Comments on: Free to Be http://www.mahablog.com/2007/11/04/free-to-be/ Exposing the ugly truths about the Bush Administration. Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:11:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: The Mahablog » Boxes http://www.mahablog.com/2007/11/04/free-to-be/#comment-421100 Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:13:04 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/11/04/free-to-be/#comment-421100 [...] You can find high-flown absolutist rhetoric declaring that even a zygote has rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That may sound glorious and all, but in real life an absolute “protection” of “human life” from conception requires stripping fertile women of their rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and in extreme cases their rights to life, also. There are copious real-world examples of women living under draconian abortion laws who die gruesome deaths because of those laws. Clearly, such laws value the lives and humanity of women less than the lives and humanity of embryos. Women in these countries often go without medical help after a miscarriage because they fear persecution by the Womb Nazis. This is nothing other than political oppression. [...] […] You can find high-flown absolutist rhetoric declaring that even a zygote has rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That may sound glorious and all, but in real life an absolute “protection” of “human life” from conception requires stripping fertile women of their rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and in extreme cases their rights to life, also. There are copious real-world examples of women living under draconian abortion laws who die gruesome deaths because of those laws. Clearly, such laws value the lives and humanity of women less than the lives and humanity of embryos. Women in these countries often go without medical help after a miscarriage because they fear persecution by the Womb Nazis. This is nothing other than political oppression. […]

]]> by: Ted http://www.mahablog.com/2007/11/04/free-to-be/#comment-374389 Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:51:27 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/11/04/free-to-be/#comment-374389 This is the same spinning they use for everything, most recently torture. Quaint Gonzales defined torture as physical or mental contact inducing major organ failure, waterboarding does not produce major ( perhaps minor) organ failure, therefore it is not torture. In speeches the sociopath in charge simply says the USA does not torture in speeches. Next question. This is the same spinning they use for everything, most recently torture.
Quaint Gonzales defined torture as physical or mental contact inducing major organ failure, waterboarding does not produce major ( perhaps minor) organ failure, therefore it is not torture.
In speeches the sociopath in charge simply says the USA does not torture in speeches. Next question.

]]> by: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2007/11/04/free-to-be/#comment-374321 Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:11:39 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/11/04/free-to-be/#comment-374321 grendelkhan -- the brain dead yes, if you mean that their pursuit of happiness has ended for good; people in comas no. Comas can be a temporary condition. I've known people in comas who came out of them. It's not that unusual. grendelkhan — the brain dead yes, if you mean that their pursuit of happiness has ended for good; people in comas no. Comas can be a temporary condition. I’ve known people in comas who came out of them. It’s not that unusual.

]]> by: grendelkhan http://www.mahablog.com/2007/11/04/free-to-be/#comment-374276 Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:00:29 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/11/04/free-to-be/#comment-374276 <i>(Arguably, the “pursuit of happiness” begins when an infant first perceives discomfort and expresses a desire to be made comfortable — at birth, in other words.)</i> This would seem to apply equally to the brain-dead and people in comas. Would you agree? (The argument that a person in a coma might someday wake up is less convincing than the argument that a fetus will almost certainly grow into a person, so that's not really an issue.) (Arguably, the “pursuit of happiness” begins when an infant first perceives discomfort and expresses a desire to be made comfortable — at birth, in other words.)

This would seem to apply equally to the brain-dead and people in comas. Would you agree? (The argument that a person in a coma might someday wake up is less convincing than the argument that a fetus will almost certainly grow into a person, so that’s not really an issue.)

]]> by: paradoctor http://www.mahablog.com/2007/11/04/free-to-be/#comment-373939 Mon, 05 Nov 2007 06:19:40 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/11/04/free-to-be/#comment-373939 Orwell laid it out plainly long ago: slavery is freedom. Orwell laid it out plainly long ago: slavery is freedom.

]]> by: Swami http://www.mahablog.com/2007/11/04/free-to-be/#comment-373828 Mon, 05 Nov 2007 03:18:18 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/11/04/free-to-be/#comment-373828 Well, what about sperm rights?.. The religious right is denying them their pursuit of happiness with their abstinence only programs. This guy Imbody is a nut-job and he should be dismissed as a nut-job. Well, what about sperm rights?.. The religious right is denying them their pursuit of happiness with their abstinence only programs.

This guy Imbody is a nut-job and he should be dismissed as a nut-job.

]]> by: xpara http://www.mahablog.com/2007/11/04/free-to-be/#comment-373802 Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:31:05 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/11/04/free-to-be/#comment-373802 Repeat after me: It is none of the government's business. Period. Repeat after me: It is none of the government’s business. Period.

]]> by: erinyes http://www.mahablog.com/2007/11/04/free-to-be/#comment-373712 Mon, 05 Nov 2007 00:48:55 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/11/04/free-to-be/#comment-373712 Hey Moonbat, the founders would be saying WTF! Hope you're feeling better soon Biggerbox! Hey Moonbat, the founders would be saying WTF!

Hope you’re feeling better soon Biggerbox!

]]> by: moonbat http://www.mahablog.com/2007/11/04/free-to-be/#comment-373560 Sun, 04 Nov 2007 22:14:25 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/11/04/free-to-be/#comment-373560 I can imagine the Founders of the this country rolling their eyes, shaking their heads, and muttering "what have we wrought?" over the unbelievable notion of their descendents arguing about a fetus' right to pursue happiness. I can imagine the Founders of the this country rolling their eyes, shaking their heads, and muttering “what have we wrought?” over the unbelievable notion of their descendents arguing about a fetus’ right to pursue happiness.

]]> by: biggerbox http://www.mahablog.com/2007/11/04/free-to-be/#comment-373553 Sun, 04 Nov 2007 22:02:17 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/11/04/free-to-be/#comment-373553 OK, I acknowledge that I'm on cold medicine and haven't slept properly, but I'm strangely fascinated by the idea of a fetus in "pursuit of happiness". How does a fetus define happiness? How do we know? Maybe a fetus is never as happy as when it is floating all warm and cozy in its fluid bath. It's all downhill from there really, if it develops into an actual baby and gets born, with all that squeezing and cold and light and slapping and breathing air and whatnot? Ick. And having to grow up to make a living? Sure, you and I may think that extra-uterine living has a lot to speak for it, but to a fetus? Has anyone asked a fetus if it <em>wants</em> to be born? (There's certainly a lot of crying when it happens.) I mean, if we're going to go so far as to ascribe the ability to choose, and 'pursue happiness' to fetuses, I think it's inevitable that we'll have to bring the issues of assisted suicide into the discussion. I'm sure some fetuses, given the choice, would rather get it over with quickly, rather than endure a long, drawn-out 70 years or so of suffering and embarrassment before death. Don't we owe them the choice of death with dignity? True, fetuses are mostly unable to act on their own in this regard. Of course, we do have a long-established tradition of having the parent act on behalf of citizens who are too young to fully understand or exercise their rights. Presumably the mother would be best suited to decide for the fetus how it would want its rights exercised. Maybe we should let her decide. I'd move on to thinking about what 'liberty' would mean to a mammalian organism that requires an umbilical cord and womb for its existence, but my head hurts enough already. Imbody's rhetoric isn't actually about rights, it's about trying to coopt the language of the other side. It's like me arguing that banning abortions would be against God's will, since He could have stopped them Himself, if he wanted. Neither is intended as a honest attempt at sound political reasoning. OK, I acknowledge that I’m on cold medicine and haven’t slept properly, but I’m strangely fascinated by the idea of a fetus in “pursuit of happiness”. How does a fetus define happiness? How do we know?

Maybe a fetus is never as happy as when it is floating all warm and cozy in its fluid bath. It’s all downhill from there really, if it develops into an actual baby and gets born, with all that squeezing and cold and light and slapping and breathing air and whatnot? Ick. And having to grow up to make a living? Sure, you and I may think that extra-uterine living has a lot to speak for it, but to a fetus? Has anyone asked a fetus if it wants to be born? (There’s certainly a lot of crying when it happens.)

I mean, if we’re going to go so far as to ascribe the ability to choose, and ‘pursue happiness’ to fetuses, I think it’s inevitable that we’ll have to bring the issues of assisted suicide into the discussion. I’m sure some fetuses, given the choice, would rather get it over with quickly, rather than endure a long, drawn-out 70 years or so of suffering and embarrassment before death. Don’t we owe them the choice of death with dignity?

True, fetuses are mostly unable to act on their own in this regard. Of course, we do have a long-established tradition of having the parent act on behalf of citizens who are too young to fully understand or exercise their rights. Presumably the mother would be best suited to decide for the fetus how it would want its rights exercised. Maybe we should let her decide.

I’d move on to thinking about what ‘liberty’ would mean to a mammalian organism that requires an umbilical cord and womb for its existence, but my head hurts enough already.

Imbody’s rhetoric isn’t actually about rights, it’s about trying to coopt the language of the other side. It’s like me arguing that banning abortions would be against God’s will, since He could have stopped them Himself, if he wanted. Neither is intended as a honest attempt at sound political reasoning.

]]>