Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Can you give me a coherent, non-religious analysis of how to distinguish between a minor and an adult for purposes of laws against statutory rape and pedophilia? Do you think there is a non-religious basis for jailing practicing NAMBLA types?

Sure. Decades of observed developmental consequences of early sexual activity have shown that pre-pubescent sexual contact results in other negative social behaviors, such as depression, drug use, promiscuity, a tendency toward seeking sexual contact with a new generation of minors, etc. Take a poll of the sexual offenders, and you'll find that they were abused as kids.

As for statutory rape, I don't think the justification was ever religious. The laws against extramarital sex accomplish the same religious goals. But I would justify it today on the ground that 16-year-olds who have sex with 24-year-olds tend to become a burden on society by having children out of wedlock and dropping out of school. Oh, and the fact that we don't want 24-year-olds to get shot by angry parents of 16-year-olds, which is what would happen if statutory rape were decriminalized.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
I agree. That is why I consistently try to steer this conversation away from what is and what is not human life and toward the real issue - do the mother's rights outweigh the fetus' rights (or the state's rights in protecting the fetus if you don't want to confer rights on the fetus) and if so why.

And you don't think the question of whether the fetus is human affects the analysis of how important its rights are?*



*[to Not Me]Don't tell me what the USSC has said. I'm not asking what the USSC thinks, I'm asking what you think.**[/to Not Me]


**[to Everyone Else]Yeah, I'm not sure why either.[/to Everyone Else]

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Sure. Decades of observed developmental consequences of early sexual activity have shown that pre-pubescent sexual contact results in other negative social behaviors, such as depression, drug use, promiscuity, a tendency toward seeking sexual contact with a new generation of minors, etc. Take a poll of the sexual offenders, and you'll find that they were abused as kids.

As for statutory rape, I don't think the justification was ever religious. The laws against extramarital sex accomplish the same religious goals. But I would justify it today on the ground that 16-year-olds who have sex with 24-year-olds tend to become a burden on society by having children out of wedlock and dropping out of school. Oh, and the fact that we don't want 24-year-olds to get shot by angry parents of 16-year-olds, which is what would happen if statutory rape were decriminalized.

Your answer is non-responsive. You explain why statutury rape and pedophilia laws are good (which is hardly a toughie), but the question was if you could state "a coherent, non-religious analysis of how to distinguish between a minor and an adult" for purposes of those laws. In other words, why is the day you turn 18, or 16, or whatever, such a magical moment?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Sometimes.

I agree. When the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy, then I think an abortion is her right. No one should have to die to save the life of another, even if that other person is your child. I and many others would of course choose to die if it would prevent the death of my child, but I understand that others would choose to let their child die rather than face death themselves. I don't have respect for people like that, but that isn't the issue.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Your answer is non-responsive. You explain why statutury rape and pedophilia laws are good (which is hardly a toughie), but the question was if you could state "a coherent, non-religious analysis of how to distinguish between a minor and an adult" of those laws. In other words, why is the day you turn 18, or 16, or whatever, such a magical moment?

Ohhhhh. My bad.

18 was never a religious milestone. Neither was 21. It was a social one, because we had to draw the line somewhere. Literally had to --- you can't have a sliding scale of adulthood between 12 and 21. "You've been drafted, but you're 16, so we'll put you in the, um, National Guard as a compromise." So we picked two milestones. It's not like you're substantively different on one side of 18 than on the other, unlike the line drawing necessary for procedure/murder. But you are legally responsible for your own fuck ups, including bad sexual decisions, on the other side of that milestone.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And you don't think the question of whether the fetus is human affects the analysis of how important its rights are?*



*[to Not Me]Don't tell me what the USSC has said. I'm not asking what the USSC thinks, I'm asking what you think.**[/to Not Me]

To even have this discussion we have to address what is the definition of human. What do you mean when you say someone is a human? If you tell me how you are defining that term, that is the starting point for us discussing whether a fetus is human under that definition.

As we have discussed before, if you define it by DNA, then the cells you scrape out of my mouth are humans because they contain a full set of human chromosomes. If you define it by capacity to think, then those born with severe neurological deficits and incapble of achieving consciousness aren't humans under that defintion. If you define it simply by the fact that someone has been born or has not been born, well, that is so obviously flawed that it isn't worth addressing.

So what do you mean when you say "human"?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Ohhhhh. My bad.

18 was never a religious milestone. Neither was 21. It was a social one, because we had to draw the line somewhere. Literally had to --- you can't have a sliding scale of adulthood between 12 and 21. "You've been drafted, but you're 16, so we'll put you in the, um, National Guard as a compromise." So we picked two milestones. It's not like you're substantively different on one side of 18 than on the other, unlike the line drawing necessary for procedure/murder. But you are legally responsible for your own fuck ups, including bad sexual decisions, on the other side of that milestone.

Thanks, Sidd -

And, Atticus, so too with drawing lines in the case of abortion.

I had a kid born at 8 months. To hell with anyone who tells me she wouldn't have been worthy of the full protection of the laws whether born then or if she'd stayed on the inside another week.

But my wife has also had pregnancies go awry in the early months. Yes, we mourned, but it's still not the same.

And somewhere in between there is a hopefully not entirely arbitrary line.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me
To even have this discussion we have to address what is the definition of human. What do you mean when you say someone is a human? If you tell me how you are defining that term, that is the starting point for us discussing whether a fetus is human under that definition.

As we have discussed before, if you define it by DNA, then the cells you scrape out of my mouth are humans because they contain a full set of human chromosomes. If you define it by capacity to think, then those born with severe neurological deficits and incapble of achieving consciousness aren't humans under that defintion. If you define it simply by the fact that someone has been born or has not been born, well, that is so obviously flawed that it isn't worth addressing.

So what do you mean when you say "human"?

We're still waiting on your definition, of course.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What is the scientific question?

It's a philosophical/moral/religious question as to whether (or at what point) a fetus she be afforded the generally assumed human right to live, particularly in light of the inherent conflict of any such rights with the mother's right of self-determination. Where does science enter the equation, other than identifying possible relevant times subsequent to conception which might provide some philosophical guidance?

You're kidding, right? That is not the question. The question is at what point does life begin. We are already well familiar with balancing between competing lives. The only reason this is a debate, is that the science is unclear on when a human life begins. Currently, it may be a philosophical/religious question, but that is only because sciense has not advanced to a point where it can answer it definitively. The mystics always exist well in a vacuum knowledge.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
To hell with anyone who tells me she wouldn't have been worthy of the full protection of the laws whether born then or if she'd stayed on the inside another week.

What if keeping her inside for another week would have killed your wife?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What if keeping her inside for another week would have killed your wife?

That answer I know clearly because we have discussed it - if it was a choice between my daughter's life and my wife's, my wife would have chosen my daughter as the one to live. At that point, we are balancing two fully human lives.

Frankly, I feel deeply for any parent who wouldn't choose their child over themselves.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The only reason this is a debate, is that the science is unclear on when a human life begins.

your kidding, right? how is science unclear on this? I learned in 4th grade about conception and fetuses, etc.

The only thing science has not yet told us definitively is when a fetus is viable, which at least to some is a highly relevant point between conception and delivery.

The debate on balancing lives is a question of whether there should be a balancing of interests or not. Anti-abortion says not, except (perhaps) in the limited circumstances where either the fetus or the mother will die (hi, greedy!).

When I see folks in priest outfits holding up bottled fetuses, I do not see them carrying scientific evidence of life. I see them carrying an emotional appeal to a moral determination.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
you can't have a sliding scale of adulthood between 12 and 21. "You've been drafted, but you're 16, so we'll put you in the, um, National Guard as a compromise."

Sure you can, and we do. "You've been drafted, but you're from a rich important family so we'll put you in the National Guard and hey, you don't even need to show up for duty."


There. Let's see if some Bush-baiting gets us off the subject of feti.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
We're still waiting on your definition, of course.

Here's mine. The focus on being a "human being" misses the mark. Of course it is a human being, the woman is pregnant for god sakes. And until the DNA project really advances and we can cross bread between the species, I am very confident that she is pregnant with a human. The real focus should be whether the human being is alive and hence, would be killed by the procedure.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Here's mine. The focus on being a "human being" misses the mark. Of course it is a human being, the woman is pregnant for god sakes. And until the DNA project really advances and we can cross bread between the species, I am very confident that she is pregnant with a human. The real focus should be whether the human being is alive and hence, would be killed by the procedure.

Um, if it's human from the moment of conception, it's pretty hard to argue that it's not alive from that same moment.