I believe it should be left for the states to decide (same with gun control legislation). But, the state law can not supercede Federal Law or violate Constitutional Rights.
...
As for amendments to the Constitutuion... they should be Rights... not laws.
Not to stray from the topic but gun control laws can have an effect on neighboring states. For example, here in NJ the majority of illegal confiscated firearms where traced back to states with less regulation. These easily purchased weapons where used to commit crimes in another state. Again I don't want to change the topic here just wanted to point that out.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Not to stray from the topic but gun control laws can have an effect on neighboring states. For example, here in NJ the majority of illegal confiscated firearms where traced back to states with less regulation. These easily purchased weapons where used to commit crimes in another state. Again I don't want to change the topic here just wanted to point that out.
The same could be said for a lot of things (alcohol, fireworks, cigarettes, lower sales taxes). Does that mean we should federalize everything? Where do you draw the line?
or if the lives of the vulnerable dependent belong to
3) The ones who are actually living.
Let's try an exercise:
If your heart stops beating and I reach into your chest and pump your heart with my hand and the action of my hand is the only thing that keeps you alive, who owns your life -- you or me?
Not to stray from the topic but gun control laws can have an effect on neighboring states. For example, here in NJ the majority of illegal confiscated firearms where traced back to states with less regulation. These easily purchased weapons where used to commit crimes in another state. Again I don't want to change the topic here just wanted to point that out.
...
Then, what New Jersey needs to do is make strict and punative laws against cross stateline movement of guns... and enforce them.
Like, here in Southern California... I wouldn't toss them in jail. I'd make them do trash pick up detail along our freeways... every weekend... for 4 years.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
The same could be said for a lot of things (alcohol, fireworks, cigarettes, lower sales taxes). Does that mean we should federalize everything? Where do you draw the line?
I understand where you are coming from and it is a fine line. Sales taxes, cigarettes, fireworks, and alcohol have never been used to commit a crime, to my knowledge. The result of states with lax fire arms regulation can lead to an increase in illegal fire arms in other states. Again I am just using stats for NJ provided by the state police. So an arguement can be made that, let's use Virginia as an example, that Virginia's gun laws pose a threat to the safety and well being of the citizens of New Jersey. The same arguement can not be made for alcohol, sales taxes and cigarettes.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
...
Then, what New Jersey needs to do is make strict and punative laws against cross stateline movement of guns... and enforce them.
Like, here in Southern California... I wouldn't toss them in jail. I'd make them do trash pick up detail along our freeways... every weekend... for 4 years.
New Jersey does have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, this includes the transportation of illegal fire arms across state lines. I-95 which is a corridor along the East coast for drug and fire arms traffic is constantly patrolled by the state police but there is only so many cars that can be stopped and inspected in a given time frame. We can debate this all day but I don't want to hijack this thread. If you want I can start another thread where we can discuss this.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
If your heart stops beating and I reach into your chest and pump your heart with my hand and the action of my hand is the only thing that keeps you alive, who owns your life -- you or me?
let's try an exercise:
at what point in the pregnancy does a fetus become a living being? becos premature births are quite common and we can remove them from the womb with greater and greater ease. you wanna draw the line for me? 6 months? post-birth? are premature babies not really alive? is a c-section baby just getting alive via loophole?
i'm not saying the life from conception argument is one i agree with, i'm saying it's a pretty valid argument becos nobody has been able to give a definitive answer as to when it suddenly becomes its own life.
at what point in the pregnancy does a fetus become a living being?
When it can breathe and eat without the support of a host.
becos premature births are quite common and we can remove them from the womb with greater and greater ease. you wanna draw the line for me? 6 months? post-birth? are premature babies not really alive? is a c-section baby just getting alive via loophole?
When it can breathe and eat without the support of a host.
See above.
i pretty much agree, but it's not an easy thing to determine when that actually is. it happens in the womb at some point. there's not one "well, they curled their finger, so now the'yre alive" moment. which is why the start of "life" is a very murky issue and i think the conception argument, while not one i personally agree with, is quite reasonable.
i mean, there are people who have tragic accidents and are awake and conscious, but cannot breathe or eat without medical machines and whatnot. do we say they are not alive and thus we are free to kill them if their family finds them burdensome? even if they remove the tube just long enough to say "hey, i'd really like to keep living"?
i pretty much agree, but it's not an easy thing to determine when that actually is. it happens in the womb at some point. there's not one "well, they curled their finger, so now the'yre alive" moment. which is why the start of "life" is a very murky issue and i think the conception argument, while not one i personally agree with, is quite reasonable.
It's certainly reasonable! The logical extensions you'll take it to from there, however, are not.
i mean, there are people who have tragic accidents and are awake and conscious, but cannot breathe or eat without medical machines and whatnot. do we say they are not alive and thus we are free to kill them if their family finds them burdensome?
You are certainly free to let them die, if you wish.
even if they remove the tube just long enough to say "hey, i'd really like to keep living"?
They're welcome to remove any tube they put there in the first place.
Well, in practical terms, it's really not much of a solution to have abortion legal in one town and then illegal in another. Then you're going to end up having some serious conflicts between individual small regions, which is probably why all states would impose a state-wide answer.
Abortion, as an issue, is dealt with best by the individual woman in question, which is why all forms of government should stay out of the picture, in my opinion.
Nobody is ever going to agree either way, so I say let each state (or county) decide by voting on what matters to them. Anything more granular than the federal level is a better solution imo. The line has to be drawn somewhere. Personally it could be legalized tomorrow and I wouldn't care all that much.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
It's certainly reasonable! The logical extensions you'll take it to from there, however, are not.
You are certainly free to let them die, if you wish.
They're welcome to remove any tube they put there in the first place.
what logical extensions are those? that if you believe life begins at conception you would also feel that abortions qualify as the murder of an innocent life that should be as illegal as any other murder? that seems pretty reasonable to me. i'm of a mind that since the start of life is pretty murky and subjective it should not be ruled on by government, but i can understand why those who firmly believe life begins at conception feel it is murder and should be illegal.
who is free to let them die? the family? they get to outvote the patient himself? this sounds like a dodgy answer to me. if a person was in an accident, approved medical procedures while alert, and was placed on a breathing/feeding machine, you are saying that that person's family is entirely allowed to tell the doctors to remove those tubes over the patient's objections if the family feels it is too much of an inconvenience to them to have dad on a ventilator anymore? and that is not murder becos the person is not really alive becos the person cannot breathe or eat on its own? i'd appreciate if you could answer that as a whole, without breaking it up in order to talk out both sides of your mouth and avoid a straight answer. becos that seems to be what you're saying, if you say anything needing a host is not alive.
what logical extensions are those? that if you believe life begins at conception you would also feel that abortions qualify as the murder of an innocent life that should be as illegal as any other murder? that seems pretty reasonable to me. i'm of a mind that since the start of life is pretty murky and subjective it should not be ruled on by government, but i can understand why those who firmly believe life begins at conception feel it is murder and should be illegal.
I can understand it too! That doesn't make it right, however.
The logical extension I referred to is the belief that, even if abortion is murder, that one has a right to stop a mother from committing it. If a fetus, as a human being, has a right to steal resources from its mother's body, what logically prevents me from stealing resources from your body?
who is free to let them die? the family? they get to outvote the patient himself?
Anyone is free to let another die. You have no obligation to save a life.
this sounds like a dodgy answer to me. if a person was in an accident, approved medical procedures while alert, and was placed on a breathing/feeding machine, you are saying that that person's family is entirely allowed to tell the doctors to remove those tubes over the patient's objections if the family feels it is too much of an inconvenience to them to have dad on a ventilator anymore?
That wouldn't be "letting him die". That would be killing him. In the event that someone is in an accident and rendered a vegatable, he or she has a right to any treatment he or she requests (or requested) that another is willing to provide.
and that is not murder becos the person is not really alive becos the person cannot breathe or eat on its own? i'd appreciate if you could answer that as a whole, without breaking it up in order to talk out both sides of your mouth and avoid a straight answer. becos that seems to be what you're saying, if you say anything needing a host is not alive.
A feeding machine is not "a host". A feeding machine is a machine.
You seem to be asking me when another person is required to help another survive. My answer is never, unless that person has a debt against that other's life.
I can understand it too! That doesn't make it right, however.
The logical extension I referred to is the belief that, even if abortion is murder, that one has a right to stop a mother from committing it. If a fetus, as a human being, has a right to steal resources from its mother's body, what logically prevents me from stealing resources from your body?
Anyone is free to let another die. You have no obligation to save a life.
That wouldn't be "letting him die". That would be killing him. In the event that someone is in an accident and rendered a vegatable, he or she has a right to any treatment he or she requests (or requested) that another is willing to provide.
A feeding machine is not "a host". A feeding machine is a machine.
You seem to be asking me when another person is required to help another survive. My answer is never, unless that person has a debt against that other's life.
no, you defined a fetus as becoming alive when it can breathe and eat on its own. someone on a feeding tube cannot do those things and thus, logically, must not be considered alive under your own criteria. that is my point. so by your criteria, it is ok to "kill him" becos he's not really alive, right?
however, now it sounds like you are conceding that the fetus is alive, but that it forfeits its right to life by being dependent on the mother for resources to sustain its life. that's a different argument.
no, you defined a fetus as becoming alive when it can breathe and eat on its own. someone on a feeding tube cannot do those things and thus, logically, must not be considered alive under your own criteria.
If that person could not do those things on their own, how are they there to save? Before answering me, you might want to review the original question I asked you.
that is my point. so by your criteria, it is ok to "kill him" becos he's not really alive, right?
It's ok to let him die, yes. Not because he's "not really alive", but rather because you have no obligation to him. He's certainly alive. If we wasn't alive, then he wouldn't be at risk of death.
however, now it sounds like you are conceding that the fetus is alive, but that it forfeits its right to life by being dependent on the mother for resources to sustain its life. that's a different argument.
No, it's not a different argument at all. The fetus is most certainly alive in the same way any part of the mother is alive. But the fetus is not a being with rights until that fetus is a distinct human being.
No, it's not a different argument at all. The fetus is most certainly alive in the same way any part of the mother is alive. But the fetus is not a being with rights until that fetus is a distinct human being.
then perhaps what i'm not seeing is your distinction between a fetus dependent upon a mother and an adult dependent upon a breathing machine. you're saying the fetus is not a separate entity from the mother and thus has no right... so does that mean the person is not a separate entity from his breathing machine and has no rights of his own?
You mean, like defending an INDIVIDUALS RIGHT to LIFE (liberty, & the pursuit of happiness) against the MAJORITY's decision to allow women to extinguish said life?
You can't just pick and choose constitutional principals willy-nilly.
You have to look at them on the whole, and i believe (not even considering abortion directly) that any time the god given RIGHT to LIFE isplaced up against Gods other given right to "PRIVACY", that LIFE would be held to be of greater HEFT! Where in so much as your personal right to privacy extinguishes another persons right to life, your right to privacy is trumped.
???
Wait... surely the devil is pro-choice, no?
I am actually not maintaining the right to have an abortion is written in the constitution. I am just saying that the Justices who are appointed to tell us what the constitution says think that somehow it is.
You actually make a valid point. Clearly abortion is a very controversial issue where nothing is easy or clearcut.
... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
So the right to life is only obtained, in your view, after responsibility for that life can be upheld and secured by the individual?
Short answer yes. Long answer no:
There is no natural "Right to Life". Death demonstrates that. The "right to life" is simply a manufactured social "right" that is better stated as "the compact not to murder". In healthy societies, individuals agree not to use their natural free right to murder in exchange for equal treatment by others.
A fetus has no distinct rights as an individual because it has no distinct existence as an individual being. It is a part of its mother and as such is simply party to the rights she has. The mother owns those rights and owns that life, as she alone sustains them.
Soulsinging, an adult dependent on machines is a different situation. A machine itself has no rights, has no life, cannot own anything and is a completely distinct object from the person attached to it. The human being held alive by machines still maintains his or her rights and should certainly be considered part of any existing social compacts. However, that person does not somehow gain new rights as part of their state. He has no right to enslave the doctors or family members providing those machines. So, as I stated, those people are free to let the man die. If they wish to disconnect him from those machines (assuming the absence of an agreement to do otherwise), they may certainly do so.
There is no natural "Right to Life". Death demonstrates that. The "right to life" is simply a manufactured social "right" that is better stated as "the compact not to murder". In healthy societies, individuals agree not to use their natural free right to murder in exchange for equal treatment by others.
A fetus has no distinct rights as an individual because it has no distinct existence as an individual being. It is a part of its mother and as such is simply party to the rights she has. The mother owns those rights and owns that life, as she alone sustains them.
Soulsinging, an adult dependent on machines is a different situation. A machine itself has no rights, has no life, cannot own anything and is a completely distinct object from the person attached to it. The human being held alive by machines still maintains his or her rights and should certainly be considered part of any existing social compacts. However, that person does not somehow gain new rights as part of their state. He has no right to enslave the doctors or family members providing those machines. So, as I stated, those people are free to let the man die. If they wish to disconnect him from those machines (assuming the absence of an agreement to do otherwise), they may certainly do so.
A couple of questions.........................if the mother 'owns those rights and that life' then is it her right to whatever she wants during the pregnancy ie drug abuse?
Also, I would like to hear an example of possible 'enslavement' the man on the machine might perpetrate.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
A couple of questions.........................if the mother 'owns those rights and that life' then is it her right to whatever she wants during the pregnancy ie drug abuse?
Absolutely.
Also, I would like to hear an example of possible 'enslavement' the man on the machine might perpetrate.
An example would be the proxy use of force against family members, the medical establishment, or anyone else to compel them to keep the man alive absent the will of those others or any contractual agreement between the various parties.
Comments
Not to stray from the topic but gun control laws can have an effect on neighboring states. For example, here in NJ the majority of illegal confiscated firearms where traced back to states with less regulation. These easily purchased weapons where used to commit crimes in another state. Again I don't want to change the topic here just wanted to point that out.
(1) Herself
(2) The federal government
(3) The government of individual states
I go with number one.
Ultimately it does and it should, but unfortunetly that is not the reality of the situation. So we have to work with what we have.
or if the lives of the vulnerable dependent belong to
1) themselves
2) those who are inconvenienced by them
i'm sorry, but there are 2 equally valid sides to this one. and i'm pro-choice. it's not that simple.
3) The ones who are actually living.
Let's try an exercise:
If your heart stops beating and I reach into your chest and pump your heart with my hand and the action of my hand is the only thing that keeps you alive, who owns your life -- you or me?
Then, what New Jersey needs to do is make strict and punative laws against cross stateline movement of guns... and enforce them.
Like, here in Southern California... I wouldn't toss them in jail. I'd make them do trash pick up detail along our freeways... every weekend... for 4 years.
Hail, Hail!!!
I understand where you are coming from and it is a fine line. Sales taxes, cigarettes, fireworks, and alcohol have never been used to commit a crime, to my knowledge. The result of states with lax fire arms regulation can lead to an increase in illegal fire arms in other states. Again I am just using stats for NJ provided by the state police. So an arguement can be made that, let's use Virginia as an example, that Virginia's gun laws pose a threat to the safety and well being of the citizens of New Jersey. The same arguement can not be made for alcohol, sales taxes and cigarettes.
New Jersey does have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, this includes the transportation of illegal fire arms across state lines. I-95 which is a corridor along the East coast for drug and fire arms traffic is constantly patrolled by the state police but there is only so many cars that can be stopped and inspected in a given time frame. We can debate this all day but I don't want to hijack this thread. If you want I can start another thread where we can discuss this.
let's try an exercise:
at what point in the pregnancy does a fetus become a living being? becos premature births are quite common and we can remove them from the womb with greater and greater ease. you wanna draw the line for me? 6 months? post-birth? are premature babies not really alive? is a c-section baby just getting alive via loophole?
i'm not saying the life from conception argument is one i agree with, i'm saying it's a pretty valid argument becos nobody has been able to give a definitive answer as to when it suddenly becomes its own life.
When it can breathe and eat without the support of a host.
See above.
i pretty much agree, but it's not an easy thing to determine when that actually is. it happens in the womb at some point. there's not one "well, they curled their finger, so now the'yre alive" moment. which is why the start of "life" is a very murky issue and i think the conception argument, while not one i personally agree with, is quite reasonable.
i mean, there are people who have tragic accidents and are awake and conscious, but cannot breathe or eat without medical machines and whatnot. do we say they are not alive and thus we are free to kill them if their family finds them burdensome? even if they remove the tube just long enough to say "hey, i'd really like to keep living"?
It's certainly reasonable! The logical extensions you'll take it to from there, however, are not.
You are certainly free to let them die, if you wish.
They're welcome to remove any tube they put there in the first place.
Five month old babies don't meet the standard I listed, so I don't know why you're bringing them up.
What about any country? Should abortions be illegal in Mexico? Latin America? How about Africa? Or those super-populations of India and China?
Hail, Hail!!!
Nobody is ever going to agree either way, so I say let each state (or county) decide by voting on what matters to them. Anything more granular than the federal level is a better solution imo. The line has to be drawn somewhere. Personally it could be legalized tomorrow and I wouldn't care all that much.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
what logical extensions are those? that if you believe life begins at conception you would also feel that abortions qualify as the murder of an innocent life that should be as illegal as any other murder? that seems pretty reasonable to me. i'm of a mind that since the start of life is pretty murky and subjective it should not be ruled on by government, but i can understand why those who firmly believe life begins at conception feel it is murder and should be illegal.
who is free to let them die? the family? they get to outvote the patient himself? this sounds like a dodgy answer to me. if a person was in an accident, approved medical procedures while alert, and was placed on a breathing/feeding machine, you are saying that that person's family is entirely allowed to tell the doctors to remove those tubes over the patient's objections if the family feels it is too much of an inconvenience to them to have dad on a ventilator anymore? and that is not murder becos the person is not really alive becos the person cannot breathe or eat on its own? i'd appreciate if you could answer that as a whole, without breaking it up in order to talk out both sides of your mouth and avoid a straight answer. becos that seems to be what you're saying, if you say anything needing a host is not alive.
I say they should be legal in every state. Hummm, stalemate.
Those would be covered by choices 2 and 3. But I agree, not a simple matter.
I can understand it too! That doesn't make it right, however.
The logical extension I referred to is the belief that, even if abortion is murder, that one has a right to stop a mother from committing it. If a fetus, as a human being, has a right to steal resources from its mother's body, what logically prevents me from stealing resources from your body?
Anyone is free to let another die. You have no obligation to save a life.
That wouldn't be "letting him die". That would be killing him. In the event that someone is in an accident and rendered a vegatable, he or she has a right to any treatment he or she requests (or requested) that another is willing to provide.
A feeding machine is not "a host". A feeding machine is a machine.
You seem to be asking me when another person is required to help another survive. My answer is never, unless that person has a debt against that other's life.
no, you defined a fetus as becoming alive when it can breathe and eat on its own. someone on a feeding tube cannot do those things and thus, logically, must not be considered alive under your own criteria. that is my point. so by your criteria, it is ok to "kill him" becos he's not really alive, right?
however, now it sounds like you are conceding that the fetus is alive, but that it forfeits its right to life by being dependent on the mother for resources to sustain its life. that's a different argument.
If that person could not do those things on their own, how are they there to save? Before answering me, you might want to review the original question I asked you.
It's ok to let him die, yes. Not because he's "not really alive", but rather because you have no obligation to him. He's certainly alive. If we wasn't alive, then he wouldn't be at risk of death.
No, it's not a different argument at all. The fetus is most certainly alive in the same way any part of the mother is alive. But the fetus is not a being with rights until that fetus is a distinct human being.
then perhaps what i'm not seeing is your distinction between a fetus dependent upon a mother and an adult dependent upon a breathing machine. you're saying the fetus is not a separate entity from the mother and thus has no right... so does that mean the person is not a separate entity from his breathing machine and has no rights of his own?
Wait... surely the devil is pro-choice, no?
I am actually not maintaining the right to have an abortion is written in the constitution. I am just saying that the Justices who are appointed to tell us what the constitution says think that somehow it is.
You actually make a valid point. Clearly abortion is a very controversial issue where nothing is easy or clearcut.
So the right to life is only obtained, in your view, after responsibility for that life can be upheld and secured by the individual?
You got to spend it all
Short answer yes. Long answer no:
There is no natural "Right to Life". Death demonstrates that. The "right to life" is simply a manufactured social "right" that is better stated as "the compact not to murder". In healthy societies, individuals agree not to use their natural free right to murder in exchange for equal treatment by others.
A fetus has no distinct rights as an individual because it has no distinct existence as an individual being. It is a part of its mother and as such is simply party to the rights she has. The mother owns those rights and owns that life, as she alone sustains them.
Soulsinging, an adult dependent on machines is a different situation. A machine itself has no rights, has no life, cannot own anything and is a completely distinct object from the person attached to it. The human being held alive by machines still maintains his or her rights and should certainly be considered part of any existing social compacts. However, that person does not somehow gain new rights as part of their state. He has no right to enslave the doctors or family members providing those machines. So, as I stated, those people are free to let the man die. If they wish to disconnect him from those machines (assuming the absence of an agreement to do otherwise), they may certainly do so.
A couple of questions.........................if the mother 'owns those rights and that life' then is it her right to whatever she wants during the pregnancy ie drug abuse?
Also, I would like to hear an example of possible 'enslavement' the man on the machine might perpetrate.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Absolutely.
An example would be the proxy use of force against family members, the medical establishment, or anyone else to compel them to keep the man alive absent the will of those others or any contractual agreement between the various parties.