]

so I could have started drinking 9 months earlier?

 

[Atrus]

Atrus. You cited a specific legal status as immutable fact when that is the central point of objection. An appeal to status quo is not an argument. How would change ever occur if "it is so, thus it should be so" was the name of the game?

I wasn't appealing to the status quo I was pointing out that irrespective of any argument anyone could deliver, it has and will continue to fail if it stands outside or beyond the only avenue that actually matters.

Do you think your arguments have never stood before the courts in any of these nations? Or do you find yourself to be the unique exception? Do you not think that irrespective of what you think or feel, that any lawyer you'll need to hire to represent your case will themselves have to do all the understanding and research you will not in order to find you an actual position on which to stand?

I get to talk to people that 'believe' all the time. De-taxer's for instance will argue up and down, through philosophy, math, science and what not, but they lose and constantly lose because instead of accepting and understanding the legal jurisprudence and trying to change it, they ignore the reality at hand and in so doing fail to win in the only avenue possible (aside from revolution and armed insurgency).

 

[monchi-kun]

so I could have started drinking 9 months earlier?

:lol

 

[norinrad21]

As someone who had a planned child aborted by a dumb bitch I am against it on a personal level....
It only applies to my life as I want a son....
.

regardless of how you feel about abortion, at the end of the day its still the lady's decision to make whether you like it or not, we can argue from here to hell and back and its still her decision. She's the one carrying the baby around for 9 months, not you

 

[polyh3dron]

There is no use in debating anything under the sun with JayDubya. Let this thread be a completely lulzy testament to that.

 

[Ionas]

It is not really a slippery slope. For adults, if you are conscious sentient person, you have rights . . . that includes people with limited brain damage, severely retarded people . . . and even nintendo fans.

But if you have absolutely no consciousness left, you can be allowed to die. The vast majority of the country agreed that the government went to far sticking their nose into the family matter of Terry Schiavo. She was brain dead long ago . . . her husband just allowed her body to follow. I think the Terry Schiavo case was the high water mark of GOP theocracy . . . they've been losing ever since. Pointless wars killing lots of innocent people but then an emergency government intervention to save a vegetable . . . people saw that logic was gone.

Hmm...what about dreamless sleep? Can I kill people then?

By "then," of course, I mean when they're asleep, not when I'm asleep. That would be silly.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Now you are going to back up and try to redefine your terms and pretend like you never made the above statement after I showed that a fetus does have a medically defined brain by the 11th week:

I wasn't writing a law. I already said that a person in a persistent vegetative state was comprable, and they have a brain.

So now it's no longer "no brain. no rights." but "brain, but just rudimentary. no rights." I imagine that you can keep backpedaling as long as needed but why don't we just cut to the chase and have you just go ahead and define your position.

What exactly changes halfway though the second trimester (since you mentioned that as a time that you would be ok with) that changes a lump of tissue into a human being with rights? Honestly I'm not a huge jerk on this, if you just define when a lump of tissue becomes a human being and why you believe this is the proper point to make that change. Well...I'll still argue with you, but at least you will done the research and taken a position and I can respect that.

I don't really see the point in arguing with you since you don't accept my basic premise regardless of where we draw the line. You want to talk about rights *not* beginning with conception and then I'll be willing to haggle out the details of what's a reasonable cutoff for abortion rights.

Let me know.

 

[Red Blaster]

There is no use in debating anything under the sun with JayDubya. Let this thread be a completely lulzy testament to that.

That one Ron Paul image also works too.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

There is no use in debating anything under the sun with JayDubya. Let this thread be a completely lulzy testament to that.

There is no debating because he doesn't just lay down and agree with you like the pussy you want him to be?

 

[Count Dookkake]

:lol BRAVO!

It's unfortunate the studio gutted the budget only a few weeks before production began. The movie had some good ideas, burdened by shitty production values.

 

[speculawyer]

Hmm...what about dreamless sleep? Can I kill people then?

By "then," of course, I mean when they're asleep, not when I'm asleep. That would be silly.

This whole response was pretty silly.

 

[speculawyer]

There is no debating because he doesn't just lay down and agree with you like the pussy you want him to be?

No . . . because he often dodges the issues, won't give straight answers to difficult hypotheticals, and proudly proclaims to have 'scientifically' come up with the answer to a question that is a legal/moral question not a scientific question.

 

[JayDubya]

No . . . because he often dodges the issues

Despite your retarded dogged insistence on this point, no.

 

[Ionas]

This whole response was pretty silly.

Well, it's something to think about. If someone is having absolutely no thoughts, has no awareness of him/herself, and won't experience any pain or suffering...are those sufficient grounds?

EDIT: I'm not trying to trap you into saying something I can pounce on. You've suggested what appears to be a good set of criteria for "human-ness"--cognitive ability, consciousness, etc. I just think we need to flesh it out, see that it correctly encompasses the examples we want it to (e.g., mentally retarded person) and excludes those we don't (e.g., chimpanzees, persistent vegetative state).

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

No . . . because he often dodges the issues, won't give straight answers to difficult hypotheticals, and proudly proclaims to have 'scientifically' come up with the answer to a question that is a legal/moral question not a scientific question.

You always claim he does this yet never give any concrete examples. The other guy is right, he is just too good at arguing with you and it pisses you off :lol

 

[Dr_Cogent]

You always claim he does this yet never give any concrete examples. The other guy is right, he is just too good at arguing with you and it pisses you off :lol

:lol

 

[speculawyer]

Despite your retarded dogged insistence on this point, no.

OK . . . what is the compelling policy goal of legally defining a blastocyst as a person with rights?

I will give you the compelling policy goal of not defining a blastocyst as a person with rights: to reduce suffering. A rape victim should not have to suffer carrying the child of her rapist. A person incapable of supporting a child and with no hopes of adoption should not be forced to bring a child into the world that will likely suffer horribly.

A blastocyst is incapable of suffering. It has no brain. It has no nervous system at all.

 

[JayDubya]

I wasn't appealing to the status quo I was pointing out that irrespective of any argument anyone could deliver, it has and will continue to fail if it stands outside or beyond the only avenue that actually matters.

Granted. I want someone to argue before the Supreme Court and have Roe overturned. If that creates a lot more paperwork for bureaucrats, I'm not sure that fact changes anything.

Do you think your arguments have never stood before the courts in any of these nations? Or do you find yourself to be the unique exception? Do you not think that irrespective of what you think or feel, that any lawyer you'll need to hire to represent your case will themselves have to do all the understanding and research you will not in order to find you an actual position on which to stand?

Okay, fine, I get what you're saying, but if you are a lawyer, I'll admit I'm not. I can talk over your head regarding biology and you can do the same with jurisprudence. People other than lawyers can have political opinions, though, and vote on them. Prior to 1973, individual states had jurisdiction over their own criminal codes and determined for themselves whether or not this type of aggressive homicide was justifiable, so it's not as if there's no precedent and no model to work from here.

OK . . . what is the compelling policy goal of legally defining a blastocyst as a person with rights?

The promotion of human liberty; eliminating a loophole that allows aggressive homicide to go unpunished, undermining the notion of human rights.

I will give you the compelling policy goal of not defining a blastocyst as a person with rights: to reduce suffering.

Ah, the mercy killing argument. Like a horse with a broken leg.

A rape victim should not have to suffer carrying the child of her rapist.

The rapist deserves prison. The child does not deserve the death penalty.

 

[JayDubya]

dp

 

[Hitokage]

You keep arguing biology yet ignore the fundamental question is NOT whether a zygote is alive or not, but rather should we care about what happens to it? That is NOT a scientific question and your repeated abuse of science to address issues outside its scope in every abortion thread is shameful.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Ah, the mercy killing argument. Like a horse with a broken leg.



The rapist deserves prison. The child does not deserve the death penalty.

For the record-- here's a case of dodging the issue.

1) it wasn't a mercy killing argument, the suffering was of the mother
2) his follow-up ignores the suffering of the mother and shifts the argument away from the basic discussion of suffering. The "murdered" blastocyst does not suffer.

 

[TheFightingFish]

I don't really see the point in arguing with you since you don't accept my basic premise regardless of where we draw the line. You want to talk about rights *not* beginning with conception and then I'll be willing to haggle out the details of what's a reasonable cutoff for abortion rights.

Let me know.

So you will only argue with people who accept your basic premises? Nice...

Fine then, let's play a game of pretend. Just pretend that instead of me believing that life begins at conception just pretend that I believe that life begins at the end of the first trimester. There, now you don't have to worry about rights beginning at conception.

Now let me ask again if you would kindly define exactly why you feel that halfway though the second trimester is the right point to move the definition from "lump of tissue" to "human being" as opposed to my opintion that it is the end if the first trimester (in our little pretend world).

 

[JayDubya]

You keep arguing biology yet ignore the fundamental question is NOT whether a zygote is alive or not, but rather should we care?

And yet the people I am arguing with continue to make these assertions which need factual correction. Would that they do not, yet they do. If you do not, great, then we can bypass that.

That is NOT a scientific question and your repeated abuse of science to address issues outside its scope in every abortion thread is shameful.

My contention, obviously, is that reason has a valid answer and that legal norms are out of touch. My knowledge of biology informs my political beliefs on this topic, as does my belief in human rights.

I do hope you'll be able to identify what about this in particular is shameful, beyond disagreeing with you.

 

[speculawyer]

The promotion of human liberty; eliminating a loophole that allows aggressive homicide to go unpunished, undermining the notion of human rights.

Ah, the mercy killing argument. Like a horse with a broken leg.

The rapist deserves prison. The child does not deserve the death penalty.

See?

This is what I mean by dodge the issue . . . the issue is what is the compelling policy interest in defining a blastocyst as a person with rights. He dodges the issue and assume that it has already been proven such that he can use inflammatory words like aggressive homicide, killing, and death penalty. But if a blastocyst is not person with human rights, there is no aggressive homicide, killing, and death penalty at all!

QED. Goodnight folks, enjoy the waitresses and tip the veal.

 

[JayDubya]

See?

This is what I mean by dodge the issue . . . the issue is what is the compelling policy interest in defining a blastocyst as a person with rights. He dodges the issue and assume that it has already been proven such that he can use inflammatory words like homicide, killing, and death penalty. But if a blastocyst is not person with human rights, there is no homicide, killing, and death penalty at all!

QED. Goodnight folks, enjoy the waitresses and tip the veal.

Don't be absurd.

The term homicide is in every way accurate; failing to recognize this, quoting it, and calling it a night does not help your position.

There is a little art in using the term "death penalty," so perhaps quotations were needed. However, the rapist is guilty of aggression, the rapist is guilty of causing the suffering you concern yourself with, thus, the rapist deserves punishment in the form of incarceration. The child did nothing.

 

[Hitokage]

For somebody who gets so huffy about being mistreated on the forum, you sure don't mind dishing it out.

 

[levious]

The term homicide is in every way accurate; failing to recognize this, quoting it, and calling it a night does not help your position.

well as someone who doesn't "believe" in mens rea, I don't know if you can have a firm grasp on the term homicide.

 

[speculawyer]

Don't be absurd.

The term homicide is in every way accurate; failing to recognize this, quoting it, and calling it a night does not help your position.

There is a little art in using the term "death penalty," so perhaps quotations were needed. However, the rapist is guilty of aggression, the rapist is guilty of causing the suffering you concern yourself with, thus, the rapist deserves punishment in the form of incarceration. The child did nothing.

Another dodge!

Do you even remember what the original question was?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

So you will only argue with people who accept your basic premises? Nice...

Fine then, let's play a game of pretend. Just pretend that instead of me believing that life begins at conception just pretend that I believe that life begins at the end of the first trimester. There, now you don't have to worry about rights beginning at conception.

Now let me ask again if you would kindly define exactly why you feel that halfway though the second trimester is the right point to move the definition from "lump of tissue" to "human being" as opposed to my opintion that it is the end if the first trimester (in our little pretend world).

I don't see the point because you aren't arguing from the same principle. You (presumably) have an absolute believe that life with rights begins at conception. I do not. I am not interested in convincing you ohterwise and I am not interested in being convinced otherwise. It's a waste of time, don't you think? I've given a bit of nuance to my argument and I guess you'd like to discuss that, but I don't really have any interest in debating it. You haven't earned that, by your rather haughty opening response to me.

For the record, if you care:

I would argue that life begins at birth, but it's clear that there is a conscious being before that-- and consciousness cannot be accurately and exactly determined by current science. Therefore, we are left with either taking absolutes, or picking some reasonably safe guess. I understand the third-trimester reasoning, but that's based on viability, not consciousness. I'm willing to give a benefit-of-the-doubt going back to the middle of the pregnancy based on the article you linked, but that same article describes only primitive brain functions through 17 weeks.

Arguing for embryo rights is just stupid to me. It's conveniently black and white but has so little bearing in non-faith-based reality that it seems more like a thought exercise than real life.

 

[JayDubya]

Another dodge!

No.

Do you even remember what the original question was?

Sure.

OK . . . what is the compelling policy goal of legally defining a blastocyst as a person with rights?

The promotion of human liberty; eliminating a loophole that allows aggressive homicide to go unpunished, undermining the notion of human rights.

 

[Eric P]

Well . . . Pope John Paul was against the Iraq war. I'll give them that.

and that's why he had to go

:tinfoil

 

[Dr_Cogent]

I do hope you'll be able to identify what about this in particular is shameful, beyond disagreeing with you.

I'm waiting to hear what's shameful about it.

 

[dark steve]

Uh, from where does the term "aggressive homicide" originate?

 

[ultim8p00]

:lol ... just...:lol ...I don't even know what to say to that :lol

 

[HamPster PamPster]

I'm no expert, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night

Spoiler

was raised roman catholic

!

Everything I know about Jesus, the guy who appears to be the basis of this religion, leads me to believe he wasn't the type who would deny someone a religious ceremony because of who they voted for when they basically had three choices. Do on to others as you would have them do on to you and all that jazz


Wait... I swore this was a communion thread a few pages ago...