On abortion and self-defense.

[gorfle]

I am both pro-choice and pro-firearm.

Why is it that so many people who have no problem with personal decisions to terminate an unborn baby have a problem with people's personal decisions to terminate other people in self-defense?

[Taverner]

1. I am pro-firearm and Anti-Death Penalty

I have no problem killing in self defense

Revenge killing, however, I take deep issue with

[spin]

12. I'm not in favor of the death penalty for two very good reasons...

The death penalty doesn't seem to work as a deterrent.

Public Policy Choices on Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Critical Review of New Evidence: In testimony before the Massachusetts Joint Committee on the Judiciary regarding proposed legislation to initiate a "foolproof" death penalty, Columbia Law School Professor Jeffrey Fagan analyzed recent studies that claimed that capital punishment deters murders. He stated that the studies "fall apart under close scrutiny." Fagan noted that the studies are fraught with technical and conceptual errors, including inappropriate methods of statistical analysis, failures to consider all relevant factors that drive murder rates, missing data on key variables in key states, weak to non-existent tests of concurrent effects of incarceration, and other deficiencies. "A close reading of the new deterrence studies shows quite clearly that they fail to touch this scientific bar, let alone cross it," Fagan said as he told members of the committee that the recent deterrence studies fell well short of the demanding standards of social science research. (J. Fagan, Public Policy Choices on Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Critical Review of New Evidence, testimony before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary of the Massachusetts Legislature on House Bill 3934, July 14, 2005).
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/discussion-recent-deterrence-studies


On top of that it's expensive:

A review of the literature about the death penalty shows that no state has saved money by using it. For example, A Dallas Morning News study of costs in Texas, the state which has executed the most prisoners in the U.S., showed the cost of executing a prisoner, including all expenses from trial through appeals, and assuming the case concluded in 7.5 years, to be $2,316,655. Imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security for 40 years in Texas costs about $750,000.

It is estimated that it costs $383,980 for 40 years of imprisonment in Missouri.

The higher cost is due to the fact that the legal process in death penalty cases is very complicated, reflecting the stakes involved. Death penalty trials are often longer and more complicated than non-death murder trials. The jury selection process is more involved. Many more motions are often filed by both the State and the defense. There may be more intensive use of experts and investigators. If a conviction is obtained, extensive appeals in state and federal courts inevitably follow.
http://greensboropeerpressure.blogspot.com/2006/08/economic-impact-of-death-penalty-vs_03.html

While I have no problem if a person is killed in a justifiable self defense shooting, the object is not to kill but to stop the attack.

[krispos42]

2. Oh boy...

:popcorn:

[vicman]

3. "Self defense" is the key

Many years ago I was talking to a young Republican college student and I expressed my opinion that war is always wrong. He countered with the old "what if bad guys are breaking into my house with intent to do harm to me and my family? I replied, "Ah, but that's self defense, not WAR." I further explained that WAR can always be traced to a group who were conned into starting it for purely venal and dishonest reasons and that such actions so often make self defense so necessary (as well as all the other myriad bad actions). He thought a couple of seconds and came up with, "Oh, you're speaking of WAR in the "pejorative" sense. The conversation ended there.

I don't own firearms and I am extremely skeptical as to their usefulness. However, self defense is completely understandable. I do believe that people who choose to "terminate other people" in self defense should also be willing to subject themselves to our legal system and make the case that their actions were reasonable and justified. The law allows for that. It should not allow for indiscriminate mayhem.

And there I stand.

[tucsonlib]

10. I'd Say You Stand On Solid Ground

:toast:

[Joe Steel]

22. Emotional attachment to guns.

I don't own firearms and I am extremely skeptical as to their usefulness. However, self defense is completely understandable. I do believe that people who choose to "terminate other people" in self defense should also be willing to subject themselves to our legal system and make the case that their actions were reasonable and justified. The law allows for that. It should not allow for indiscriminate mayhem.

Pro-self-defense does not mean anti-gun. Self-defense comprises many methods and doesn't demand casual gun-carrying or unregulated gun ownership.

Unfortunately, that's a tough concept for those taken with guns. They seem to have confused personal welfare with the emotional comfort they seem to find in guns. Maybe they see guns as the ultimate security blanket or some kind of amulet.

[Warpy]

4. Self defense is the bottom line

although when dealing with a born human being, one can opt to damage him badly enough that he'll forget all about trying to harm you.

Most people don't have the time to make that decision, though.

[Scout]

5. pretty simple really

one is inside my uterus, not an actual person.

other is an actual person, and not inside my uterus.

next question?

[gorfle]

6. Weighing humanity vs. innocence.

Even if I grant you that an unborn fetus is not a person (which I do not believe, by the way), what you are saying is that the balance of being a person outweighs the balance of not being a person.

But what about also weighing the innocence factor? The unborn fetus is completely innocent of any wrong-doing to merit termination. The criminal assailant, on the other hand, is guilty of trying to commit an act of violence against someone, and thus is about as far from innocent as you can get. So on the whole, what weighs more? Humanity or innocence?

I have never bought into the "it's not a person until its born" logic, because there is a point for all babies where they are completely viable on their own if they were removed from the uterus at that point. But this point is vague, and changes all the time thanks to medical technology. Because there is no firm "line in the sand" where one can say, "Beyond X weeks this is a life", to me, there are only two definitive lines that can be drawn. Either birth, which I have already discounted for reasons above, or conception. Thus I say that life begins at conception, and that terminations of pregnancies are, in fact, terminations of life. Note that I am still pro-choice, though now, being a father, I could never see myself making that choice as I thought I could when I was single.

[tucsonlib]

8. Having Witnessed Both Births And Deaths,

It is obvious to me that the soul enters the body when the first breath is taken, and that the body becomes just a piece of meat when the last breath is exhaled. "Life" may begin at conception, but those multiplying cells comprise only the potential for becoming a human being. I think we inherently know this to be true; otherwise we would hold funerals every time a woman suffers a miscarriage. While even the termination of a "potential" human life is tragic, it can not be compared to the tragedy of terminating the life of a human being.

But back to the OP, I think a more interesting phenomenon is that, in my experience at least, the vast majority of people who proclaim themselves "Pro-Life" are also pro-death penalty and pro-war. I have the utmost respect for anyone who is truly "pro-life", but these hypocrites are merely anti-abortion, not pro-life.

[gorfle]

18. I agree and disagree.

It is obvious to me that the soul enters the body when the first breath is taken, and that the body becomes just a piece of meat when the last breath is exhaled. "Life" may begin at conception, but those multiplying cells comprise only the potential for becoming a human being.

The problem here is the potential is constantly changing from conception to birth. At conception, the potential is low, just before birth the potential is great. There is some point at which the potential of the unborn is not much different than the potential of the just-born. Because this line cannot be readily defined, to me the safest place to place the line is again at conception.

I think we inherently know this to be true; otherwise we would hold funerals every time a woman suffers a miscarriage.

And people do just that depending on the stage of the pregnancy.

While even the termination of a "potential" human life is tragic, it can not be compared to the tragedy of terminating the life of a human being.

I don't know. Again it comes back to weighing innocence as part of the judgment. The violent criminal may be imminently more viable than a fetus, but does this make him imminently more valuable simply because he is more viable? I don't think so.

But back to the OP, I think a more interesting phenomenon is that, in my experience at least, the vast majority of people who proclaim themselves "Pro-Life" are also pro-death penalty and pro-war. I have the utmost respect for anyone who is truly "pro-life", but these hypocrites are merely anti-abortion, not pro-life.

I agree with you, but I can understand their position. To them, all are equally alive, but some lives, such as the lives of the innocent, are worth defending while others are not, such as convicted murderers.

To me the greater hypocrisy is the fact that most pro-lifers seem hell-bent to save the fetus but want no part in supporting the mother once the child is born. They are willing to save the child from death but not from poverty. That is hypocrisy.

[Scout]

17. "innocence" and "guilt" have nothing to do with abortion n/t

[gorfle]

19. But they do in my context.

I'm comparing abortion to killing someone in self-defense, and what makes one entity acceptable to terminate while the other is not.

There are people on this forum who are adamantly pro-choice but just as adamantly anti-self-defense, or at least anti-lethal-self-defense.

You have stated that the primary difference is location - one is inside a uterus and the other is not. I don't regard this as a valid metric for gauging the value of an entity.

At a minimum, the relative innocence or guilt ought to count for something.

[Scout]

20. abortion and killing a person are not analogous n/t

[gorfle]

24. On what basis?

On what basis do you make this proclamation?

So far your basis has been based on physical location. I reject the idea that physical location is a metric for differentiating between a person and a non-person.

[Scout]

28. you can reject my hypothesis all you want, but you are wrong.

if there was an ACTUAL PERSON in my uterus, i could still terminate it. if "physical location" were outside my uterus, you might have a point. but inside of and feeding off of another person are far more than simple differences in physical location.

a fetus is a fetus, it is not a person.


edit to add some definitions for those who are confused about what a fetus is and what a person is:

Main Entry:
fe·tus
Pronunciation:
\ˈfē-təs\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful — more at feminine
Date:
14th century

: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind ; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth



Main Entry:
per·son
Pronunciation:
\ˈpər-sən\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosōpa, plural of prosōpon face, mask — more at prosopopoeia
Date:
13th century

1: human , individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson><spokesperson>2: a character or part in or as if in a play : guise3 a: one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b: the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures4 aarchaic : bodily appearance b: the body of a human being ; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>5: the personality of a human being : self6: one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties7: reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection

[gorfle]

32. So your metric is physical location?

if there was an ACTUAL PERSON in my uterus, i could still terminate it. if "physical location" were outside my uterus, you might have a point. but inside of and feeding off of another person are far more than simple differences in physical location.

a fetus is a fetus, it is not a person.

So since it doesn't matter if it is a person or not, what differentiates a fetus from a violent criminal in such a way that makes it OK to destroy one but not the other? It sounds like you are saying the differentiators are: physical location (inside a person vs. not), and feeding off of another person.

It would seem to me that if it's OK to terminate a fetus simply by virtue of where it lives and how it eats, that it is certainly OK to terminate someone who is engaged in criminal violent crime.

[Scout]

47. no, my metric is a fetus is not the same as a person.

"It would seem to me that if it's OK to terminate a fetus simply by virtue of where it lives and how it eats, that it is certainly OK to terminate someone who is engaged in criminal violent crime."

seems to me that you are simply spewing :puke:

[gorfle]

80. But what differentiates it from a person?

no, my metric is a fetus is not the same as a person.

We keep going round and round here. Clearly you don't believe a fetus is a person. My question to you, then, is what differentiates the fetus from a person, such that it's OK to terminate one and not the other? Your response has been that physical location (inside a person vs. not inside a person) and food source are what differentiate the fetus from a person.

You also said it doesn't matter if it is a person or not, because it would be OK to terminate even a person if it was inside you.

So, my point is, if it doesn't matter if it is a person or not, if it's OK to terminate an entity based on its location and what it eats, surely it's OK to terminate an entity engaged in a criminally violent act.

Hence the paradox between being pro-choice and anti-lethal-self-defense.

[tucsonlib]

81. Re: But what differentiates it from a person

What differentiates a living person from a dead body? Something certainly does. A dead body has all the physical "ingredients" of a person, so what's missing? Call it the soul, consciousness, life force, whatever. Same thing a fetus hasn't yet received, and won't until it inhales its first breath. Can I prove this? No, even though I know it to be true. Can you prove that a fertilized egg is a human being? No, again.

[gorfle]

82. Kind of an unfair comparison, don't you think?

What differentiates a living person from a dead body? Something certainly does. A dead body has all the physical "ingredients" of a person, so what's missing? Call it the soul, consciousness, life force, whatever. Same thing a fetus hasn't yet received, and won't until it inhales its first breath. Can I prove this? No, even though I know it to be true. Can you prove that a fertilized egg is a human being? No, again.

I'm not sure what dead bodies have to do with anything in this discussion. Surely a dead body is far down the scale in at least comparative worth from either a fetus or a criminally violent individual. It's infinitely farther down the scale in terms of exhibiting life signs.

As far as souls go, I don't believe in "souls", unless this is simply a euphemism for "consciousness". I don't believe in any mythical, spiritual transport or endowment of some "life force" that at some magical point enters or exits the body. We have a consciousness, and it is the result of a complex neural network. I don't really see "consciousness" as a metric to define when it's OK to terminate an entity, because frankly, being the father of two I can say that newborns don't have one, either. They are basically vegetables and in terms of cognitive ability I don't think two weeks prior to delivery as opposed to two weeks after makes much difference. They have a rudimentary brain capable of involuntary bodily control and little else.

So if we were going to use consciousness as a metric for when it was OK to terminate someone, really you could kill newborns with as clear a conscious as killing the unborn.

So again, we come to the fact that there is no clear demarcation line for consciousness. We have conception, where there is zero consciousness, and we have birth, where there is only a very rudimentary consciousness. Because any line drawn is arbitrary until some scientific metric to define a certain level of consciousness, I'm not in favor of using it as a guideline for defining life. To me, the only fail-safe position is conception.

I do not have a problem reconciling this with a pro-choice position, because I simply believe is OK in certain instances to kill. Abortion is one of those instances. I would certainly rather see a child aborted rather than born to parents who don't want it, or even worse conditions. And while I would prefer abortions to happen sooner rather than later, I don't see much technical difference between the two. And of course, I believe it's OK to kill people caught in the commission of criminal acts of violence.

I am still stymied by the folks who are outraged when a violent criminal is killed while caught in an act of criminal violence but dance left and right while sugar-coating their justification of abortion.

[tucsonlib]

84. Re: "As far as souls go, I don't believe in "souls""

Fortunately for you, the universe cares little what you believe in or don't believe in. You might as well proclaim, "I don't believe in inhaling and exhaling". No, I don't see how it's unfair to compare a body that has ceased breathing with a fetus in the womb. Obviously there are certain circumstantial differences, but neither qualify as human beings. The fetus - not yet, at least. The body - not any longer, probably. The body might "appear" to still be conscious, as life processes continue for a while at the cellular level, just as a suggestible observer might mistake the involuntary movements of a fetus with those of a conscious human being.

[gorfle]

85. You are moving the goal posts.

Fortunately for you, the universe cares little what you believe in or don't believe in. You might as well proclaim, "I don't believe in inhaling and exhaling".

The difference, of course, is that my beliefs are based on evidence, while your beliefs are not. I would never proclaim "I don't believe in inhaling and exhaling", because these are quite obviously required for being alive.

No, I don't see how it's unfair to compare a body that has ceased breathing with a fetus in the womb. Obviously there are certain circumstantial differences, but neither qualify as human beings. The fetus - not yet, at least. The body - not any longer, probably. The body might "appear" to still be conscious, as life processes continue for a while at the cellular level, just as a suggestible observer might mistake the involuntary movements of a fetus with those of a conscious human being.

You are now moving the goal posts. Originally this was a discussion of a "dead body". Now you are speaking of a body that has simply "ceased breathing". As anyone who has had CPR training knows, it is quite possible to stop breathing and still have a heartbeat and otherwise be quite alive (though in critical condition). By your new definition, someone who stops breathing would no longer be a human being, but, once revived, they would become a human being again, even if their heart and brain functions never wavered. Do you really believe this?

Additionally, if breathing is now your definition of humanity, what does this say of any fetus that would breathe if it were removed from the womb?

[tucsonlib]

86. Re: "my beliefs are based on evidence"

I've yet to see any. My beliefs are based on personal experience, yours on opinion. I'll never convince you, unless or until you experience the truth for yourself. And so it is pointless to continue going around in circles.

[gorfle]

89. Are you blind?

I've yet to see any. My beliefs are based on personal experience, yours on opinion.

You said, You might as well proclaim, "I don't believe in inhaling and exhaling".

And I said I would never make such a claim, as clearly there is evidence for inhaling and exhaling. This is not a matter of opinion.

Further, an "experience" does not constitute repeatable, scientific evidence for an observable phenomenon. Many people have experiences which they believe to be one thing, which in fact turn out to be something else. For example, people once observed lightning and concluded it was the act of gods. Many people have observed UFOs, which turned out to be weather phenomenon. The experience may feel (and even be) quite real, but this does not mean that it is what the one who experiences it thinks it is.

Further still, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the burden of providing that evidence rests with the person making the claim. If you wish to make claims about souls the burden is on you to prove that they exist.

[tucsonlib]

94. And You Said:

"I don't believe in souls." And why? Not because of any evidence that proves there's no such thing, but only because you haven't seen any evidence that convinces you that there really is such a thing. Right?
Let me try an analogy. You're dying of thirst in the desert. Someone comes along and you beg him for water. So he gives you a dictionary with the official definition of water. And a chemistry book explaining all about H2O and its effects on the body. Eye-witness accounts of people whose thirst was cured with water. All the evidence you could ask for. And all worthless. Because what you need is to hold a glass of water in your hands and actually drink it. Then you'll have your proof. This is what I mean by experience. I've experienced the human soul in exactly the same way. How can I convey the experience of drinking water to someone who has only experienced water as an intellectual concept? I can't. It's up to each individual to find the truth for themselves. You won't find it in books. Or, as they say, "It's not the Knowledge you learn in college."




edited for grammatical errors

[gorfle]

97. Poor analogy.

And You Said: "I don't believe in souls." And why? Not because of any evidence that proves there's no such thing, but only because you haven't seen any evidence that convinces you that there really is such a thing. Right?

It is not possible to prove a negative. Thus there will never be any evidence to prove the non-existence of a thing.

Let me try an analogy. You're dying of thirst in the desert. Someone comes along and you beg him for water. So he gives you a dictionary with the official definition of water. And a chemistry book explaining all about H2O and its effects on the body. Eye-witness accounts of people whose thirst was cured with water. All the evidence you could ask for. And all worthless. Because what you need is to hold a glass of water in your hands and actually drink it. Then you'll have your proof. This is what I mean by experience.

Yes, I understand what you mean by "experience", but experience is not necessary to accept a scientific proof. For example, I have never been to the moon, and it is unlikely that I will ever experience being on the moon. Yet I am confident, based on peer-reviewed, repeatable scientific experimentation and theory, that there is a moon. This data is not worthless just because I am unable to experience it first-hand.

I've experienced the human soul in exactly the same way. How can I convey the experience of drinking water to someone who has only experienced water as an intellectual concept? I can't. It's up to each individual to find the truth for themselves. You won't find it in books. Or, as they say, "It's not the Knowledge you learn in college."

You have experienced something. Perhaps it was a hallucination? Experiencing something without a repeatable metric for measuring what you are experiencing is worthless.

[tucsonlib]

98. Well, I Tried. Bye Bye.

and BTW, if it's a hallucination, then it's a hallucination I have every day. Does that qualify as a "repeatable metric"?
and BTBTW, it was an excellent analogy.

[gorfle]

100. No.

and BTW, if it's a hallucination, then it's a hallucination I have every day. Does that qualify as a "repeatable metric"?

No. Only if the event can be peer-reviewed with near unanimous agreement on the interpretation of the observable phenomenon using the Scientific Method. Many people experience recurring hallucinations but this does not make their perception of the experience factually correct. Millions of people experienced rainbows before a scientific explanation of said phenomenon was available, with no doubt countless superstitious explanations for the observation. In spite of the common experience of viewing rainbows, this did not make their superstitious explanations any more correct.

and BTBTW, it was an excellent analogy.

No, it was not, for the reasons I sited. First-hand experience of scientifically explainable phenomenon is not a prerequisite to believing and/or understanding said phenomenon. I have never been to China. Yet I believe it exists because of the preponderance of verifiable scientific evidence that says it does. Your analogy - that I must actually drink water in order to believe in it - is factually incorrect.

[tucsonlib]

101. Re "First-hand experience of scientifically explainable phenomenon....

is not a prerequisite to believing and/or understanding said phenomenon."
I never claimed the human soul is "scientifically explainable". Is that your criterion for accepting whether or not something exists? Everything has to fit neatly inside a familiar box? Okay. I don't believe the love you feel for your daughter is real. Convince me that it exists. Do you believe it exists because you can prove it scientifically? If you do a really good job of explaining it to me, will I then feel what you feel?

Do you get it yet?

:banghead:

[gorfle]

103. Yes.

I never claimed the human soul is "scientifically explainable".

I know. This is, however, why your "experience" is insufficient to say that souls exist. There is no such thing as the "supernatural". All things in this universe are, by definition, natural phenomenon and thus are open to scientific inspection. Experience may indicate a phenomenon, but is not a scientific proof of its existence.

Is that your criterion for accepting whether or not something exists? Everything has to fit neatly inside a familiar box?

Yes. For a person of reason, everything does indeed fit inside a familiar box, namely the box of scientific discovery.

I don't believe the love you feel for your daughter is real. Convince me that it exists. Do you believe it exists because you can prove it scientifically?

Good point. I believe it exists because I have experienced it. However, I am also fairly certain that there is a scientific explanation for emotional responses, and in fact much progress has been made in very recent times to identify and capture such responses scientifically.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/brain/emotion/Damasio.html

"Using imaging techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) to study patients with brain lesions as well as normal subjects, we have begun to make some inroads into understanding the areas of the brain involved in different types of emotion. "

Such scientific studies at this point are in their infancy and at this point it is not scientifically possible to fully describe the science behind emotions, or thought, or indeed most brain functions. Nonetheless, it is clear that scientific progress is being made in this area of study.

I cannot think of any credible analog to the scientific study of a "soul", nor your perception of it coming and going.

If you do a really good job of explaining it to me, will I then feel what you feel?

There is a difference between explaining it to you to the point that you are satisfied that the scientific foundations of emotion are correct, and actually experiencing my emotions first-hand. I believe that science will, inevitably, do a really good job of explaining the scientific foundations of emotions to the satisfaction of all scientifically rigorous critics.

It is also possible, given inroads into detecting thought patterns real-time in people's brains, that some day these patterns may in fact be able to be recorded and broadcast to others.

But it is not necessary for one to actually experience other people's emotions in order to have a solid scientific understanding of them, any more than it is necessary to actually drink water to have a scientific understanding of it, nor is it necessary to walk on the moon to have a scientific understanding of it, nor is it necessary to visit China to have a scientific satisfaction that it actually exists.

Do you get it yet?

I understand completely what you are trying to say: That experience is a prerequisite for understanding. However, your assertion is false. Experience is not a prerequisite for understanding.

I freely admit that experience can certainly give one an appreciation of scientific fact beyond the banality of mere scientific data. No doubt walking on the moon gives one a much deeper appreciation for the moon than simply reading about it. But data is all that is required for understanding.

[tucsonlib]

105. Re: Experience is not a prerequisite for understanding.

Maybe not, for everyday, superficial stuff. But more to the point - understanding is no substitute for experience. As in, it isn't "necessary to actually drink water to have a scientific understanding of it." So what? "Scientific understanding" is still worthless as a thirst quencher. Understanding love "scientifically" is a poor substitute for the actual experience. If it were proved "scientifically" that love is an illusion, would you dismiss what you feel as a hallucination?
And, no, you still don't get it. I'm not saying that "experience is a prerequisite for understanding." I'm saying they are two very different things. "Understanding", at least the way you define it, is intellectual pigeonholing. Experience cannot be denied. One is mental masturbation. The other is profoundly practical. Think "water", okay?

[gorfle]

107. But...

Maybe not, for everyday, superficial stuff. But more to the point - understanding is no substitute for experience. As in, it isn't "necessary to actually drink water to have a scientific understanding of it." So what? "Scientific understanding" is still worthless as a thirst quencher.

I don't disagree with you. But we were talking about proofs of existence. Experience is great, but is not a proof of existence.

Understanding love "scientifically" is a poor substitute for the actual experience. If it were proved "scientifically" that love is an illusion, would you dismiss what you feel as a hallucination?

I will accept the emotion of love as whatever it is proven to be scientifically. I don't see how my appreciation of it would change. If I were to discover that my car is actually powered by fairy dust my appreciation for the experience of motorized travel would probably not change much, even though my understanding of how it works changed radically.

Experience cannot be denied. One is mental masturbation. The other is profoundly practical.

I agree with you, but I suspect we disagree on which one is the mental masturbation.

Experience can be denied. Many people have out-of-body experiences, or alien-abduction experiences. There have been scientific theories and experiments put forth to explain and reproduce these experiences. Assuming these theories are correct, the experiences are completely denied in the sense that they are not what the people experiencing them perceive them to be.

I suppose you can say that no one is denying that they had an experience, and that, no doubt, is true. I do not doubt, for example, that you are having some sort of experience related to souls entering and exiting bodies. I just deny the cause of your experience out of lack of scientific evidence to the contrary. I would happily entertain such evidence as finding evidence for souls would be extremely interesting.

[tucsonlib]

108. If You EXPERIENCED It......

why would you need someone else's "expertise" to validate it? Don't you trust your own experience? Your faith in "scientific evidence" only points to a lack of faith in what you see with your own eyes, or feel in your own heart. I find that sad.

[gorfle]

109. I find it prudent.

why would you need someone else's "expertise" to validate it? Don't you trust your own experience? Your faith in "scientific evidence" only points to a lack of faith in what you see with your own eyes, or feel in your own heart. I find that sad.

The human entity is extremely limited in its ability to experience the physical universe around us. No scientist would ever put stock solely in human experience and testimony.

This is not to say that physical observation is not a valid observational tool. Only that it requires corroboration. As the saying goes, "Looks can be deceiving". So can sounds, smells, and other sensations. They can be instrumental in calling us to further investigation, but they almost never stand alone as evidence.

Let me give you an example. In medieval times, it was thought that steel was a more pure form of iron. To make it, they would leave iron in a forge for extended periods of time. They thought they were burning out the impurities, rendering a purer form of iron that could be heat treated, making it both hard and soft depending on how rapidly you cooled the item from high heat.

In fact, steel is an unpure form of iron - it is an alloy of iron and carbon. By leaving it in the forge for extended periods of time, carbon from the forge fuel migrated into the iron and made steel. Iron will not respond to heat treating, but steel will (because of the formation of carbon crystals).

The metalworkers of the day had absolute confidence in their assessment of the situation - all based on experience. And yet they were wrong. What they saw with their own eyes did not tell the whole story.

[tucsonlib]

112. So If Scientific Evidence Told You...

that the love you feel inside when you hold your daughter in your arms is abnormal - the result of a chemical imbalance say, you would suddenly doubt what you were feeling? Apparently so. Again, so sad. Science is wonderful at explaining how things work in the physical world, but it's worse than useless when it tries to apply scientific method to the human condition. Science will never deliver peace - either to the world or, more importantly, to the individual human heart. It will never provide an answer to the really important questions - Why are we here. What is the soul. Is there a God.
You're placing way too much faith in a finite discipline, my friend.

[gorfle]

115. False.

that the love you feel inside when you hold your daughter in your arms is abnormal - the result of a chemical imbalance say, you would suddenly doubt what you were feeling? Apparently so. Again, so sad.

Your premise is already invalid, because we all know that the range of human emotions are not abnormal. Does understanding the physical process of emotion lessen its impact? I don't know, as I don't understand the physical process of emotion. I don't think so, though.

Science is wonderful at explaining how things work in the physical world, but it's worse than useless when it tries to apply scientific method to the human condition.

Since everything about the "human condition" is a consequence of existence in the "physical world", nothing about the human condition, and indeed all of the physical world, cannot be explained by science. There does not yet appear to be a limit of man's ability to understand the world around him, thus at present I believe that nothing is beyond the grasp of man's intellect, given time.

Science will never deliver peace - either to the world or, more importantly, to the individual human heart. It will never provide an answer to the really important questions - Why are we here. What is the soul. Is there a God.

Firstly, science does not provide concrete deliverables, only information. Thus you are right, science will never deliver peace, nor pencils, nor candy bars. Nonetheless, the insight into our universe that it does deliver can be used for all of these things, should we make the choice to do so.

The Scientific Method can be applied to all observable phenomenon. If there is a soul, and it is observable, the Scientific Method can be used to postulate and test theories about its existence. If there is a soul (or a god), but it is not observable, then consequently it can also have no impact on this physical universe, or those impacts would be observable.

You're placing way too much faith in a finite discipline, my friend.

Science is not finite, at least, no more finite than our actual observable universe, my friend.

[tucsonlib]

123. True

Trying to persuade some people to remove their blinders is like trying to teach a gerbil to sing opera. So before I become trapped forever inside an endless loop of circular concepts and meaningless facts, I shall bid farewell to this Thread From The Planet Of The Verbose Jabberer. I know when to quit. Ya know how I know? Because just like an unborn fetus......I wasn't born yesterday.

[iverglas]

92. is it breathing?

what does this say of any fetus that would breathe if it were removed from the womb?

Bzzt.

How do you know what fetus will breathe if removed from A WOMAN'S BODY?

Crystal ball?

No fetus is "viable". Some fetuses are HYPOTHETICALLY viable. Is all.

[iverglas]

91. simply put

A human being is something that is

(a) human
(b) born
(c) alive

Fetuses and corpses both qualify on two of those counts, but strike out on a third.

Just as mice do.

[gorfle]

99. Of men and mice

A human being is something that is

(a) human
(b) born
(c) alive

Fetuses and corpses both qualify on two of those counts, but strike out on a third.

All this talk of corpses is interesting and all, but let's get back to the main grist of my point here - killing people caught in the act of criminal violence. Both fetuses and said criminals are human, and they are both alive. One has been born and one has not.

Is this singular qualification sufficient to make it OK to terminate one but not the other, in spite of the fact that one is in the act of inflicting harm on another human being?

Just as mice do.

Does this mean that killing a criminal caught in an act of criminal violence would be somehow comparable to killing a mouse? I don't see the connection.

[iverglas]

90. who's the one with the nonsensical notions?

I do not have a problem reconciling this with a pro-choice position, because I simply believe is OK in certain instances to kill. Abortion is one of those instances. I would certainly rather see a child aborted rather than born to parents who don't want it, or even worse conditions. And while I would prefer abortions to happen sooner rather than later, I don't see much technical difference between the two.

So would killing a person at the age of 2 months be okay then, as long as the parents didn't want it?

You know as well as anyone reading does that your alleged pro-choice position is the height of hypocrisy and nonsense.

You presumably do not believe it is "OK" for parents to kill their children, at any age, for any reason. Yet you claim to believe it is "OK" for a woman to do what you consider to be killing a child, by terminating a pregnancy, on a complete whim. (No reason need be given by a woman having an abortion, you know.)

If you believe that a fetus is a human being, then you believe that abortion is homicide. Where there is no lawful excuse for an intentional homicide -- and there never is such an excuse in the case of abortion: self-defence does not apply, because no fetus ever *intentionally* attempted to cause serious injury or death -- the homicide is murder, plain and simple.

If you believe that, then you agitate to have abortion outlawed, unless you believe it is "OK" for the state to declare that some human beings may be killed with impunity. Today fetuses; tomorrow mothers-in-law; next week you?

If you believe that and you declare that you are "OK" with permitting abortion, you either do not believe it at all or are the biggest hypocrite on the face of the earth.

Obviously, I don't believe that anybody in the world believes it. And that includes you.

If a fetus is a human being, your world is going to look a little different once that is generally recognized. Use the thing on your shoulders and consider what the obvious consequences would be, starting with abortion being homicide, but going way beyond that. How could a pregnant woman be jailed for a crime? The fetus would be locked up, but be guilty of no crime and have had no due process ...


Here's a long-standing provision from the Criminal Code of Canada that states the pretty much universal understanding of things.

http://www.canlii.net/ca/sta/c-46/sec223.html

When child becomes human being

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.

I would point out that the reason that this definition is in the Code is that without it, the meaning of "human being" in the Code would be its ordinary meaning -- i.e. a born child that has breathed and has independent circulation and has been physically separated from its mother by cutting the umbilical cord. THAT is when a fetus becomes a human being. And THAT is when a fetus acquires human rights - the things that human beings have. And everybody knows it. Including you.

[gorfle]

102. That would be you.

So would killing a person at the age of 2 months be okay then, as long as the parents didn't want it?

By two months both of my children had developed significant self-awareness and personality traits. So for me, 2 months would not be OK. Like I said, for me, now, I would not kill my children at any age. There was a time, when I was younger, when I was eagerly pro-choice, as I did not want to destroy my future prospects by having a child before I was able to afford to have one. I respect the numerous reasons, such as mine, that people have for choosing to kill their unborn children. I think some are rather petty, such as people who abort for cosmetic reasons, and I would prefer that fetuses be aborted sooner rather than later in their development, but the fact of the matter is, our society has decided in most places that up until the baby is born it can be killed for really just about any justification you might like.

So would it be OK to kill a 2-week-old baby? For me? No way. But I can tell you from experience (and I can probably go dig up scientific data to support this) developmentally, there's not much difference between a baby 2 weeks prior to full term and one 2 weeks after. It's a vegetable that eats, sleeps, shits, and pees. From any biological viewpoint, there's not much difference, and so there's not much difference in killing it two weeks before vs. two weeks after. Emotionally, of course, it's another story all together. You really do fall in love straight away. I would have given my life for my children from the moment I first laid eyes on them. Some societies, however, such as the Spartans, are said to have abandoned deformed or otherwise unwanted children to the elements soon after birth - in effect a post-birth abortion. I cannot personally fathom this.

Of course all this is rather mute - as I understand it most abortions occur early in the pregnancy and I don't find this surprising. I always knew when I didn't want children and if I had ended up pregnant during those times I would have had an abortion at the earliest opportunity, assuming the mother went along with it, of course.

You know as well as anyone reading does that your alleged pro-choice position is the height of hypocrisy and nonsense.

I have plainly stated my position, and you don't like it. Tough turds. Kindly stop calling me a liar. On wait! You didn't say that! Right.

As I have said previously, I would rather see an unborn fetus killed than born to a family that doesn't want it, and I would rather see an unborn fetus killed than doomed to a cycle of generational poverty. I'd also rather see our society provide a safety net for mothers so that fear of poverty was not a rationale for killing your unborn children, but that's another topic. I'd rather see a fetus with birth defects aborted rather than have to go through life permanently physically, or worse mentally disadvantaged. My wife and I both agreed during our pregnancies that if we detected a serious birth defect we would abort. Life is hard enough in this world when you are born with all your faculties. We did not feel it fair to bring someone into this world without them if we could prevent it.

You presumably do not believe it is "OK" for parents to kill their children, at any age, for any reason.

I said this is something that I would never do, now with the hindsight of being a father (barring birth defects). The joy of having children is too great a treasure to discard, and, now knowing this, I can't imagine discarding it no matter how tough the going might be.

Yet you claim to believe it is "OK" for a woman to do what you consider to be killing a child, by terminating a pregnancy, on a complete whim. (No reason need be given by a woman having an abortion, you know.)

This is exactly correct. I respect the right of women (though I believe fathers should be part of the decision also) to terminate their pregnancies for whatever reason suits them. I certainly believe some of those reasons are shallow and petty, but I'm not going to try to get into judgment scenarios over when it's OK to terminate a pregnancy and when it isn't. The bottom line is, if a mother doesn't want a baby, she doesn't want a baby, and that is good enough for me.

If you believe that a fetus is a human being, then you believe that abortion is homicide. Where there is no lawful excuse for an intentional homicide -- and there never is such an excuse in the case of abortion: self-defence does not apply, because no fetus ever *intentionally* attempted to cause serious injury or death -- the homicide is murder, plain and simple.

I have reconciled this myself by realizing that as a society we have numerous examples of when we have decided it is OK to kill people. We have decided it is OK to kill people found guilty of certain crimes. We have decided it is OK to kill people when they are caught, by citizens or police officers, in the act of endangering life and limb of other people. We have decided it is OK to send forth armed forces and kill people. Abortion is simply another one of those tragic wastes of life that we as a society have decided are acceptable. I simply don't choose to sugar-coat abortion as some special case by de-humanizing the target, which, by the way is precisely the modus operandi of those who have pushed agendas of terminating "undesirables" since time immemorial.

If you believe that, then you agitate to have abortion outlawed, unless you believe it is "OK" for the state to declare that some human beings may be killed with impunity. Today fetuses; tomorrow mothers-in-law; next week you?

I do not agitate to have abortion outlawed, but I do believe that it is OK for the state to declare that some human beings may be killed with impunity, and it has already done just that, as all the examples of state-sponsored or endorsed killings indicate. The state, with the approval of its citizens, tacit or otherwise, has already said that certain criminals may be killed with impunity by the state , law enforcement agents may kill with impunity some human beings when they are determined to be a danger to others, and soldiers and other combatants and even civilians can be killed with relative impunity during times of war. Abortion, in my view, is just another killing that the state and society approve of.

If you believe that and you declare that you are "OK" with permitting abortion, you either do not believe it at all or are the biggest hypocrite on the face of the earth.

I am OK with permitting abortion specifically because I will not be the biggest hypocrite on the earth. When I was single and eager for sex at any opportunity, I was certainly not going to choose celibacy as an option despite the risk of pregnancy. I certainly practiced safe sex every time, but I always knew that abortion was the ultimate "out" should I need it, assuming, of course, that the mother-to-be would go along with it. Yes, it is most certainly true, as I have said, that now, being a father and knowing the joy of having children, I would never choose abortion in my present situation. But I'm not going to be a hypocrite now and say that now that I am able to experience the joy of having children that suddenly no one else will have need of an abortion. Nor am I naive to not understand that I may, deity forbid, find myself in a situation in the future where having further children would be a disaster.

Obviously, I don't believe that anybody in the world believes it. And that includes you.

Hopefully my above has clarified my position for you.

How could a pregnant woman be jailed for a crime? The fetus would be locked up, but be guilty of no crime and have had no due process ...

I am fairly ignorant of this situation, but I believe this already happens, and when such women come full term, they deliver their babies and then the babies are sent away to family or state custody while the mother serves out the rest of the sentence. Since the fetus is probably mostly ignorant of its surroundings, and since the mother is afforded state health care and feeding while in custody, the fetus is generally ignorant of and completely unharmed by the short incarceration.

After some Googling on this subject is seems that in some cases even after the child is born it is allowed to stay with its mother, in prison, for up to 12 months of age. Clearly the state has no problem jailing newborn infants, so I don't see why it would have a problem jailing fetuses.

http://www.monkeysee.com/play/5752-what-happens-to-pregnant-women-going-to-prison

When child becomes human being...

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.

I would point out that the reason that this definition is in the Code is that without it, the meaning of "human being" in the Code would be its ordinary meaning -- i.e. a born child that has breathed and has independent circulation and has been physically separated from its mother by cutting the umbilical cord. THAT is when a fetus becomes a human being. And THAT is when a fetus acquires human rights - the things that human beings have. And everybody knows it. Including you.

Iverglas, I don't really have a problem with this arbitrary standard of what constitutes a "human being". If you want to say that physical location defines humanity, i.e. being outside its mother's body, that's fine by me. I personally don't accept it, because it is silly to imagine that 30 seconds prior to birth there is any significant biological or psychological difference in a person than 30 seconds after birth. The above legal definition has no doubt come to be because it is the most definitive, unambiguous metric concerning reproduction by current scientific standards. It requires no philosophical or moral debates concerning the measure of humanity. Nor, as with conception, is there any temporal debate as to when the event actually happened. Nonetheless, I reject it because biologically and psychologically it is developmentally arbitrary. Even so, I am willing to accept that legal definition.

But it's still not germane to my point in this discussion - specifically, why some people have no problem with terminating a fetus but do have a problem with terminating a criminal caught in the act of criminal violence. Even if you accept that the fetus is not a human being (and Scout said it didn't even matter one way or the other) why is simple physical location the defining metric that makes one termination OK while the other entity, engaged in an act of criminal violence against another person, is immune?

What such people are saying is that the virtue of having left a woman's body gives you a free pass if you get caught beating the shit out of someone by someone with a gun. And I see that as an indefensible paradox.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gorfle]

106. Toe that line.

Show those true colours

I have never done otherwise, and I am proud of my colors.

They must be hiding in the same telephone booth as all those people who don't believe using force in self-defence is justified. Ordinarily, they are found being talked about among the virulent anti-choice hordes. Not in the real world. But your decision to spew this shit tells us much.

I have heard that some women have abortions because they do not want to experience the physiological and/or cosmetic changes that go with pregnancy, such as stretch marks, incontinence, damage to the vagina, etc. I don't have any specific examples of this, though I suspect I could Google something up. But I don't think this is unheard of. And since any justification is sufficient, I won't disallow it as a justification, though I think it is shallow and conceited.


You demonstrate only your own abject ignorance of biology. Since facts are readily available to everyone these days, one pretty much assumes that if it is indeed ignorance, it is wilful.

I suspect I'm closer to the mark than you think, but OK, let's close the window down to, say, 30 seconds before and after birth. Happy?

The fact that you were a hypocrite at one time, or even just a nasty self-centred little toad who chose to rationalize anything that came along if it served his interests, does nothing to refute the fact that you are a hypocrite now.

In what way was I a hypocrite then or now? I was pro-choice then, I am pro-choice now.

I find it sad that you would condemn me as a "nasty self-centred little toad" simply because it I considered it an option should an unintended pregnancy occur. Doesn't everyone have an abortion because it serves their interests? It certainly isn't serving anyone else's!

I'd also rather see our society provide a safety net for mothers so that fear of poverty was not a rationale for killing your unborn children, but that's another topic.

I'd rather see you take your misogynist filth someplace where people enjoy reading that sort of thing.

Are you calling me a liar?

Also, I fail to see how wanting our society to provide welfare for mothers so that poverty is not a driving rationale for killing children equates to woman-hating.


I speak English, not anti-choice code. When I say "children", I mean children. Try responding to what I said.

To me, my children were my children both before and after they were born, and my response reflected that.

If it is "OK" by you for a woman to commit homicide by doing what you call "killing an unborn child", then it is OK by you for anyone to kill anyone else who is inconvenient or displeasing to them. You have no way out.

As I have said, it is a difficult conundrum, and I am not sure I can articulate my position adequately. It is "OK" by me for a woman to commit homicide by killing an unborn child, even if the reason is simply because the unborn child is inconvenient or displeasing. I do not think this is acceptable for people who have been born. In order to kill someone with cognizant mental faculties, they must make a choice which merits their death. In our society, children are not recognized as having those mental faculties, and I generally agree with this. As a society, we sanction the killing of adults not because they are inconvenient or displeasing, but rather because we have deemed them a threat whereby it is acceptable to kill them to eliminate the threat. I generally agree with this also.

I suppose one reason why I am more or less ambivalent to the fate of the unborn is it is my feeling and hope that they pretty much have no clue what is happening to them, especially in the window when most abortions are performed.

Once again, try replying to what I said. The FETUS of a pregnant woman who is imprisoned is also imprisoned -- with no finding of guilt and no due process. If that fetus is a human being, its rights have been seriously violated.

And once again, I did reply to what you said. Pregnant women are currently imprisoned along with their fetuses. No one particularly minds because inside the mother is precisely where the fetus "wants" to be, regardless of where the mother is.

Ah. So it would be okay to anaesthetize you and use you for medical experimentation, as long as you're well taken care of and don't remember anything when you wake up.

I did not say that. Nonetheless, fetuses are currently imprisoned along with their mothers, and nobody is bent out of shape about this because it does not cause the fetus any harm, regardless of whether it is a human being or not.


And this would be at the option of the woman. What if the woman doesn't want her fetus locked up? Surely you realize that, free health care notwithstanding, a prison is a more dangerous environment than home for most people. What woman would choose to have her fetus exposed to the dangers of a prison environment? What fetus would choose that?

As a society, we have decided that the risks are nominal, and, moreover, there is nothing that can be done except possibly at tremendous expense to separate the mother from her fetus. Consequently out society has decided that it's OK to lock up both the mother and the fetus. Who knows? It would not surprise me if there were societies where you can't lock up pregnant women.

You do realize this is but one of the infinite number of unresolvable contradictions that arise when you decide that a fetus is a human being.

I haven't seen anything unresolvable as of yet.

And if you want to say the moon is made of green cheese, that's fine by me. However, if you want to say that I said that physical location defines humanity, I will tell you that you are not telling the truth.

And I will tell you that is the truth as I read what you said. The legal definition you posted said being born was the qualifier. This means inside the mother = not a person, outside the mother = person. This says to me that physical location defines humanity.

I know you hate it when people accurately boil down and assess what you say, but them's the breaks, Ivy.


Hey, you can personally not accept the theory of gravity. Things will still fall down tomorrow morning, and not up. Again, you demonstrate only your total ignorance of biology.

I suspect that both my knowledge of the theory of gravity and all things child-related greatly surpass yours, Ivy.

What fucking sense did that just make?

I know that a fetus is not a human being. So why are you dragging "simple physical location" into this when it has nothing to do with it?

Because simple physical location is your metric for defining humanity. See above.

What you are saying is totally false filth. And you know what I see that as.

Well we'll see what my poll turns up. I think we'll soon see it's not so false after all.

[iverglas]

111. if you're so proud of your ugly colours

You should maybe object to my description of them no longer being available for public view.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

37. and, of course,

if there was an ACTUAL PERSON in my uterus ...

... if there were faeries at the bottom of my garden, and if wishes were horses, and if pigs could fly ...

[gorfle]

83. But it is an important point.

if there was an ACTUAL PERSON in my uterus ...

... if there were faeries at the bottom of my garden, and if wishes were horses, and if pigs could fly ...

But the sentiment expressed here is important. Scout clearly feels that she is justified in terminating anyone inside her body, regardless of whether they are actually a person or not. So "personhood" is not the criteria she uses to justify or deny termination. Rather, it is physical location, and what the entity eats.

To me, these are pretty petty criteria for termination as opposed to terminating someone actively involved in an act of criminal violence, which is why I can't understand folks who are OK with the former but not the later.

[iverglas]

93. reductio ad absurdem

You probably don't know what it is, but it is what Scout did.

*Even if* there were a human being in her body ...


Kinda like how I would not believe in gods, *even if* they appeared in front of me. They ain't gonna.


Scout clearly feels that she is justified in terminating anyone inside her body, regardless of whether they are actually a person or not.

If it were a person, it would be committing an assault. To get even more ridiculous.

And then you would agree that it could be "terminated", obviously.


So "personhood" is not the criteria she uses to justify or deny termination.

Yeah, that'll teach us to try to point out the utter ridiculousness of what someone is saying by mocking it. Some people just don't get when they're being mocked.

[gorfle]

110. I don't believe it is.

Yeah, that'll teach us to try to point out the utter ridiculousness of what someone is saying by mocking it. Some people just don't get when they're being mocked.

I did not read what she said as mocking. What Scout said was:

if there was an ACTUAL PERSON in my uterus, i could still terminate it. if "physical location" were outside my uterus, you might have a point. but inside of and feeding off of another person are far more than simple differences in physical location.

I take this to mean that in Scout's opinion, whether the fetus is an actual person or not does not matter to her. Simply by virtue of being inside her and feeding off of her is sufficient justification to terminate it. In fact, I agree with her.

What I continue to find paradoxical is that there are people who are OK with terminating an entity based on its location and what it eats, but are not OK with terminating an entity engaged in violent criminal behavior.

Regardless of whether or not fetuses are actual people or not, if you're OK with the former, I don't see how you could be against the latter.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alexandria]

130. Thank you

I just became a father and i agree with you 100%.
I was always pro-choice but after having a baby my stance has changed.

[iverglas]

132. fascinating

I was always pro-choice but after having a baby my stance has changed.

Did you have a difficult delivery?


Your stance has changed. You are anti-choice now, I take it.

So ... you have a kid ... and you immediately become entitled to make other people's choices for them, and decide who is and is not entitled to exercise their fundamental human rights. Huh. Funny how parenthood doesn't have that effect on multitudes of other people.

[Xela]

7. Pro self defense with a firearm, against death penalty, pro-choice

I see I'm not the only one.

Xela

[tucsonlib]

9. Same Here. Progressive Gun Owners Rule! n/t

[iverglas]

11. why is it

that people who proclaim they are pro-choice use nonsense terms like "unborn baby"?

Gee. Could it be to vilify women who terminate pregnancies, and in comparison glorify people who kill other people in self-defence?

Unbuilt house. Unbaked cake. Undead corpse. Oh look. They don't exist.


Btw, just who are these people who "have a problem with people's personal decisions to terminate other people in self-defense"?

Since you haven't named any, or demonstrated that there are any in this forum, I'm failing to see a subject matter calling for a thread.


What the fuck does "pro-firearm" mean, anyhow ...?

I'm pro-pizza, myself. Makes equally as much sense. Which would be: none.


typo

[spin]

13. Well I'm pro-pizza and pro-firearm and pro-beer...

Pro-beer with the pizza but not with the firearm.

BTW, how cold is it in Canada where you live?

We are expecting temperatures as low as 12°F here in North Florida tonight.

Damn, I'm beginning to think that I'm turning pro-global warming.

[tucsonlib]

14. Nah! You're Just Pro-Thermometers

:rofl:

[spin]

15. You have a point..

if I didn't have a thermometer, I wouldn't know precisely how cold I was.

[tucsonlib]

16. Exactly!

And you wouldn't know precisely how warm to dress, either! Y'know, some people aren't even pro-weather, the Neanderthals.....



:crazy:

[gorfle]

36. Pro-baby

Why is it that people who proclaim they are pro-choice use nonsense terms like "unborn baby"?

I admit, I should have said "fetus". Now that I'm a father, I can't help of thinking of them as babies, born or not.

Gee. Could it be to vilify women who terminate pregnancies, and in comparison glorify people who kill other people in self-defence?

No. By whatever term you like, it's interesting that some people are OK with terminating one entity but not the other entity.

Btw, just who are these people who "have a problem with people's personal decisions to terminate other people in self-defense"?

Since you haven't named any, or demonstrated that there are any in this forum, I'm failing to see a subject matter calling for a thread.

I think I'll let those who think the shoe fits them speak for themselves.

What the fuck does "pro-firearm" mean, anyhow ...?

I'm pro-pizza, myself. Makes equally as much sense. Which would be: none.

Give me a break, Iverglas. Everyone knows what "pro-firearm" means. It means a person who endorses and encourages the right to keep and bear arms and related activites. It's just much shorter to type.

I would assume if you told me you were pro-pizza that you were a person who endorsed and encouraged making and eating pizza. Makes perfect sense.

[Joe Steel]

21. Gun love and self-defense.

On abortion and self-defense.

I am both pro-choice and pro-firearm.

Why is it that so many people who have no problem with personal decisions to terminate an unborn baby have a problem with people's personal decisions to terminate other people in self-defense?

Why is it those who love guns always say they're pro-self-defense?

[jmg257]

23. Maybe 'cause that is a very good, and very typical, reason to own a gun?

"Always" is a tough word to use, as is "love". Anyway, though there are numerous great reasons to own guns, chances are many gun owners have always considered self-defense to be a primary usage, which is one important reason the right to arms is secured in the constitution. Seems quite a few consider self-defense as the only reason they own them.

Those who understand the need for adequate defense re:guns, probably seem to "love" guns all the more because they are considered so important. Which is also why attempted restrictions are seen so negatively...you would have to convince such people that those restrictions (and any associated loss of rights) are worth more then any loss in the choices made for adequate defense of self and loved ones.

[Joe Steel]

25. What about...

Maybe 'cause that is a very good, and very typical, reason to own a gun?

"Always" is a tough word to use, as is "love". Anyway, though there are numerous great reasons to own guns, chances are many gun owners have always considered self-defense to be a primary usage, which is one important reason the right to arms is secured in the constitution. Seems quite a few consider self-defense as the only reason they own them.

Just to set the record straight, Antonin "Fat Tony" Scalia created a personal right to guns. The Founders didn't.

Those who understand the need for adequate defense re:guns, probably seem to "love" guns all the more because they are considered so important. Which is also why attempted restrictions are seen so negatively...you would have to convince such people that those restrictions (and any associated loss of rights) are worth more then any loss in the choices made for adequate defense of self and loved ones.

I've read articles and other comments written by persons who don't own guns, yet speak of the with great affection and admiration. What about them?

Many who oppose personal gun ownership have been the victim of gun violence. What about them?

Most women oppose personal gun ownership. Assuming them to be more likely to be victims of violence than men, what about them?

[jmg257]

26. Let's see...

Antonin "Fat Tony" Scalia created a personal right to guns. The Founders didn't.

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

US Constitution - 1791

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game"

Pennsylvania Minority Committe - 1787

"17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms;"

N. Carolina Ratifying committee - 1789

"Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms;"

Virginia Convention - 1788

etc. etc. The right of the people to keep and bear arms was secured over 200 years ago; it existed looonnnggg before that. How old is Scalia?


I've read articles and other comments written by persons who don't own guns, yet speak of the with great affection and admiration. What about them?

What about them? Clearly it seems they like guns but don't own them - for self-defense or any other reason. Who knows why? Could be it is their choice, could be finances, could be they don't trust themselves, could be they don't trust others, could be importance - not sure, depends on their situation. I know my sister-in-law wants a gun, but 'hasn't the cash'. She believes in self-defense, but apparently hasn't put a high enough priority on getting one. As to others, I could not tell you.


Many who oppose personal gun ownership have been the victim of gun violence. What about them?

Not sure - do they believe in self defense? Is it a poor choice they made not to be armed for defense? Depends on their situations, why they oppose gun ownership, etc. Anyway, it is certainly tragic that they were victims.


Most women oppose personal gun ownership. Assuming them to be more likely to be victims of violence than men, what about them?

Not sure - do they believe in self defense? If THEY assume to more likely be victims of violence, is it a poor choice they make not to be armed? Depends on their situation too. I know Iverglas and others have put forth plenty of good arguments against gun ownership in general, especially relating to women. Certainly would be tragic if any women were victims of violence.


See, it is tragic for anyone to be the victim of violence. I always hope to avoid that. Certainly knowing I could have been better prepared, that I had the choice to be, and that I had chose not to do so would eat at me for a long time if I survive, especially if my kids or wife were involved. But then I really like guns (for several reasons), I own guns, I strongly believe in self-defense, and I own some guns purchased specifically for defense. My son is also growing up enjoying guns for many reasons.

A REAL important one is to always try to avoid our family being unarmed victims.

[Joe Steel]

27. OK. I'll show you.

Antonin "Fat Tony" Scalia created a personal right to guns. The Founders didn't.

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

US Constitution - 1791

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game"

Pennsylvania Minority Committe - 1787

"17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms;"

N. Carolina Ratifying committee - 1789

"Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms;"

Virginia Convention - 1788

etc. etc. The right of the people to keep and bear arms was secured over 200 years ago; it existed looonnnggg before that. How old is Scalia?

Scalia's age doesn't matter. His ignorance, however, is a problem. "The People" is a phrase to used in reference to the citizens of the United States as collective sovereign. The right to guns is declared for the People but not for any individual.

[57_TomCat]

30. Does this mean then...

the 4th is simply for collective property and collective papers and collective effects?

Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Joe Steel]

41. One of the more confusing aspects of the concept...

Does this mean then...

the 4th is simply for collective property and collective papers and collective effects?

One of the more confusing aspects of the concept is the dual nature of the People. While the People is a collective, the right is applied to its constituents. They (the constituent individuals) are protected from unreasonable searches because they are members of the sovereign not because they are sovereign individuals.

[gorfle]

42. Does it effectively matter?

They (the constituent individuals) are protected from unreasonable searches because they are members of the sovereign not because they are sovereign individuals.

Does it effectively matter? If I am protected from unreasonable searches because I am a member of "The People", doesn't this effectively mean that I individually am still protected from unreasonable searches?

If so, even if only "The People" had the right to keep and bear arms, since I am part of a member of that sovereign, I would likewise enjoy that right individually.

In any case, all nine justices disagreed with your interpretation.

[57_TomCat]

43. Actually I believe you have it...

reversed. :)

Not confusing at all when looked at as individual rights vs. collective rights. The Federalist papers were strong on indivuality.

[jmg257]

45. How about the "dual nature" of the 2nd amendment is more like it.

We collectively had the right to arms secured for service in the militia, AND we also individually had the right to arms secured for self-defense, the taking of game, for sport, and all lawful purposes...just as We, the people wanted it!

[gorfle]

39. All nine justicies disagreed.

"The People" is a phrase to used in reference to the citizens of the United States as collective sovereign. The right to guns is declared for the People but not for any individual.

All nine Supreme Court justices disagreed with your interpretation.

The first amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

Does this mean that individuals don't have the right to peaceably assembly, and cannot petition the Government for a redress of grievances?

[Joe Steel]

52. Individuals do not assemble.

The first amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

Does this mean that individuals don't have the right to peaceably assembly, and cannot petition the Government for a redress of grievances?

Individuals do not assemble. Groups assemble. Assemble means "come together."

1. to bring together or gather into one place, company, body, or whole.

4. to come together; gather; meet

The First Amendment protects the right of the People to form for political purposes.

[57_TomCat]

55. I think you have missed the point.

Groups may assemble BUT individuals must assemble to become a group.

1. to bring together or gather into one place, company, body, or whole.

4. to come together; gather; meet

To bring together...individuals come together to "assemble".

To come together; gather; meet... sounds like a group of individuals getting together, i.e. assemble.

Striking out on this one Joe.

[Joe Steel]

59. Not me.

I think you have missed the point.

Groups may assemble BUT individuals must assemble to become a group.

1. to bring together or gather into one place, company, body, or whole.

4. to come together; gather; meet

To bring together...individuals come together to "assemble".

To come together; gather; meet... sounds like a group of individuals getting together, i.e. assemble.

Striking out on this one Joe.

Not yet. It's a difficult concept. I don't expect to explain it in only a few attempts.

Like an audience or a congregation, the People exists only as a collective and it can act only as an aggregation of individuals. The formation of the aggregation is called assembling.

Try this: Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the People to form and act for political purposes.

Does that help?

[gorfle]

77. But what about petitioning the government?

But what about petitioning the government? Is this a right reserved only to organized groups?

The First Amendment protects the right of the People to form for political purposes.

So individual speech is not protected?

[Joe Steel]

87. Not "organized groups." The People.

But what about petitioning the government?

But what about petitioning the government? Is this a right reserved only to organized groups?

Not "organized groups." The People"

So individual speech is not protected?

It is. Activist judges have created an individual right to speech.

[gorfle]

116. I think it's pretty clear...

It is. Activist judges have created an individual right to speech.

I think it's pretty clear, to me anyway, that you're out of ammo in this debate.

If there is anyone our founders would want to protect, it's the individual Joe Blow on a stump in town square crying out at the top of his lungs, "The President is an Asshoooooooole!", so that the government didn't send goons to arrest and imprison him and thereby set an example that squelches further criticisms.

These protections are for the individual, and always have been, and are not something "activist judges" created.

[Joe Steel]

118. You're wrong.

I think it's pretty clear...

I think it's pretty clear, to me anyway, that you're out of ammo in this debate.

If there is anyone our founders would want to protect, it's the individual Joe Blow on a stump in town square crying out at the top of his lungs, "The President is an Asshoooooooole!", so that the government didn't send goons to arrest and imprison him and thereby set an example that squelches further criticisms.

These protections are for the individual, and always have been, and are not something "activist judges" created.

You're wrong.

The Bill of Rights easily could been written to declare a right of speech for each individual. It doesn't say that. It's prohibits Congress from making a law abridging the right of speech. An individual right would have had to be have been declared explicitly.

[jmg257]

44. But how can that be?

Since we KNOW the founders consistently use terms like "private rights", "personal liberty", "inherent", "every man", and "absolute" in processing & referring to the articles that became the BOR, we are quite sure that was their intent. Of ocurse it, and so the 2nd amendment, was to secure INDIVIDUAL liberty.


We also know that words like "people" & "right" mean the same thing every time when used in the constitution - individual people, individual rights. All "people" have the individual right to be secure in their persons, and all people individually have the right to keep and bear arms.

"United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990)."... While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community"

Clearly rights in the 4th amendment, and so the 2nd, refer to individuals acting on their own, and in the 2nd, collectivley for militia service too.


We also know the Congress has once again codified the individual nature of the right to arms in law:

"Oct 26, 2005: Public Law No: 109-92.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act'.
(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms."



All this without 1 need of Scalia. Not surprising, really. The constitution was all about rights and better securing them.

[Joe Steel]

53. Your citation contains your answer.

United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990)

"the people"...refers to a class of persons.

[57_TomCat]

54. Therefore I, as a individual member ...

of said class, retain the individual right as enumerated for the class.

[Joe Steel]

61. Nope.

Therefore I, as a individual member ...

of said class, retain the individual right as enumerated for the class.

Nope. Rights are declared for the class not the individuals comprising the class.

[jmg257]

65. Interesting - only a "class of people" are protected from illegal search and seizure,

not each one of us individually.

So how many people must come together in this collective group before they can receive the benefit of that right? You are saying the state can do whatever the hell it wants to the people with regards to violation of their security, as long as they infringe on that right one person at a time?

Sorry, that is bullshit.

[jmg257]

64. Luckily - I am a member of that class, as you likely are too. They are your rights, too

whether you choose to enjoy them or not!

And finally we once again have the complete & undistputable backing of law, as agreed to by the USSC!


Oh, and don't forget the "collective" intention of the 2nd you love so much, as do I, the militia purpose, because IT says why the peoples' right to so-called "assault weapons", military style weapons, bayonets, swords, handguns, etc. etc. are further secured - so we can have an effective Militia, that being made up of the people.

Isn't liberty awesome?!

[jmg257]

76. Yes it does, the "class" is We, the people, of the United States. Each one of us.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. So individuals don't have the right to freedom of speech?

[Joe Steel]

88. They do.

So individuals don't have the right to freedom of speech?

They do. Activist judges have created an individual right of speech.

[jmg257]

95. When you find yourself in hole, stop digging. nt

[gorfle]

117. Just so.

To claim that individuals don't have protected speech, or the right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures, or any of the other rights enumerated in our Constitution is just ridiculous.

[Joe Steel]

119. Who claimed that?

Just so.

To claim that individuals don't have protected speech, or the right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures, or any of the other rights enumerated in our Constitution is just ridiculous.

Who claimed that?

[X_Digger]

96. err

[DrCory]

120. Do you believe the individual right...

of speech should not exist?

"Activist judges have created an individual right of speech."

Let's see some evidence that the individual right of freedom of speech did not exist before the intervention of these "activist judges". Oh, and who would they be as well?

[Joe Steel]

124. I never said it shouldn't exist.

Do you believe the individual right...

of speech should not exist?

"Activist judges have created an individual right of speech."

Let's see some evidence that the individual right of freedom of speech did not exist before the intervention of these "activist judges". Oh, and who would they be as well?

Read the First Amendment. It prohibits only Congress from abridging the right of speech. It doesn't say anything about courts or other law making bodies; state, local, administrative agencies. It just a restriction on Congress not a declaration of a personal right.

[DrCory]

127. Are you suggesting...

that these other bodies may restrict expression how ever they see fit?

[Joe Steel]

29. Are you a likely victim?

But then I really like guns, I own guns, I strongly believe in self-defense, and I own some guns specifically for defense. My son is also growing up enjoying guns for many reasons. I think we will always try to avoid our family being unarmed victims.

Ignoring your gun, do you see yourself as a likely victim of assault? Do you live or travel in high crime areas?

[57_TomCat]

31. I am curious...

What does "likely" have to do with it? Since some have been assaulted and even killed in "unlikely" circumstances then preparing for a possibility of need is reasonable as opposed to simply "likely need".

I carry a gun not "because" I need one but in "case" I need one.

[jmg257]

46. It would depend on "likely". I on occasion pass through what I would

consider high crime areas. But the important thing to realize is how potential threats don't always rely on their proximity to high crime areas, and how bad things can happen to good people pretty much any where any time - churches, schools, malls, work, parks, cities, rural areas, restaurants, etc.

I think it is somewhat foolish to depend only "on the odds of it happening" to determine your choice concerning adequate defense, or for say having smoke detectors in your house. I admit I do not carry 24/7 as work does not allow it, I can't carry on school grounds when getting the kids etc., and I do not always worry that I will be a victim - certainly if I did, I would carry whenever legally possible because it is just not that big a deal or inconvenience to do so, and would usually be the smarter thing.

Which brings up another point, there are numerous studies on violence and gun violence, and when consistently shown facts like "Most offenders had serious criminal histories, One fifth of offenders had been arrested for a prior gun offense, and three-fifths had a history of drug charges, and over one third of the offenders were on probation at the time of the new gun-related offense", you will have a hard time convincing me and many other lawful citizens that I / we need to give up our private rights to self-defense because such offenders aren't handled properly.

[X_Digger]

33. insert non-sequitur here

Just to set the record straight, Antonin "Fat Tony" Scalia created a personal right to guns. The Founders didn't.

Ermm.. If Scalia created this right then why to millions of americans have guns without being in the military? You've seen quotes from the founding fathers and excerpts of the conversations they were having with each other that show they feel that being armed was not just for militia service, but also for self-defense. Do you really think that Scalia created this right out of whole cloth? As I asked in another thread, what part of Scalia's decision do you find fault with?

I've read articles and other comments written by persons who don't own guns, yet speak of the with great affection and admiration. What about them?

What about them? Just like a woman who never has an abortion can still be pro-choice, a person who chooses not to personally have a gun can appreciate their importance for self-defense.

Many who oppose personal gun ownership have been the victim of gun violence. What about them?

Many that support gun ownership have been the victims of gun violence. What's your point?

Most women oppose personal gun ownership. Assuming them to be more likely to be victims of violence than men, what about them?

Hrmm.. BZZT.. wrong.. http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/883a4GunRights.pdf

Large majorities in all demographic groups agree with the Justice Department’s new view on gun rights.. as do 66 percent of women and Democrats.

After hearing the Second Amendment verbatim, 73 percent in an ABC News poll said it guarantees the right to individual gun ownership.

[gorfle]

40. Nice data.

Nice counter-data on the women and firearm ownership.

[iverglas]

74. nice and cherrypicked

this avoiding telling the whole truth.

[Joe Steel]

48. Well, Ermm...

Ermm.. If Scalia created this right then why to millions of americans have guns without being in the military?

Rights are best understood not so much as the capacity to do something but as the capacity to overcome an obstacle to doing it. In other words, merely owning a gun is not evidence of a right. Being able to prevail against an order to surrender it is evidence. That's what Heller was about, the right to prevail against a government prohibition.

You've seen quotes from the founding fathers and excerpts of the conversations they were having with each other that show they feel that being armed was not just for militia service, but also for self-defense. Do you really think that Scalia created this right out of whole cloth? As I asked in another thread, what part of Scalia's decision do you find fault with?

His cherry-picking. For example, he completely ignored the overwhelmingly supported construction of the phrase the People; scholars hold it to refer to the collective sovereign not individuals in any number. See the work of Christian Fritz. Fritz makes a convincing case for the sovereignty of the People and their supremacy to the Constitution.

[X_Digger]

56. Say wha?!?

Rights are best understood not so much as the capacity to do something but as the capacity to overcome an obstacle to doing it. In other words, merely owning a gun is not evidence of a right. Being able to prevail against an order to surrender it is evidence. That's what Heller was about, the right to prevail against a government prohibition.

No. This decision doesn't 'grant' me a right- it merely limits the government's ability to infringe it. The distinction is subtle but important.

His cherry-picking. For example, he completely ignored the overwhelmingly supported construction of the phrase the People; scholars hold it to refer to the collective sovereign not individuals in any number. See the work of Christian Fritz. Fritz makes a convincing case for the sovereignty of the People and their supremacy to the Constitution.

I noted 10 sources from colonial-era (or thereabouts) thinkers and at least 4 from reconstruction era. Do you have some historical quotes from those thinkers that leads you to believe that they did NOT think that the people had the individual right to bear arms? Post-reconstruction texts were even more clear.

I've read American Sovereigns, and while I agree that there was a debate over 'the people's ability to act independent of the government, to use his argument to try to assert that 'the people' in the second is a collective right is ludicrous. Even if you take it as given that 'the people' is a collective, Fritz would assert that each individual as a part of the collective has that right. Fritz stops short of saying that plurality rules, but using his logic, you could get there. If that's the case, and 73% of americans believe that the 2nd confers and individual right, what use is he in the argument?

[Joe Steel]

67. That's right.

No. This decision doesn't 'grant' me a right- it merely limits the government's ability to infringe it. The distinction is subtle but important.

Rights are declared by constitutions and statutes or, in rare cases, by convention. Unless you can point to some other text declaring an individual right to guns, it is declared by the Second Amendment or not at all.

I've read American Sovereigns, and while I agree that there was a debate over 'the people's ability to act independent of the government, to use his argument to try to assert that 'the people' in the second is a collective right is ludicrous. Even if you take it as given that 'the people' is a collective, Fritz would assert that each individual as a part of the collective has that right. Fritz stops short of saying that plurality rules, but using his logic, you could get there. If that's the case, and 73% of americans believe that the 2nd confers and individual right, what use is he in the argument?

I referred to Fritz as a validation of the collective sovereign idea expressed in the phrase "the People." Scalia claims to be an originalist and a textualist. He insists the Constitution must be read from the perspective of the late 18th century giving the words the meaning they had at that time. From that perspective, "the People" must be construed to mean the collective sovereign. Any right declared for "the People," then, is not declared for any individual.

[X_Digger]

71. Let me ask another way..

Is there a quote by the founding fathers (or other thinkers at that time) that supports the 'collective' interpretation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

In reading this I found a few interesting things..

"The Bill of Rights introduced by Madison on June 8 was not composed of numbered amendments intended to be added at the end of the Constitution. Instead, the Bill of Rights was to be inserted into the existing Constitution. The sentence that became the Second Amendment was to be inserted in Article I, Section 9, between Clauses 3 and 4, which list individual rights, instead of Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16, which specify the Congress's power over the state militias."

(There is a lot of interesting commentary on both sides at the above link.)

[iverglas]

75. you might be interested

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=143854&mesg_id=143922

Allow me to quote me, with emphasis:

Myself, I've always said that it's pretty obvious that the right actually being stated in the 2nd amendment is the collective right of self-determination, to which having a secure and free state is generally essential. And that the ability of individuals to possess arms was seen as just as necessary to the exercise of that collective right as the ability of individuals to cast votes is to another aspect of the right of self-determination: a people choosing its own government.

The individual right to vote does not entitle individuals to cast ballots willy nilly, whenever a person or a group of people happens to want to. Individuals vote in elections, on the terms and conditions decided by the collectivity.

Seems to me that the right of individuals to possess firearms in order that the group can exercise its collective right to self-determination by ensuring the security of the free state comprised by the group is a right for which the conditions of exercise can just as properly be decided by the collectivity.

That doesn't mean that I don't think that individuals have a right to possess firearms for other purposes. I do, just as I think individuals have a right to possess socks and pizza. That's called liberty. But the exercise of that right is just as subject to restrictions, where they are needed in order to protect an overriding public interest, as any other right is.

[Joe Steel]

49. I don't trust ABC News.

Hrmm.. BZZT.. wrong.. http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/883a4GunRights...

I don't trust ABC News. Got anything else?

[X_Digger]

58. CNN? USA Today?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/16/guns.poll/index.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-26-guns-cover_N.htm (doesn't have the breakdown by gender)

[Joe Steel]

68. CNN is marginal. USA Today is unacceptable.

CNN? USA Today?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/16/guns.poll/index.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-26-guns... (doesn't have the breakdown by gender)

CNN is marginal. USA Today is unacceptable.

However, I'll stipulate to the results; polling will find an acceptance of gun ownership.

That's not really the point. The point is the meaning of the Second Amendment as the Founders understood it.

[iverglas]

62. some people have such trouble with that "whole truth" thing

Most women oppose personal gun ownership. Assuming them to be more likely to be victims of violence than men, what about them?
Hrmm.. BZZT.. wrong.. <link, with quotation: "Large majorities in all demographic groups agree with the Justice Department’s new view on gun rights.. as do 66 percent of women and Democrats.">

What the link actually says (with my emphasis - a much more honest way of directing attention to what one proposes is significant than must DELETING the bits one doesn't like):

The amendment itself states: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

.......... Second Amendment grants .... Favor stricter
.......... right to own guns ................. gun control
All .............. 73% ................................. 57
Men ............ 80 ................................... 44
Women ........ 66 ................................... 69

Over two thirds of women favoured stricter gun control. Doesn't quite make a "BZZT" for you.

Of course, to begin with, Person A was talking about "personal gun ownership", and Person B responded with something about (again I emphasize) "the right to individual gun ownership". Most people can see the difference.

I oppose adultery. I also support the right to commit adultery.



Ermm.. If Scalia created this right then why to millions of americans have guns without being in the military?

I actually can't even begin to think of how to respond to that.

But what the heck.

If there is no constitutional right to chew gum in the US, then why do millions of USAmericans chew gum?


(forgot to check that formatting)

[X_Digger]

66. How many slices can you get from that hair?

If I were talking about whether or not women (or people in general) oppose or support more gun regulation, I would have quoted the whole thing. Your highlighting that does what for the discussion at hand?

My point about 'Gum chewers' is that if we didn't have that right, it would have been made illegal. Oh look, DC tried.. and failed.

[iverglas]

69. lord jayzus

if we didn't have that right, it would have been made illegal

Uh, yeah.

So where is this right to chew gum, then?

Mind, I'm not saying there isn't one myself. I'm just wondering where you see it, since, there being several gazillion gum chewers in the US, there must be a right to chew gum or it would have been made illegal.

What you were actually saying was that the fact that X number of people do something and there is no law against it proves there is a right to do it.

Like I said, that just boggles the mind.

[X_Digger]

72. Not all rights are enumerated

You did know that not all rights are enumerated, right? See 9th & 14th, and the commentaries around 'em.

[iverglas]

73. well okey dokey then

I will be callin on you next time some bozo pronounces that THERE IS NO RIGHT TO DRIVE A CAR.

Meanwhile, your If Scalia created this right then why to millions of americans have guns without being in the military? continues to be as boggling as it was.

And you headed the post "non sequitur"! Good one!

[gorfle]

38. Incorrect.

Just to set the record straight, Antonin "Fat Tony" Scalia created a personal right to guns. The Founders didn't.

All nine justices in Heller held that the second amendment conveys an individual right to bear arms.

[Joe Steel]

50. Scalia was just the whipping boy.

All nine justices in Heller held that the second amendment conveys an individual right to bear arms.

Scalia was just the whipping boy. He wrote the opinion so he gets the blame.

[X_Digger]

63. Have you actually read the dissent? n/t

[gorfle]

78. I don't know what that means.

Scalia was just the whipping boy. He wrote the opinion so he gets the blame.

If you have read the opinion, including the dissenting side, you will note that even the dissenters agreed that the 2nd amendment coveys and individual right to keep and bear arms. All the justices were in agreement on this point.

[Joe Steel]

125. Nine can be wrong, too.

If you have read the opinion, including the dissenting side, you will note that even the dissenters agreed that the 2nd amendment coveys and individual right to keep and bear arms. All the justices were in agreement on this point.

Who cares.

The Supreme Court is authoritative only because the Constitution says it is not because it's really correct.

And remember; the justices are appointed by politicians and are confirmed by politicians. No one ever suspected a politician of making a choice because it really was the right thing to do.

[X_Digger]

126. "Correct"?!?

The Supreme Court is authoritative only because the Constitution says it is not because it's really correct.

[DrCory]

121. What About Who?

What about victims of violent crime who believe the death penalty is an appropriate punishment?

"Most women oppose personal gun ownership."

You forgot a link or graph or something.

[57_TomCat]

34. Not all do.

Why is it those who love guns always say they're pro-self-defense?

Not all do. I have several friends that use guns for recreation such as hunting clays, skeet. trap and target competition. They are avid shooters but refuse to consider the gun as a part of their self defense program. Their belief in non violence precludes using weapons for defense. Instead they have argued with me that non violence is the only proper response to violence.

[Joe Steel]

51. A bit of license...

Why is it those who love guns always say they're pro-self-defense?

Not all do.

It was a generality used with a bit of license for dramatic effect.

[57_TomCat]

57. Well it was wrong and...

tends to debase your argument.

[Joe Steel]

60. Debasement is in the eye of the beholder.

Well it was wrong and...

tends to debase your argument.

Debasement is in the eye of the beholder.

It's a risk I must bear.

[iverglas]

70. nah

Those who pretend not to see hyperbole and other figure of speech type things, and try to discredit their adversaries by addressing some loony literal meaning of the words used, debase the public discourse, actually.

[57_TomCat]

114. So very true...

Posted by iverglas

nah

Those who pretend not to see hyperbole and other figure of speech type things, and try to discredit their adversaries by addressing some loony literal meaning of the words used, debase the public discourse, actually.


I am quite familiar with people like that. They tend to post here a lot. They also tend to use excesses of profanity, poor semantics, misdirection and bullmanure. Often fun to read for a good laugh. :D

[friendly_iconoclast]

122. How *dare* you make light of the Society For The Propogation of The DU Faith!

For yea, verily, the spirit came unto them, saying:

"Thou shalt preach my Gospel unto all corners of Democratic Underground,
and thou shalt proclaimeth the wisdom of the prophets Shields and Feinstein."

And later the spirit returneth, and spake thus:

"Beware thou the supporters of Heller, for they are in fact
possessed by the demons Heston and Cheney, and speak falsely
to turn the minds of the weak from the true path of righteousness."

So saith the Lord.

[gobhock]

128. guns and ammo

From: Flo Ron Paul 2012
Date: Jan 27, 2009 4:00 PM


From: "Eric Nordstrom" ..





PATRIOT NETWORK EMERGENCY ALERT 012709
---------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO ALL AMERICANS - THIS IS NOT A DRILL!
---------------------------------------------------------------

Ammunition Accountability Legislation

Remember how Obama said that he wasn't going to take your guns?
Well, it seems that his allies in the anti-gun world have no
problem with taking your ammo!

The bill that is being pushed in 18 states (including Illinois and
Indiana ) requires all ammunition to be encoded by the manufacture
a data base of all ammunition sales.

So they will know how much you
buy and what calibers.



http://ammunitionaccountability.
org/Legislation.
htm

Nobody can sell any ammunition after June 30, 2009 unless the
ammunition is coded.



Any privately held uncoded ammunition must be destroyed by July 1,
2011. (Including hand loaded ammo.) They will also charge a .

05
cent tax on every round so every box of ammo you buy will go up at
least $2.

50 or more!

If they can deprive you of ammo they do not need to take your gun!

All eyes are diverted on talk radio topics, bailouts, television
entertainments/news/propaganda, while state level legislatures are
placing the second amendment into a grave.



This legislation is currently IN COMMITTEE in 18 states: Alabama,
Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and
Washington.



Send to every person in these united states!

To find more about the anti-gun group that is sponsoring this
legislation and the specific legislation for each state, go to:

http://ammunitionaccountability.
org/Legislation.
htm

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep
and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against
tyranny in Government.

" - Thomas Jefferson

----------------------------------------------------------------
END OF MESSAGE - DISTRIBUTE AS REQUIRED
----------------------------------------------------------------

NOT ON THE PATRIOT EMERGENCY ALERT LIST?
Add yourself: http://nordstrom1.
com


2909 South George Drive, McConnell AFB, Kansas 67210

[iverglas]

129. I believe this is called spam

among other things.

[iverglas]

131. awwww

And I forgot to ask whether Ron Paul's first name was really Florence ...