Property Rights

"Eminent Domain as Central Planning"

|

Bruce Ratner and his buddies in big government.

Writing in City Journal, Nicole Gelinas argues that New York's recent high-profile use of eminent domain on behalf of Columbia University and the Atlantic Yards stadium project in Brooklyn represent "government officials' belief that central planning is superior to free-market competition." A snippet:

To cure yourself of the notion that the government can do better than free markets in producing economic vitality, stroll around Atlantic Yards. You'll walk past three-story clapboard homes nestled next to elegantly corniced row houses—the supposedly blighted residences that the state plans to demolish. You'll see the Spalding Building, a stately sporting-goods-factory-turned-condo-building that, thanks to [Bruce] Ratner and his government allies, has been slated for demolition and now stands empty. You'll peer up at [Daniel] Goldstein's nearly empty apartment house, scheduled to be condemned and destroyed.

And you'll see how wrecking balls have already made the neighborhood gap-toothed. A vacant lot, for example, now sprawls where the historic Ward Bakery warehouse was, until recently, a candidate for private-sector reinvestment. Today, Prospect Heights finally shows what the state and city governments want everyone to see: decay. The decay, though, isn't the work of callous markets that left the neighborhood to perish. It's the work of a developer wielding state power to press property owners to sell their land "voluntarily." It's also the result of a half-decade's worth of government-created uncertainty, which stopped genuine private investment in its tracks.

For more on the Atlantic Yards boondoggle, see Reason's coverage here. For the Columbia University case, see here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Dressed for Success

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Stringing up a traffic light in a one Qwicky-Mart town is “central planning” to some numbnuts.

    Catholic theocrat Andrew Napolitano is on the Beck girls program impersonating a libertarian now.

    Thus my appearance. You boys need guidance.

    1. Andrew Napolitano is libertarian in just about every area I can think of, except when it comes to abortion.

      1. I appreciate your honesty. I like his 4th Amendment and Patriot Act stances.

        You honed in on it. Privacy rights include women too.

        Thanks.

      2. I’ve never understood the libertarian argument about abortion. If you believe that a fetus has a life, then, as a libertarian, shouldn’t you believe that fetus has a basic constitutional protection to life?

        1. Re: Iason,

          Nobody has a Constitutional right to life (the constitution does NOT grant rights, it LIMITS the scope and actions of the federal government) – we have a right to life by virtue of our capacity to reason and act with purpose. A human fetus may not be capable of reasoning yet, but so is a baby and nobody talks about killing a baby. Why? Because both fetuses and babies have the capability and potential to grow into a reasonable and thinking individual.

          Some libertarians allow for abortion rights for the reason indicated by Shrike. I do not hold that reason as cogent because a fetus owns his body, not the mother. The fact that the fetus is inside the mother is nothing more than a consequence of our evolution, not a purposefull act by the fetus. If humans have a right to life and babies have a right to life, then it follows fetuses have a right to life. This is the logical consistent conclusion, from the standpoint of an atheist who does not subscribe to the idea that women have a right to kill just because the fetus is inside her body.

          1. From a Catholic who holds pro-life views, I am always a fan of reasoning that isn’t “the Bible says it’s bad.”

            Thanks!

            1. Especially since the bible doesn’t actually say anything about abortion, AFAIK.

          2. There is nothing logical about that conclusion at all. You have to draw the line somewhere. 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage within 6 weeks. Should we grieve for this enormous loss of life–and take the enormous, invasive (and impossible) steps to try to prevent this massive calamity? Is every sperm sacred? There is little to no legal tradition giving fetuses the full rights of personhood. Since that’s a question that cannot be answered objectively, only legally, then that’s our starting place. Real living women are seriously harmed by strict abortion laws. It’s just a fact. There is no rationale for this harm (caused by intrusive government meddling I might add) that comes from legal or ethical precedent. Defending the fetus as a person is just a cute rhetorical means people use as an excuse to oppress women.

            1. I agree with OM’s logic but not his conclusion. OM defines the fetus as a separate entity from the mother. In my opinion, the fetus is simply a part of the mother’s body. Is a fetus alive? Yes, but so is an arm or a leg. The fetus has no more individual will and is no more independent than an arm or a leg. The fetus is only separated from the mother physically and developmentally at birth, therefore it only becomes a separate entity with its own rights at birth.

              1. Re: Heller,

                I agree with OM’s logic but not his conclusion. OM defines the fetus as a separate entity from the mother. In my opinion, the fetus is simply a part of the mother’s body. Is a fetus alive? Yes, but so is an arm or a leg.

                Women are not born with a fetus inside her – women are not tribbles! A fetus then is NOT part of a woman anymore than the spare tire I bought for my car “becomes” a part of my car. That’s nonsense!

                From here I would have to conclude, following your reasoning, that ducky eggs are not part of mommy ducky because the eggs are outside mommy ducky but human fetuses are part of the woman even though the ducky fetuses have the same development steps than human fetuses!

                Which means that humans become “human” the moment the mommy spews them out, and duckies become duckies the moment mama ducky lays them in the ground! Hopefully, I can sell ducky eggs as complete duckies and the client better accept it because the logic is so blunt.

                1. “A fetus then is NOT part of a woman anymore than the spare tire I bought for my car “becomes” a part of my car. That’s nonsense!”

                  Uh yes, once you add it to your car, it is part of your car.

                  “From here I would have to conclude, following your reasoning, that ducky eggs are not part of mommy ducky because the eggs are outside mommy ducky but human fetuses are part of the woman even though the ducky fetuses have the same development steps than human fetuses!”

                  Yes, exactly. Once the egg is laid, it is no longer part of the mother. If humans laid eggs, the eggs would have the same rights as a baby. My argument is not that no possible fetus can have rights, but due to the nature of the human fetus, it is not a separate entity and does not have rights.

                  “Which means that humans become “human” the moment the mommy spews them out, and duckies become duckies the moment mama ducky lays them in the ground! Hopefully, I can sell ducky eggs as complete duckies and the client better accept it because the logic is so blunt.”

                  No, humans become separate entities when they are born. A human fetus is… a human fetus. A duck egg is… a duck egg. I don’t see how my argument would force you to say that duck eggs are equivalent to hatched ducks. My argument says they would have the same rights, if ducks had rights. But having equivalent rights does not necessitate that they be complete ducks. So no, you could not sell duck eggs as hatched ducks according to my logic. You could say that they have the same rights though.

            2. can’t believe i’m responding to tony, but here goes…

              “25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage within 6 weeks. Should we grieve for this enormous loss of life–and take the enormous, invasive (and impossible) steps to try to prevent this massive calamity? Is every sperm sacred?”

              I know more than a few women who’ve had miscarriages at early stages (and later stages) and believe me they *do* grieve for the loss of life! Can these miscarriages be prevented? Most likely not as you pointed out; but the majority of responsible pregnant women go to great lengths to avoid once & future miscarriages. I’d like to see you try going without alcohol or most medications for 9 months!

              As for every sperm being sacred… what a load. The sperm isn’t sacred all by itself, but abortions don’t abort sperm, they abort a fertilized whole (egg + sperm).

              Defending a fetus as a person is not a cute rhetorical trick to oppress women. Women -and the sperm donor who aided the process- need to step up to the plate and take responsibility for their actions like anyone else.

              1. Taking responsibility for one’s actions as you put it, in the real world, mostly expresses itself as poor women having babies they can’t afford to support. This results in a policy that amounts to severely (as in life-long) punishing women financially and otherwise for what could have been a single error of judgment, or a rape (you can’t exempt rape if you’re making the moral argument for fetus personhood–the misfortune of the mother does not excuse the murder of her child, right?)

                But the punishment goes much further–all evidence suggests that restricted access to abortions leads not to fewer abortions, but just to dramatically less safe abortions.

                1. Taking responsibility for one’s actions as you put it, in the real world, mostly expresses itself as poor women being responsible enough to not get pregnant until they can afford the enormous costs of raising a child.

                2. Taking responsibility for one’s actions as you put it, in the real world, mostly expresses itself as poor women having babies they can’t afford to support.
                  Then quit F***ing men who are useless as father.

                  This results in a policy that amounts to severely (as in life-long) punishing women financially and otherwise for what could have been a single error of judgment,
                  Children are punishments? If that is your belief then please do not ever reproduce. If you have then please report yourself immediately to the local child welfare services.

                  or a rape (you can’t exempt rape if you’re making the moral argument for fetus personhood–the misfortune of the mother does not excuse the murder of her child, right?)
                  If “rape” is the measuring stick then I would assume since most “rape” victims would not want to carry around reminders of their “rape” until the late term, you would agree that late term abortions are unnecessary.

                  But the punishment goes much further–all evidence suggests that restricted access to abortions leads not to fewer abortions, but just to dramatically less safe abortions.
                  Once again, please report to the nearest sterilization facility to remove any chance of your being similarly “punished”.

              2. I cry every time I masturbate and kill all those potential babies.

            3. Re: Tony,

              There is nothing logical about that conclusion at all. You have to draw the line somewhere. 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage within 6 weeks. Should we grieve for this enormous loss of life[?]

              Well, people grieve for dead cats – I don;t understand it. Now, I am prepared to read what the hell this has to do with the fact that fetuses that have NOT BEEN MISCARRIED can be killed.

              There is little to no legal tradition giving fetuses the full rights of personhood.

              There was little or nill legal tradition to give women the same rights to property and inheritance in Gerogian England. Does that mean that women did not have a right to property?

              Don’t even start applying Positivism in a discussion about ethics. Legislators do not grant rights, these already exist.

              Since that’s a question that cannot be answered objectively, only legally, then that’s our starting place.

              You’re begging the question – who said this cannot be answered objectively?

              Real living women are seriously harmed by strict abortion laws.

              I’m pretty sure they feel that way.

              It’s just a fact. There is no rationale for this harm (caused by intrusive government meddling I might add) that comes from legal or ethical precedent.

              So? The rights of a human are not contingent to how another person feels about them.

              Defending the fetus as a person is just a cute rhetorical means people use as an excuse to oppress women.

              This is a non sequitur. Same thing has been said about protecting private property or the right to free speech and the conclusion is the same: Nonsense! Poppycock! Just because a woman cannot have her way does not mean she’s being oppressed – that’s ridiculous.

              1. Legislators do not grant rights, these already exist.

                So the fact that fetuses have only had the scantest rights in very recent history suggests to you that these rights exist in the fabric of the universe? Once again, this is mystical bullshit. A right only actually exists if it is able to be practiced.

                But I can throw your argument back at you. If rights are things that exist in nature that governments can only get in the way of, in nature does a woman not have the absolute right to an abortion?

                1. So the fact that fetuses have only had the scantest rights in very recent history suggests to you that these rights exist in the fabric of the universe? Once again, this is mystical bullshit. A right only actually exists if it is able to be practiced.

                  Ah, so you don’t believe that women should have been treated as full human beings until they were?

                  The same argument you make could (and was) used to defend slavery and racial segregation as well.

        2. Not at the expense of the property of another person.

          Property rights are the essence of Libertarianism.

          2nd Amendment allow the defense of property — do you disagree?

          1. “Property rights are the essence of Libertarianism.”

            WTF?

            1. Abortion is a question of property rights. Specifically, who owns the womb. Obviously the mother owns the womb. Since no human has the right to live off of or sacrifice another to survive the fetus has no explicit right to the use of the womb. Basically, a fetus survives solely on the good will of the mother.

              1. Re: IceTrey,

                a fetus survives solely on the good will of the mother.

                Same argument could be used to justify infanticide – the child is a guest on the mother’s house and thus lives by the goodwill of the mother.

                The fetus was INVITED by the actions of mother and father, IceTrey, just like a person is invited to spend a day or two at a Bead and Breakfast. The little old lady that runs it cannot justify killing her guests because they reside in her property.

                1. And that should be Bed and Breakfast…

                2. Fine – an old jerk sock sprinkled with tabasco sauce was “invited” too.

                  The Hustler girl made me do it!

                  Left vs Right will never end.

                  The Right loves the old fucking jerk sock more than liberty.

                3. Having sex isn’t really an “invitation” in any literal sense. It’s o nly an invitiation in a figurative “you asked for it!” sense.

                  A better analogy would be to say it’s like you left the door open and someone wandered in and started eating the food in your kitchen. Or some alien spores wandered in, attached themselves to your kitchen sink, and started gestating into a sentient being.

            2. Sir, you are in the wrong seat. HuffPo is over that way —–>

          2. 2nd Amendment allow the defense of property — do you disagree?

            Science, didn’t I flush you down the toilet this morning?

            Since the woman, except only in the case of rape, is the individual that actively (with the aid of another obviously) places the child within her womb, there is no basis for “defense of property”. She put the child there, the child did not place himself there. As such, she has no right to deny him of his personal property, his own life/body.

            You really are much more entertaining when you try, rather than only acting the Stupertroll.

            1. Really? What if the birth control failed?

              1. Re: IceTrey,

                Really? What if the birth control failed?

                Aww, too bad . . . it’s not the fault of the fetus. People are not supposed to be executed to atone for other people’s stupidity, IceTrey, at least, not as a matter of norm.

                1. A squid has no rights.

                  Unless said Catholic-Squid Church represented by Scalia says so.

                  Are you PETA too?

                  1. Shrike,

                    You know, your ramblings have become tiresome.

                  2. A squid has no rights.

                    I agree completely. Are you confusing a squid with a human being? I realize that you are retarded, but what, competing with Chad for the “Most Retarded Fetus on Reason” award? OK, you win.

                  3. Are you PETA too?

                    I’m not, and I’m not an animal rights supporter, but I can certainly concede that it’s a logically consistent viewpoint that doesn’t have to be motivated by the idea of oppressing humans and preventing them from doing what they want with their property.

                2. OM and the others: I think you guys are begging the question a bit by assuming from the beginning that a fetus is a separate entity from the mother. A body part does not have its own rights.

                  1. The same argument debunks the responsibility idea. If I decide to biologically engineer myself a new arm, am I obligated to never remove it?

                  2. A body part does not have its own unique genome either, unless it’s an organ transplant — in which case its disposition would be governed by the person it came from; but generally that person has already consented to relinquish control over the organ to the transplant recipient as a condition of the transplant, with the exception the apocryphal stolen kidney. (In theory, it would be just for someone whose kidney was stolen and transplanted into an innocent third party to demand that the organ be surgically removed from said part and returned to the original host, regardless of the consequences to the third party. But now I’m rambling.)

                    1. Since when does genome = rights? If you want to play the physical material game: All the matter, including genetic material, in a fetus comes from the mother (except for the father’s genetic contribution). So saying that the fetus has a different genome from the mother (i.e. has some genes from the father) just means that both the father and mother should have control over the fetus-material.

                  3. Re: Heller,

                    OM and the others: I think you guys are begging the question a bit by assuming from the beginning that a fetus is a separate entity from the mother.

                    Where’s the question-begging? Even the mother’s OWN BODY does not consider the fetus’ body as its own.

                    By the way, nice to know that duck eggs have more rights than a fetus sorely by virtue of being outside their mother . . .

                    A body part does not have its own rights.

                    A fetus is not part of the woman because she was NOT BORN WITH ONE!!! WOMEN ARE NOT TRIBBLES!

                    [Sorry for “yelling”, I was watching Judge Judy . . .]

                    1. OM, whether or not one believes a fetus is an individual or your take on the morality of abortion are beside the point. The point is what do you want the state to do to reinforce, emphasis on force, your particular set of beliefs.

                      Taking the premises that; 1. a fetus is a defenseless human individual and 2. abortion is murder of said individual, the logical conclusion is that anyone who performs or receives an abortion should spend the rest of their life in prison.

                      Should a girl who is raped by a close relative be forced to get a back alley abortion, and if caught, spend the rest of her life in jail?

                    2. OM, whether or not one believes a fetus is an individual or your take on the morality of abortion are beside the point. The point is what do you want the state to do to reinforce, emphasis on force, your particular set of beliefs.

                      So if you want to go around enslaving black people or oppressing women, it’s not the state’s job to stop that?

                    3. So if you want to go around enslaving black people or oppressing women, it’s not the state’s job to stop that?
                      First off “oppressing women” is a vague concept and has been hijacked to the point that I would say no without thinking about it. Secondly the enslavement of black people could not have been performed without the active support of the government. Neither is a good argument for government involvement in abortion. The governments involvement in abortion leads the way to government involvement in other areas of our lives. For me, I would rather support the governments non-involvement in abortion AND no restriction on the display of the disgusting results of abortions by Anti-Abortion groups , than either the government restricting abortions or censoring what images the Anti-Abortion advocates could display.

                    4. capitol 1:

                      If both those premises are true than the argument seems perfectly sound to me. My opposition is with the 1st premise.

                    5. “Where’s the question-begging? Even the mother’s OWN BODY does not consider the fetus’ body as its own.”

                      Oh so the body is now a source of cognition? The fetus is literally physically attached to the mother + is directly dependent on the life of the mother. The baby MUST be supported by the mother’s life as long as it is attached to the mother (this is not like having kids, since the kids are dependent on the food and shelter that can be provided by anyone, not just the mother). All this means that the fetus is not a separate entity.

                      “By the way, nice to know that duck eggs have more rights than a fetus sorely by virtue of being outside their mother . . .”

                      No, ducks do not have rights. As I said before, I don’t see any contradiction in a scenario where humans lay eggs. A laid egg is a separate entity. What is wrong about an egg having rights while a fetus does not? I have clearly explained the difference here…

                      “A fetus is not part of the woman because she was NOT BORN WITH ONE!!! WOMEN ARE NOT TRIBBLES!”

                      You weren’t born with the hair that is on your head, is that not part of your body? In fact you weren’t born with most of the matter that currently makes up your body, but according to you, none of it can be considered part of your body either.

                      What makes this matter part of your body? You ingested and digested it, and now it is physically attached and dependent on you for survival. EXACTLY like a fetus. A fetus is made from material that you have ingested, it is physically attached to you, and it is dependent on you.

                    6. Unlike a limb that is cut off, a fetus that is born and detached from the mother is able to live independently of the mother. This is the point at which the fetus becomes a separate entity instead of a body part.

                3. So what about rape? People aren’t supposed to be executed because other people experienced misfortune.

                  1. Tony,
                    This isn’t a singles forum. Please seek partners to help you fulfill your rape fantasies elsewhere.

                    Thanks
                    The Raisin Staff

                    1. You spelled Raisin wrong.

                  2. The fetus is not a person. It is a part of the mother.

          3. No. 2A allows for the keeping and bearing of firearms. 4A allows for the defense of property. It is the Const. = of “King of his Castle” common law. Not to say I disagree with your viewpoint.

            1. Right.

              4A + 2A = No rights for the squid.

              We agree.

              Scalia is a theocrat.

              On that fact no one contests.

              1. “Not to say I disagree with your viewpoint” /= “I agree with your viewpoint”. Just clarifying the BOR issue.

              2. The main problem with OM’s anti-abortion position is that he has to admit that shrike has rights.

        3. Abortion is one of those instances where I would prefer less legal solutions and more social ones. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that I could never support the aborting of one of my children unless there was a significant risk to the mother life. I am grateful that it never came to it, but personally I could have never forgiven the mother . Furthermore for me, it would have been a serious indictment against her ability to be a partner to me or a parent to future children. Most abortions are performed for selfish and self centered reasons and considering how disgusting of an act it is, I would not want that person to be in my life. This does not mean I want the legal system involved. I am almost always opposed to anyone trying to use the legal system to enforce their beliefs.

          Basically it boils down to people are free to have abortions, but I am also free to believe it is a disgusting, vile, morally reprehensible act.

          1. As long as they don’t cry murder, I couldn’t care less how “immoral” people think abortion is.

            1. I don’t even care about crying murder. Just keep it legal and use whatever social pressures you deem necessary (Hint: Billboards calling black children endangered species aren’t very good social pressures.)

  2. good afternoon shreik!

  3. circular reasoning.

    The only reason why it looks like the city is doing a shitty job is because the eminent domain complainers are protesting. If they would just get the fuck out of the way the project would have been finished and everything would look awesome.

    1. And if nobody complained about violations of civil rights, the buses would still be segregated.

    2. And if nobody complained about the vast instrusive welfate nanny state, we would be….fuck! never mind.

    3. having teh awezom!!!!1 buildings is so much more important than the freedom to own what you own.

    4. Actually the Nets would still suck, no possible way to shine that turd.

  4. OK, it actually makes sense to me when you think about it. Well done dude.

    Jess
    http://www.true-privacy.es.tc

    1. So Chad is actually an anonymity troll-bot. It all makes sense now.

      I mean really!LOL

  5. “Eminent Domain as is Central Planning”

    There – fixed it. Describes the truth now.

  6. Man, I can’t wait until they bulldoze these last few buildings. Can I drive?

    And yes, this is the real me!

  7. I apologize for the thread-jack in advance, but I HAVE to post this.

    I laughed for the last few years as friends from CA, MA, NY, etc. ranted about smoking bans in their states or municipalities. I told them they needed to move to a sane State where the women were still strong, the men were good-looking, and the children were above-average. Then, today I read this

    I guess the joke is on me.

    Like the “Jericho” fans sent peanuts to CBS, and tax protestors send tea bags to Congressmen; I shall send little dick-shaped candies to them, with instructions on their proper usage.

    1. Your link-fu sucks.

      But I’m willing to bet that Laurence and Manhattan led the charge.

      1. Lawrence and Johnson County (KC suburban “paradise” on the Ks side) led the charge all the way. Fucking nanny-state pricks.

      2. Lawrence, Ks (University of Kansas)…home of elbow patches, Freudian beards, and deep contemplative facial expressions. If they didn’t have the greatest college BB team on the planet, I find myself sometimes wishing that Quantrill would have fucking got it right the first time.

  8. Love, Kant feel Pietzsche…

  9. And, don’t forget Kelo and Pfizer. Where everything stands vacant when Pfizer backed out AFTER all those folks lost their homes!

  10. The fetus is NOT a body part. It’s a human being. Not developed, but a human all the same. The fetus is an extention of it’s mother & father. It’s a life, period!! No one has the right to terminate anothers life, just because it was a “mistake”…. or “unexpected”. Disgusting, how so many people have such disregard for the sanctity of life. There are lots of ways to prevent a pregnancy, and
    “abortion: after the fact” ishouldn’t be among the ways.

    1. So what if it’s not just a mistake, but rape? Don’t fetuses created via rape have the same rights as other fetuses?

      1. Why should you be responsible to provide care for a human being who is not there by your consent?

        1. I don’t know why men think they are entitled to a POV on abortion. I really don’t care if you are pro-choice, pro-life or female. It is a personal matter for a woman and should not be a concern for anyone else.

          1. Yeah right. Then don’t come around for child support.

            1. Yeah, put a condom on your dick if don’t want to pay child support

              1. Yeah, put a condom on your dick if don’t want to pay child support

                Odd how this applies to the paying of child support, but not to the having of an abortion.

                1. It applies only to YOUR need not to be child support.

                  1. These types of arguments are always humorous since the vast majority of abortions are the result of parents inconvenienced by the children that would result from a conception.

                    1. The stats are all over the place but I really don’t care if the woman is under 25, single or married but I do think it is her decision. I know of women who have regretted their decision but that was the choice they made.

                    2. I am not saying someone else should be dictating that decision. However to deny a willing father the chance to raise their child because they don’t want to be inconvenienced by a child is a significant indictment of who that woman is as a person.

                    3. It is much more complicated for a woman than your simple view of the willing father solution. I think women instinctively know that carrying a baby and giving birth changes you physically and emotionally for the rest of your life.

                    4. As you have acknowledged that you have bore children maybe you can explain how the physical changes are more than an inconvenience. It seems to me that your position is based not on removing the physical changes but postponing them to a more convenient time. As far as the emotional changes are concerned, you have already acknowledged that abortion carries with it a certain level of emotional baggage. Either way you are changed emotionally.

                    5. I am positive some women don’t have emotional baggage over an abortion. It is quite possible that only women who have had remorse discuss it. I know of no first time mothers who did not have an immediate complex emotional change. I think the physical and emotional issues are intertwined. I have been told by women who have miscarried that they had fully accepted the loss and then became very despondent around their due date (possibly for biological reasons). I am not so sure that physical changes are the same for a woman who gives birth as a teenager compared to an adult.

                    6. never had an abortion, but I can say that a friend who had an abortion as a teenager reported similar effects. Wierd biological changes. Hormonal response to the loss of the fetus. It’s pretty obvious why evolution would have implanted all sorts of deep-seated needs to protect offspring, including one’s own unborn offspring.

                      That said, I am ultimately pro-choice.

                    7. never had an abortion, but I can say that a friend who had an abortion as a teenager reported similar effects. Wierd biological changes. Hormonal response to the loss of the fetus. It’s pretty obvious why evolution would have implanted all sorts of deep-seated needs to protect offspring, including one’s own unborn offspring.

                      That said, I am ultimately pro-choice.

          2. You are entitled to this belief. Just as surely as I am entitled to believe that this shows you are too selfish and self-centered to be be an appropriate breeding partner to begin with.

            1. I am married with children and have never had an abortion. My point is that it is none of my business what another woman feels she needs to do.

              1. Neither being married, nor having children are indicative of who you are as a person, after all both can be the result of 1 night in Vegas. And you are also right that it really isn’t any of my business, anymore than it is my business if someone wants to skin kittens alive, however I am entitled to my point of view that both acts are disgusting.

                1. “Neither being married, nor having children are indicative of who you are as a person” I am at a loss to what this means? I don’t think an abortion is a positive event but I understand how a woman can be unwilling to go through a pregnancy. I do think it should be done as early and safely as possible. I take no joy in the act of abortion.

                  1. I too can understand the desire to not be inconvenienced by a pregnancy, assuredly as I can understand the desire to not be inconvenienced by supporting ones child for the rest of your life. However for me, both situations are the result of a fundamental moral and ethical character flaw.

                    1. I know that there are women who abort because of financial instability. Do you not find this to be acceptable as a libertarian? Are you saying that a woman without means should bring a child into the world? A baby that is likely to be a burden on taxpayers?

                    2. The main point of those who view the fetus as a separate entity from the mother is that abortion is equal to murdering any other human being. I can understand the validity of this argument, but I disagree with the premise that a fetus is a separate entity from the mother. If you want to argue pro-choice against a pro-life libertarian, you would probably do best using this argument.

                    3. Heller, biologically it is a separate entity. None of my children have my blood type. They have definite personality traits that I can honestly say were evident in the womb. I have issue with late abortions for this reason but I argue for abortion on the grounds that I can’t make their choice.

                    4. Biologically, the fetus is just material from the mother and the father (mostly the mother, obviously). Just because the fetus differs from the rest of a woman’s body does not mean that it is a separate entity. It is physically attached and solely dependent on the life of the mother. If you do believe that the fetus is a separate entity, you should also believe that it has the right to life. I do not know how you can reconcile these beliefs with the belief that abortion is not murder.

                    5. There is more to pregnancy than biology. In your lifetime you may see fetuses grown completely outside the womb and not just fertilized in a test tube. Will it be a separate entity then? Does it have to be viable to be a life? I don’t have a problem with my beliefs because they only extend to me. I accept that people have a right to their own.

                    6. As a biological researcher I think I know a little bit about this subject. I seriously doubt that in my lifetime we will have a working artificial womb to grow a fetus in. There are three reasons for this:

                      1. No one is currently working on a project like this, as far as I know, and the technology is not forthcoming.

                      2. Even if someone was working on this, they would have to be able to see if it works, which no ethical scientist would ever do or even be allowed to do by the overseers of ethical.

                      3. There is no reason to create an artificial womb. We have already have perfectly functioning surrogate wombs.

                      Regardless, I think the question of whether or not a fetus in an artificial womb has rights is beyond the scope of discussion, since I don’t know what exactly an artificial womb would entail.

                    7. “I seriously doubt that in my lifetime we will have …” Years ago I heard those exact words about another commonly available technology. Whether it is feasible now or in the future is not the point of this debate. Heller, what is your position if an artificial womb existed? How would your “humans laid eggs” argument apply in the hypothetical case of twin fetuses with one kept in the uterus while the other matured in an artificial womb? Why would the fetus in the mother be equivalent to an “an arm or a leg” even while its twin was considered an individual? You are wrong about the fetus not having individual will too. I was running during my first pregnancy (the baby didn’t like the jostling) and the fetus kicked me so hard that I fell. I can tell you that she still doesn’t take no for an answer. I do not feel obligated to reconcile my personal beliefs with the actions of others.

                    8. I’m not only saying that we don’t have the technology, I’m also saying that the technology is not being developed currently AND there is no reason to develop this technology when there is really nothing to improve on with surrogate wombs. But as you said, this is all besides the point.

                      “Heller, what is your position if an artificial womb existed?”

                      As I said before, I don’t know what you mean by artificial womb. What does this entail?

                      “Why would the fetus in the mother be equivalent to an “an arm or a leg” even while its twin was considered an individual?”

                      I already explained why a fetus in a womb is not a separate entity while and egg is. I wouldn’t be able to say whether an artificial womb is like an egg in this respect without knowing the details of the artificial womb.

                      “You are wrong about the fetus not having individual will too. I was running during my first pregnancy (the baby didn’t like the jostling) and the fetus kicked me so hard that I fell. I can tell you that she still doesn’t take no for an answer.”

                      First of all, I don’t think I ever said this. But either way I would say that the fetus has no cognitive ability and therefore no free will. The baby kicking was a reaction to the jostling; the fetus did not think to itself “I don’t like this jostling, so I will kick to make it stop.” The fetus does not have cognitive consciousness.

                      “I do not feel obligated to reconcile my personal beliefs with the actions of others.”

                      But if a fetus is an individual, then abortionists are murdering individuals. Does this not bother you?

                    9. You’re evading the discussion.

                      “As I said before, I don’t know what you mean by artificial womb. What does this entail?”

                      http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/492
                      http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…..e.research

                      “But if a fetus is an individual, then abortionists are murdering individuals. Does this not bother you?”
                      I can’t bring myself to decide that issue for someone else. I don’t want that responsibility.

                    10. The fetus in the artificial womb in this article would seem to be a separate entity. It is not attached or dependent on any specific entity, like an egg. So one could not abort the fetus in the artificial womb. But this entire problem is really moot because the whole point of having an abortion is that the mother did not have the chance to think about having a baby before getting pregnant. How would this happen with an artificial womb?

                      “I can’t bring myself to decide that issue for someone else. I don’t want that responsibility.”

                      You’ve already decided that abortion = killing an individual. It is therefore your moral responsibility to try to make the “rights” of the fetus apparent to all. If you’re going to call something murder but not try to stop it, what’s the point of this discussion?

  11. Meanwhile, back on topic, Ratner is still vermin, and the Nets have a .088 winning percentage, on pace to tie the worst record ever. I bet some CBA or top college teams could kick their asses.

    I was pissed when Orlando basically handed a $400 million welfare check to pyramid scheme billionaire Rich DeVos and the Magic, but at least the land was bought from people willing to sell.

  12. Prety scary stuff when you think about it.

    Jess
    http://www.total-anonymity.cz.tc

  13. I bet some CBA or top college teams could kick their asses.

    CBA – Isiah Thomas ran that aground
    top college teams – nope. The NBA v College difference is that big. Everyone on the Nets was a top college player, as hard as that is to believe.

    1. But the Nets still suck. They are 5-52 right now, on track to post the worst single season record* in NBA history.

      * IIRC, 9-72 is the present mark.

      1. It’s the 9-73 1972-73 76ers.
        Thank you Google.

        1. I calculated correctly, but misread the ESPN site where they had the worst NBA seasons. The Nets are on schedule to win 7 games (actually 7.2) this season, so they could well set the record for suck.*

          robc – I wasn’t aware the CBA was gone, and I’m sure you’re right about the college teams. A bit of hyperbole on my part.

          * Apparently, the Nets just won another game. I’m sure that makes it all worth it.

  14. What really pisses me off is that it’s not enough for the government to subsidize billionaire owners and their millionaire emoployees with tax money extracted from people who can’t afford a ticket to a goddam game, they have to ride roughshod over responsible taxpaying property owners’ rights as well.

    [url=http://farm1.static.flickr.com/21/31612334_e2b732282f.jpg]Governemnt urban planning project[/url]* less than 50 years after groundbreaking.

    * Yes, that’s a Cabrini Green hi-rise.

    1. Oh crap. I used BBCode instead of HTML.
      Governemnt urban planning project* less than 50 years after groundbreaking.

      * Yes, that’s a Cabrini Green hi-rise.

  15. Eminent domain as stated in the US constitution was never meant to be available to private citizens and the corrupt politicians and judges in their pockets. In the US, it was to be reserved only for necessary public works projects, not covetous, greedy private developers who don’t recognize the difference between theirs and someone else’s.

    The original spirit of the constitution required full compensation for all expenses incurred to the property owner, including the fair market property value before the seizure was announced, and all related moving expenses, including increased property maintenance expenses in the new location such as taxes. Remember, in a seizure, the owner is forced off of their land, and does not usually have the ability to obtain a comparable property.

    If business leaders weren’t so arrogant, greedy, and power hungry, they would realize how easy and less expensive it would be to just pay the current owner’s asking price, even if this price were a bit inflated. If the current owner was another well connected developer, the big developer would have no choice. By normative reciprocity, this means that anyone else, no matter their wealth or political connection is entitled to the same respect and treatment under law.

  16. From no carry to Vermont-style? Jeebus, that’s a huge lurch. Good luck with that
    http://destinationsoftwareinc.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.