« Dr. George Tiller | Main | Terror Should Not Pay »

June 01, 2009

Comments

Perhaps there could be a series of Supreme Court cases that put restrictions on abortion and allow states broad leeway in imposing additional restrictions

I'm not quite sure what I've said that this would be a meaningful reply to.

Seriously, all the moaning about the unrestricted right to abortion in the US gets kind of tiresome

Oh, I think I see the source of the problem, here: you seem to be under the impression that I've brought the current state of the law into the conversation.

Slarti, I think it should be clear that you are in disagreement with Novakant

Perhaps. I don't know enough detail about novakant's notions of what are right and proper restrictions to know for sure.

In other words, I'm not disagreeing with what novakant hasn't said. A novel experiment, I know.

A bit belated to mckinneytexas:
I think it is complete rubbish to believe that OR or similar groups would be the least impressed, even if abortion rights came up to a vote and would be passed with 99% of the population voting for it. To the contrary, I believe that this would radicalize them even more. Since it would show that they'd never be able to reach their goals with civil or persuasive means, a sufficient number would remain dedicated enough for a campaign of terror. If that seems too farfetched, just look at the crowd that will not accept that Obama could be the legitimate president of the US.

In other words, I'm not disagreeing with what novakant hasn't said. A novel experiment, I know.

that's not how abortion threads work, and you know it.

Sorry, cleek. I don't mean to be unreasonable.

"that's not how abortion threads work, and you know it."

"I don't mean to be unreasonable."

Oh. Did it again, I guess.

Point, the issue is minimizing harassment, threats and stalking as 'fair game' because a) they're being done to someone with whom one violently disagrees and b) because one never expects to be on the receiving end. This isn't a suggestion or a joke that any particular poster ought to be harassed (or, really, that ANYBODY ought to be harassed).

Gary, I was responding to the 'there's only one person with this name'. You don't need to interpret as a slur on your Internet sleuthing skills.

People who post a lot commonly end up giving a lot of details about themselves. Anyone who spends years and years posting to Usenet and blogs tends to leave enough clues to track them down.

Tell me about it.

I've occasionally flirted with the idea of running for some kind of local elected office. But even if I suddenly changed my mind and decided I wouldn't abjectly suck at it, it would be a terrible idea. I have a digital trail on the Internet (and before that, things like BBSes and FidoNet) stretching back to the 80's. Anyone who's even slightly competent with Google can get my real name, places I've worked before I started keeping that closer to the vest, people I've dated, software, music and fiction I've written, things I've built, sites I've run, and a treasure trove of opposition research in posts and comments I've made.

Aingunnahappen.

I find it saves trouble and PI fees if you just assume everyone online is using a pseud but is otherwise who they say they are until proved otherwise.

Why should I care if Cleek's not really Cleek, or Gary Farber's real name is Forrest J Ackerman, or Mythago is actually Wood? Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose. Emily, is nothing sacred?

I'm not Robert Holdstock, either, if that helps.

"Why should I care if Cleek's not really Cleek, or Gary Farber's real name is Forrest J Ackerman, or Mythago is actually Wood?"

I don't know, why should you care? Is anyone arguing that you should?

"...or Gary Farber's real name is Forrest J Ackerman...."

I'd care if I were dead. No, wait, I wouldn't.

But you'd have known if I were Forry; I'd have made endlessly more horrible puns.

(And sold publication rights to stories I hadn't bothered to ask the authors if I could.)

I'd have owned a lot of cool stuff, though, and you'd have been invited to come see them.

I'm not Robert Holdstock, either, if that helps.

I'm not Monty Python. That would be unexpected.

Taking a shot: do you live on Torreypines Cir?

Nope.

based on knowing that you're an sf fan, who does lots of java programming, who lives on the West Coast (California?), who has a political brother, etc.

Spot on, except for the brother. (I do have one, but he's a math professor.) But sure, I expect that with a bit of googling you could find me without great difficulty. The amusing thing is that even finding the right city still leaves you only a 50% chance of it being me. (Not even a distant relative, just a complete coincidence.)

mckinney: If a normal pregnancy becomes abnormal and a threat to the mother's life

Unfortunately, medical emergencies tend not to be that tidy. If you insist that a doctor has to wait around until s/he's sure the pregnant woman's going to die unless something is done, but is not empowered to act if it's just going to permanently damage her health, then odds are, you're going to see a lot more women die. But, that won't worry you: there's a principle of forced birth involved that transcends any mere woman just dying, or being made infertile. Meanwhile, of course, illegal abortions will continue at the same or higher rate - since countries which act to make safe legal abortion inaccessible, generally attack women's control of their fertility - access to contraception, etc - in other ways.

in the US, we have free and open debate prior to a vote, and we have 50 states, each of which would be free, through its citizens to decide the issue.

Ah, the good old "tyranny of the majority" argument. I well recall how strongly the drafters of the US Constitution supported the principle that if a majority agree to it, any right at all can be removed unwilling from the minority. That's the benefit of living in a democracy!

"Spot on, except for the brother."

Okay, I was misremembering that, which is why going down that path didn't help. (I just find it an amusing test of my search skills, and that's all, mind.)

Last question, just because it was hanging from the last search (I'm not bothering to invest more time in another look): does your middle name begin with "s"?

"I well recall how strongly the drafters of the US Constitution supported the principle that if a majority agree to it, any right at all can be removed unwilling from the minority."

Seriously, if it's murder, then there's no rationale behind letting some states legalize it. And if there's a right to privacy, and the right to abortion is an extension of that, there's no rationale for letting some states remove that right.

Neither view leaves a rationale for "this is something that should be subject to the political process." That rationale's only basis would seem to be arbitrary utilitarianism.

In which case, why shouldn't we also be able to vote on whether whether murder for hire should be legal, and whether people shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, or say what they like?

Obviously killing for life is like screwing for chastity, a terrorist is a terrorist for a' that and a' that, premeditated murder is what it is, etc. That's what interests me. I don't have a uterus and individual cases are not my business, but if the Tenth Amendment means anything it's that it's easier to get forgiveness than permission. Okay.

Where my brain locks up is the concept of -- okay, the clams, the freaks at the Church of Jumping Up and Down on the Couch Screaming "I Love My Wife," their hardcases at least have the sense to sneak and skulk when they slander a critic, or drown a judge's pet in a swimming pool, or whatever.

My neighbors would respond with greater irritation and anger at each stage of the postcard blitz. Mailing people pictures of dismembered babies would influence practically everybody without winning a single friend. Say a third agreed -- they'd nod to each other as fellow lifers, and then use unkind language about sending death porn through the mail. By the end of day one the post office would be influenced and not at all friendly, and by day three the police would be investigating Loitering with Intent to Act Crazy and Aggrivated Tackiness.

And then the big rig painted with dead babies, and a dillhole with a megaphone, and another dillhole baptizing the lawn? The cops would make the scene as a friendly reminder not to beat hell out of the lifers and torch their rig, and when the lifers declined to bugger off, the lot of them would spend the night in jail. If their Abortion-Mobile was street-legal when they got it out of impound, THAT'S what I call a miracle.

And I live in Red Hell, W Land. Even the Catholic cops would helpfully point out the exact boundaries of the homeowner's property, and if a lifer crossed the line and the homeowner said "Help!" the lifer would wake up with a big headache and uncontrollably runny eyes and nose. You just don't DO this kind of thing.

In my neighborhood, freaks are not tolerated, public freakshows result in concussed freaks, and if a tour bus full of freaks parks across the road from someone, the neighbors call each other like in the mad dog scene from To Kill A Mockingbird, and if a freak broke away from the group and walked onto your lawn without conspicuously empty hands, bad things would happen, and the grand jury would groan and catcall until the case was no-billed.

Yeah, the usual FOX and AM-band dipwads would complain, but when don't they? And I'd raise a beaker to the gal or guy they were sputtering about.

I'm sorry, but terrorists need to be scared. If you ever meet an FSB guy, ask him why Russians were left alone in the Middle East during the Cold War. They're not ashamed of it, just irritated that Chechens still don't seem to get the same message.

Oh yeah, almost forgot. Sooner or later they'd positively identify the person or persons responsible for approaching little kids on the sidewalk and telling them bedwettingly horrifying stories about the evil people who live down the street. I could ALMOST feel sorry for the poor sons of bitches when the kids picked them out of a lineup. Oh boy. Talk about your whole life becoming a series of terrible misunderstandings.

(I just find it an amusing test of my search skills, and that's all, mind.)

Hell, if you want to drop by sometime, just call first so I can make sure I've got beer in the house.

Last question, just because it was hanging from the last search (I'm not bothering to invest more time in another look): does your middle name begin with "s"?

Yup. In fact, if you look at the e-mail address I use for Usenet, you'll get the whole thing.

“Novakant ignored it when asked, so I'll ask you - so what? Which other rights should be subject to 50 percent plus one vote? The legality of interracial marriage didn't break 50 percent approval in some polls for years after it was legalized by judicial fiat.”

“Though someone who thinks that the Constitution is an explicit and exhaustive enumeration of rights is probably not the most reliable source for these bombshells.”

“Amendment 9 of the U.S. Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

“The "penumbra" idea did not originate with Roe. Those who scoff at the implied right of privacy must also be saying they think it is perfectly acceptable for the government to outlaw the sale of contraceptives to married folks, or to send a man to jail for decades for engaging in oral sex with his wife.”


The Constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights nor is it an endless cornucopia of rights to be meted out by the happenstance of a bare one-justice majority. The ‘right to privacy’ emanates from the 14th Amendment, and within limits, is a sound constitutional doctrine: state limitations on individual liberty can only be justified by a compelling state interest, weighing the liberty in question against the state’s compelling interest with the bias in favor of liberty. By its very nature, the process of evaluative comparison implies a sliding scale which, at one end, the state has a compelling interest and the individual’s liberty must give way and at the other end, the state has virtually no interest and the individual’s rights prevail. In lay person’s terms, an individual’s rights end when they encroach on another individual’s freedom/privacy. In the cases of interracial marriage, oral sex, contraceptives, etc., there was no demonstrable state interest, much less a compelling state interest, and certainly no encroachment on another’s rights or privacy. What distinguishes most if not all of the right to privacy cases from Roe is that only consenting adults, for the most part, are involved. Some few cases attempt to mark the line between a parent’s rights to raise a child against the state’s interest in education or its police power—these are usually closer cases and generally produce a polar shift between liberals and conservatives, liberals generally being more state-intrusive in the parenting business and conservatives being more insular. But, for the most part, the right vindicated is a right without consequence to any other person and is almost always exercised primarily in private.

Roe, on the other hand, ends a pregnancy and thus ends, if not a human life, at least a living organism that would be a viable human less than half a year from conception. Where the vindication of one person’s rights so irrevocably and profoundly affects the rights of another person, or potential person, then judicial fiat is insufficient in a democracy to decide that right.


Cleek: "we all descend from one guy who moved to northern PA from Strasburg Germany, in 1841."

Hate to break it to you, but Strasbourg was part of France in 1841: you're not a morally upright, industrious Lutheran Teuton, you're a 35-hour-a-week idling, godless, licentious cheese-eater!

Hate to break it to you, but Strasbourg was part of France in 1841

right. should've remembered that! that's what i get for using Google maps to check the spelling then getting swayed by that fancy new border they've recently put up! Vive La Alsace!

regardless who owns it now, i credit the region for my love of Reilsing.

you're a 35-hour-a-week idling,

at least.

i'd be amazed if my boss gets 5 hours out of me - especially this month.

Is it wrong to killfile now_what to prevent him from trolling?

"In fact, if you look at the e-mail address I use for Usenet, you'll get the whole thing."

That's where the question came from.

Dr Ngo: Is it wrong to killfile now_what to prevent him from trolling?

I'm trying to remember just not to respond, but, yeah...

"Seriously, if it's murder, then there's no rationale behind letting some states legalize it."

And if it is some morally problematic thing less than murder there is.

I'm now wondering how to say "cleek" using an outrageous French accent.

What are you doing in England? Was your mother a hamster?

"And if it is some morally problematic thing less than murder there is."

So a fetus is not, in fact, a human being, and killing it isn't murder?

What 'in fact' are you asking me to appeal to Gary? Wikipedia? Encylopedia Sebastica? The Journal of Settled Moral Reasoning volume 32?

I'm saying that you are using the fallacy of excluded middle. It is quite possible and Constitutional to ban all sorts of things on all sorts of non-murder grounds.

It is quite possible and Constitutional to ban all sorts of things on all sorts of non-murder grounds.

Okay, name one of those non-murder grounds that would apply to banning abortion. Pray, fill in the excluded middle for us.

I'm now wondering how to say "cleek" using an outrageous French accent.

le clique !

"Okay, name one of those non-murder grounds that would apply to banning abortion."

Late term abortion I presume?

That it is sufficiently close to a human person and sufficiently similar to a baby that it should receive the protections of either classification barring endangering the mother's life.

That it is sufficiently close to a human person and sufficiently similar to a baby

Wow, and I even admit that Roe's trimester formulation had a fair whiff of the arbitrary. "Sufficiently close"? "Sufficiently similar?"

And no, you don't get to presume "late term," since unsurprisingly, you use definitions that could effortlessly be made to apply well outside the current late term definition. Look! It has toes! I'm sure a movement that currently endows zygotes, but not practicing OB/GYNs, with personhood will exercise great restraint with "sufficiently close."

Yes, these are hard questions. Clearly, rather than leaving people to struggle to find answers for their own situation, we must erode away the very right to find an answer, because enough people think it's kinda icky.

novakant: And while the vast majority of women are certainly not interested in having abortions at late stages of the pregnancy, you simply cannot rule out cases were women would take advantage of such a right, just because they have decided that they don't want the baby after all.

I apologize for rooting back to the previous page, but I've read this a few times and have no idea what the fuck novakant is talking about.

Presumably novakant is being honest when claiming a pro-choice position, meaning that the nonsense about women having super fun abortion parties doesn't apply.

But then what kind of "advantage" would be taken? What's the advantage in having a painful and frequently unsettling surgical procedure? Is there some evidence that women left Tiller's clinic cackling to themselves, high-fiving and talking about how much they were looking forward to coming back again?

grendelkhan, don't you realize that women simply love to be pregnant for 7 months and then suddenly have no baby? Trauma, pfft! Emotional bonding with the fetus that occurs, caused by hormones, by the last couple of months---pfft! It's an advantage for those nasty women-creatures to get away with getting rid of a 7-month fetus!

you simply cannot rule out cases were women would take advantage of such a right, just because they have decided that they don't want the baby after all.

Oh, yes, you can. Because there is simply no evidence that this ever happens.

Your fantasy of the irresponsible, unfeeling and irrational woman isn't enough basis for creating a legal restriction.

That it is sufficiently close to a human person and sufficiently similar to a baby that it should receive the protections of either classification barring endangering the mother's life.

Which is nonsense, because we don't force anyone to go through anything remotely akin to childbirth for the sake of an actual human person, let alone something "sufficiently close" to a human person.

mckinneytexas: your distinction between Roe and Griswold is crap. It's crap because it relies on begging the question.

You claim that Roe is somehow "different" because abortion ends the life of a living organism (which you concede isn't necessarily a "human being"). But so can the birth control pill (it can prevent implantation, ending the life of the zygote), which is protected under Griswold as well as Roe. Besides, Griswold allows people to prevent the creation of a living organism because that creation happens within their reproductive system.

There is no basis for saying that it's automatically "judicial activism" to say you can end a life that exists within your reproductive system, but that it's somehow not judicial activism to say you can stop its creation. There is also no basis for saying that the state has an interest in ensuring that zygotes, embryos and fetuses are carried to term but no interest in ensuring their creation in the first place. The same arguments about "life" can easily be used to support both position. And the Catholic Church does exactly that, in fact.

The fact is that nobody really thinks an embryo is worth the same as a real person. They just use that as an excuse to punish the sluts.

Naming and shaming Prop 8 supporters and abortion clinic workers - whats the difference?

For liberals, the former is A-OK. The latter is terrorism.

"That it is sufficiently close to a human person and sufficiently similar to a baby that it should receive the protections of either classification barring endangering the mother's life."

Isn't that what we have now?

"Naming and shaming Prop 8 supporters and abortion clinic workers - whats the difference?

For liberals, the former is A-OK. The latter is terrorism."

The difference is the shooting part.

And if the former includes physical intimidation and shooting, no, it's not OK. It's terrorism.

And if supporters of Prop 8 are being illegally harrassed, physically intimidated, or shot at, the folks who are publishing their names and addresses own some responsibility.

- whats the difference?

the difference is that people kill abortion clinic workers. duh.

ok, so this delayed-appearance of comments is a little annoying.

cleek, you are finally getting annoyed?

i've been enjoying the fact that HTML works again and that the Recent Comments links work as expected!

but now that the euphoria from those things is wearing off, i noticed this other thing.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad