Today in Supreme Court History: November 1, 1961

11/1/1961: Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut opens center in New Haven, CT.

"Specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." An ''emanation'' refers to a ray of light. During a lunar eclipse, the ''umbra'' refers to the darkest part of the shadow formed when the Earth orbits between the sun and the moon. The ''penumbra'' refers to the lighter part of the shadow, where some of the ''emanations'' from the sun are visible.

Comments

[Malika la Maize]

Saving millions of persons and families from the miseries of unwanted pregnancy.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who knew there were so many rape and incest victims.

[Malika la Maize]

Do you think everyone who has sex anytime is planning to have a baby from that? I realize I’m talking to the guy who does know how oral sex works here (Bill Clinton was “on his knees” with Monica, lol), but that’s really goofy.

[Malika la Maize]

Doesn’t

[Mr. Bumble]

Qualika, lying liar who lies.
The comment you insist on referring to was shown to be not what you claim by another commentator who found the original thread a few weeks back. But you be you.

[Malika la Maize]

It was shown to be nothing of the sort. During a discussion about Lewinsky-Clinton you referred to Bill being “on his knees.” That’s not how oral sex between a man and a woman works.

But more to today’s point, do you think every time a man and woman have sex they want a baby from it? That’s just goofy and absurdly prudish. They usually want to feel good and climax and often are greatly distressed if a baby results. The difference between you and I is you think they “asked for it” and shouldn’t be able to use technology to prevent an unwanted birth, I don’t.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

I don't remember the original thread, but if a simple slip like that is your best complaint about Mr. Bumble, I'd say he's doing pretty well.

[Malika la Maize]

I’m pointing to his past outrageously ignorant comment about sex in relation to his like comment here, ya goof. As I’ve said before, your handle is two words too long.

[Mr. Bumble]

Qualika, queen of the Hershey Highway rants.

[Malika la Maize]

lol, remember when this guy accused others of being “middle school?”

[Mr. Bumble]

No. But, if the shoe fits, wear it.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Yep, keep pounding the weak point. Some day you might come up with something better.

[Life of Brian]

During a discussion about Lewinsky-Clinton you referred to Bill being “on his knees.”

Hoo boy. I'll just paste the exchange again:

Sonja T 1 year ago
. . .
Santamonica - What was your position with Clinton?

Mr. Bumble 1 year ago
On his knees?

I think even ESL folks would agree that "his" is unquestionably Santamonica. What Qualika's excuse is, I can't fathom.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

She's reaching for anything to provide cover, like the Emperor using his crown to cover his embarrassment.

[Malika la Maize]

Actually, that’s not the exchange I’m referring to Bri Bri (it was more than a year ago). Also, how’d that thing with DHarriman not being Lex/Chuck work out?

[Mr. Bumble]

Bullshit Qualika. Find it or shut up, you one trick pony.

[Life of Brian]

Funny, you didn't deny that was the correct post when we went through this a few weeks ago.

Even stranger, the first time you made the claim was about 4 months after the exchange I linked.

But yeah, it was some OTHER exchange about Clinton and blow jobs, some other time, that you just can't happen to find. Whatever.

[Mr. Bumble]

H/T and thanks for finding the original thread and comment.

[Malika la Maize]

Yes, that would have been strange to do if it were what I was referring to, fits with my point that it’s not the one.

[Malika la Maize]

“H/T and thanks for finding the original thread and comment.”

He didn’t, see above.

And all of this is obfuscation of the question you haven’t answered: Do you think everyone who has sex anytime is planning to have a baby from that? In fairness I’d want to run too from saying that’s the case if I’d said something that goofy.

[Riva]

The purpose of sex is procreation.

[Krayt]

The purpose of eating is to not starve, but that's not what motivates you to eat.

[Riva]

Actually, the drive to not starve, called hunger, strongly motivates one to eat.

[Malika la Maize]

So does liking the taste of food, bot.

[Malika la Maize]

Said like a true bot.

Apart from the teleological silliness, one of the neat things about humans is we can see purposes beyond biological ones. With sex that includes self-actualization, expressing love and, well, pleasure. Thankfully due to technology we don’t have to risk an unwanted pregnancy or birth to get those purposes from sex if we don’t want to.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2470794-chimps-and-bonobos-relieve-social-tension-by-rubbing-their-genitals/

I'm reminded of the conceit that marriage, including by senior citizens, is "about" having children.

[Michael P]

Breaking news: Bronx Man thinks marriage is just like an ape rubbing one out.

[Riva]

I'm sure you're quite capable of finding an obscene use for almost anything little troll. But the depths of your perversity don't define morality or biological reality. The purpose of sex is procreation.

[Malika la Maize]

Bot finds expressing love and self-actualization puzzling.

[David Nieporent]

Sex doesn't have a "purpose." People can have purposes in undertaking activities, but that is not the same thing as the activity itself having those purposes. And the plural "purposes" is key here: people rarely have sex (or undertake other activities) for just one purpose.

Not all religions have the weird hangups about sex that Augustine bequeathed to Christianity. Judaism, for example, teaches that sex (within the confines of marriage) is a positive good regardless of ability or desire to procreate. Among other things, it promotes marital intimacy.

[Riva]

I'm quite sure the disordered brain of asshole here could devise multiple ways to abuse sexuality contrary to the dignity of persons and not ordered to the good of spouses. He seems to have an unnatural affinity towards bots. But like the other troll, the depths of his depravity are not standards to emulate.

[David Nieporent]

Bot set to insult whenever its programmed responses run out.

[Riva]

An exceptionally stupid response following the troll storm of shit insults here. Yeah, I know he's an asshole, but does he have to be such a stupid asshole?

[Malika la Maize]

Wow, bot really showed David!

I mean, showed him to be right on, but bots aren’t aware of what they’re doing, obvs.

[not guilty]

"The purpose of sex is procreation."

That is certainly one purpose, but it is not the exclusive purpose. Should persons who are incapable of bearing/begetting children, from age, infirmity, surgery, etc. forego having sex?

[Riva]

No. As long as they're married. Miracles happen.

[not guilty]

If the sole purpose of sex is procreation, why does a woman have a clitoris, which serves no reproductive function at all? Its sole purpose is to make sex pleasurable.

For that matter, why do (some) women ejaculate?

You got a problem with that? Take it up with the designer.

[not guilty]

Isn't the sound of crickets chirping on a brisk November evening lovely?

[Riva]

Your mocking disrespect is noted. That the sexual act may be pleasurable does not define, and is subordinate to, its natural purpose, which is reproduction.

Now go away you contemptible clown. I've had enough of your idiotic BS for today.

[not guilty]

Riva, just where do you get off passing judgment on how or why other folks have sex? That haughty attitude is far more disgusting than any salacious act ever thought of being.

[David Nieporent]

That the sexual act may be necessary for reproduction does not define its "purpose." The vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time when they have sex, have pleasure as their object, and actively reject reproduction as their reason.

[Riva]

Some people do not always act in accordance with the highest ethical or moral standards. Just like asshole here, for instance, although in his case it’s more the rule than the exception. In any event, I would advise against taking guidance from this asshole.

[Currentsitguy]

My wife is a surgical survivor of ovarian cancer when we met. Trust me, we do not have separate bedrooms.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

Der Mensch tracht und Gott lacht.

[not guilty]

Right. By promoting and facilitating contraception, Planned Parenthood has prevented more abortions than an army of blastocystophiles has ever dreamed of. That is why the effort to defund that organization makes no sense whatsoever.

[Frank Drackman]

With you as their Posterchild who needs funding?

[Malika la Maize]

More contraception might lead to less people
who Write like )this

[Riva]

Contraception is independently objectionable for many reasons but it is not abortion. Abortion ends a life. A life is created upon conception. That’s why it’s called conception.

[Malika la Maize]

“Contraception is independently objectionable for many reasons”

Cool story, bot. Adults planning their families, how awful!

“Abortion ends a life.”
Not personhood. There’s a reason why most people are ok with unplugging someone who is in a permanent vegetative state, consciousness is where personhood resides.

[Riva]

“Personhood” is a legal concept employed in various incarnations to justify any number of state sanctioned atrocities. I’m referring to biological, scientific realities. Life begins at conception. But even by your standards, you would ban all abortions after the baby develops a brain pattern?

[Malika la Maize]

It’s a legal but also moral concept, and its root, consciousness, is a biological, scientific reality.

“But even by your standards, you would ban all abortions after the baby develops a brain pattern.”

My standard was not “brain patterns” but consciousness. But when that kicks in, after 25 weeks? If the mother’s health is not threatened, sure.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11976129/#:~:text=The%20development%20of%20the%20foetal,global%20neuronal%20workspace%20is%20mature.

[Riva]

Fetal brain development is detectable weeks after conception, conception of course being undeniably the event that brings forth a new unique life, with a genetic code that controls future development. That's how all human life begins. Even using fetal brain development as a standard to justify the extermination of the life is grossly arbitrary but, even so, it would apply far earlier than 25 weeks.

And to redefine human life as meriting dignity and protection only if the life meets your definition of "personhood" is a perverse legal concept employed simply to justify the extermination of those deemed undesirable or inconvenient. A sick game we have seen played out a lot in modern history, but really is as old as humanity.

[Malika la Maize]

This is why people call it a bot. To repeat, I said consciousness not brain development and clarified that, and yet it still spews sentence after sentence not addressing consciousness at all.

Also, from the article that I linked to which it didn’t read (scan) I guess:

“The development of the foetal brain from 10 weeks of gestation to 2 years of age. The nerves from the sensory organs do not reach the cortex, via the thalamus, until 25 weeks and the foetus cannot be conscious.”

[Riva]

Ignoring the infantile insults, you reason with childish absolutes. The scientific and biological understanding of fetal brain growth and functional network development is not complete. In fact, the brain even develops after birth (not for some trolls I suspect though). An adult brain is not a new born infant brain or the brain at 25 weeks. Conscious awareness itself develops through infancy and early childhood development. Your application of some standard of consciousness is grossly arbitrary. Some creeps like Peter Singer think it's open game on anyone under two. The only logical starting point is conception, the moment when a new and unique human genome forms that will guide all further development.

[Malika la Maize]

“Ignoring the infantile insults, you reason with childish absolutes.”

In the sentence! Bot lacks basic self-awareness. No wonder it struggles with consciousness as a concept (see it struggle with it as a threshold).

[Malika la Maize]

In the same sentence

[not guilty]

I suspect that "consciousness" is a bit of a sore subject for Riva-bot.

[Riva]

Another vomit of asinine insults. Who could have seen that coming from such intellectual trolls?

[Malika la Maize]

Riva 5 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Ignoring the infantile insults,

Not. Sentient.

[Riva]

Any time you feel capable of actually responding with something intelligible, little Maliky, take your best shot. You can even use your favorite AI tool for a little help since I get the impression you're a little outmatched here. I don't want to take too much advantage of an idiot.

[Malika la Maize]

I don’t think the bot is capable of reading (scanning) what people say to it. It just pounds the table (with robot arm attachment?) yelling arbitrary and godwinning. In reality, consciousness as a key criteria of moral worth has a long history and current acceptance in the field of ethics and law.

[Riva]

And there we finally have it. In the sick world of this vile little troll only those of sufficient “moral worth” are entitled to life. Many other authoritarians throughout history have shared this sentiment. Made genocide seem justified to the vile shits I suppose.

[David Nieporent]

In the sick world of this vile little troll only those of sufficient “moral worth” are entitled to life.

That's the notion that underlies capital punishment, or Trump's Caribbean murder spree.

[Riva]

They can fish in the Gulf of America to their hearts content as long as they aren’t smuggling fentanyl or other drugs into the US.

[not guilty]

"They can fish in the Gulf of America to their hearts content as long as they aren’t smuggling fentanyl or other drugs into the US."

Never mind confusing the Carribbean Sea with the Gulf of America Mexico, Riva shows just how "pro-life" (s)he is.

[Riva]

I don't give a shit where they fish. But why don't you and asshole debate that for while in the next open thread clown.

[Malika la Maize]

“And there we finally have it. In the sick world of this vile little troll only those of sufficient “moral worth” are entitled to life.”

Of course if something is lacking in moral worth it should get a corresponding moral consideration, that’s how worth works. “Those” here include never conscious fetuses and zygotes less complex than tadpoles.

[Riva]

That is to say, after fetal brain development, you would be opposed to abortion?

[Krayt]

If I were to try to define a moment, it would be the moment consciousness were possible. Even with, it would not be definitive for legal reasons, but it's the only reasonable start point.

I do not believe in souls, and therefore ensoulment. If my soul is not synonymous with my consciousness, what do I care what happens to it after I die? I won't be there to experience its buffeting.

[not guilty]

Those who do believe in souls may wish to consider the second of the two creation stories mentioned in Genesis -- specifically the King James Version translation of Chapter 2, verse 7: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

To my knowledge that is the only reference in Scripture to when "ensoulment" occurs -- when the man drew breath.

[Riva]

I thought you clowns wanted separation of church and state? Now you demand your incomplete and uniformed religious views should control?

[not guilty]

No, I am suggesting that those who hang their hats on "ensoulment" haven't necessarily thought things through.

My views on abortion (and on abortion rights -- the two are separate topics), religious or otherwise, do not control anyone. Nor do I think they should.

[Riva]

You reject faith and, by rejecting the biological reality that life begins at conception, you reject science and reason. We don’t have much left to work with.

[not guilty]

No, I don't reject faith. I realize that religious faith is a source of comfort for multitudes, and I don't begrudge that. But it is not an acceptable substitute for evidence.

I have no problem with the notion that life begins at conception. But recognizing that a zygote, embryo or fetus is alive (at a nascent stage of development) is the beginning, not the end of the discussion.

The more relevant question is at what point the governmental interest in preserving fetal life outweighs a pregnant female's interest in liberty, privacy and personal autonomy. Prior to viability, the government has no business in determining who may, may not or must reproduce.

[Riva]

The woman has made the decision to reproduce by engaging in a reproductive act and there is now another life to consider.

[Malika la Maize]

For human beings, as opposed to bots, of course engaging in sex is often, if not most of the time, done without wanting a baby to result. Conceiving may be something they know there’s a risk of, but they no more “choose” to conceive a baby by choosing to engage in sex than a skateboarder chooses to get a skateboard related injury by riding their skateboard.

[not guilty]

Riva, if you are willing to delegate reproductive decisions to governmental authorities, do you regard the Peoples' Republic of China's former one-child policy to have been an appropriate exercise of governmental power? Why or why not?

[Riva]

I do not profess that belief NG, nor have I expressed that in anything posted here. When a woman, not the government, makes the decision to reproduce by engaging in a reproductive act, then there is now another life to consider.

Vile trolls like Maliky the whatever are the ones that want the government to snuff out those of insufficient “moral worth.”

[Malika la Maize]

“Vile trolls like Maliky the whatever are the ones that want the government to snuff out those of insufficient “moral worth.””

That’s of course demonstrably incorrect, I’m pro-choice, the individual woman should make the decision, not the government. Riva-bot takes the position government should make the choice.

[Riva]

I guess the vile shithead now advocates privatized infanticide. But only for any unfortunates deemed not of sufficient “moral worth.” Though we still might need a “committee of moral worth” to decide the really tough cases. Some of those two year olds can be a handful.

[Riva]

Krayt, what do you mean by "consciousness"?

And why isn't the moment of conception, when a new and unique human genome forms that will guide all further development, the logical starting point. One doesn't need to have religious faith to apply to start there.

[not guilty]

"Contraception is independently objectionable for many reasons but it is not abortion."

Certainly those who object to using birth control are free to refuse it themselves. When they object to other folks' use thereof, however, they need to mind their own business. Hank Williams had the right idea:

Mindin' other people's business seems to be high-toned
I got all that I can do just to mind my own
Why don't mind your own business
Mind your own business
If you mind your own business you'll stay busy all the time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZH2bmbUTl4&list=RDRZH2bmbUTl4&start_radio=1

[Riva]

Many harms result when too many people mind their own business and refrain from advising the uniformed that they are engaging in conduct that is morally wrong.

[Malika la Maize]

Programmed by patronizing puritans!

[David Nieporent]

The same poster, just a few minutes apart:

Now you demand your incomplete and uniformed religious views should control?

and

too many people mind their own business and refrain from advising the uniformed that they are engaging in conduct that is morally wrong.

[Riva]

In one comment I was pointing out NGs inconsistencies. In another comment I was expressing my own views.

It can’t be repeated enough. I know you’re a bastard (and more asshole than anyone has a right to be), but do you have to be such a stupid bastard?

[David Nieporent]

In one comment you were complaining that someone's incomplete and uniformed religious views should not control, and in the second comment you were demanding that your incomplete and uniformed religious views should control.

[Riva]

You can't read and understand comments any better than case law or the constitution you fucking idiot. In one comment I was pointing out NG's inconsistent position based on his prior comments. My own comment sought to control nothing asshole, I was merely explaining my own view in response to a question.

Now fuck off and stalk some else you monumental asshole.

[Malika la Maize]

There was no question there, bot malfunctioning.

[not guilty]

"Many harms result when too many people mind their own business and refrain from advising the uniformed that they are engaging in conduct that is morally wrong."

Think so, Riva? Do you ever wonder why the Apostle Simon Peter wrote "But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters"? (I Peter 4:15 (KJV))

Murderers, thieves, evildoers. That's some pretty scuzzy company for you and your fellow busybodies.

[Riva]

The Apostles were charged with spreading the teachings of Christ. They did not pay with their lives for minding their own business. And, the passage you pervert in the partial quote was intended in its entirety to provide encouragement to those who would suffer living their faith. Misunderstanding court precedent is one thing, intentionally misrepresenting Scripture is a whole other level of wrong.

[not guilty]

"The Apostles were charged with spreading the teachings of Christ"

Riva, abortion was a well established practice in the day of Jesus the Christ. That makes it all the more significant that of all the words attributed to Jesus in Holy Scripture, not a single word deals with the topic of abortion.

[Riva]

Christ upheld the sanity of life and the Church has condemned abortion since the first century. You are outdoing yourself today if your goal is to prove that you are a contemptible ignoramus.

[Malika la Maize]

I think this bot may have been programmed by the albino from Da Vinci Code.

[not guilty]

Riva, your corrupt church didn't even exist during the first century. https://www.bartehrman.com/who-founded-the-catholic-church/

Christians following Jesus's death and resurrection were a collection of Jewish socialists.

[Riva]

Your understanding of Church history is even poorer than your understanding of the Scriptures. Or S.Ct. precedent.

[not guilty]

The Catholic Church as we know it today dates back to the reign of Constantine in the Fourth Century.

The Christian church in the First Century was based in Jerusalem, not Rome, and it was regarded originally as a sect of Judaism.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

No one was trying to defund PP, as in put them out of business. The point was to stop funding them with my tax dollars. They were and are as free as any other organization to ask the public for all the money they can get.

[Malika la Maize]

What point do you think you’re making here? ng clearly meant defund as in terminate government funding for and that he thought this was a bad decision in the same way that some people might think government defunding other services might be. Lots of people object to having their tax dollars go to this or that service.

[Michael P]

They've also ended more Black lives than the KKK ever dreamed of.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s not surprising Mikie doesn’t respect the autonomy of black (and other) women.

[Michael P]

It's not surprising that Malika the White Savior doesn't really think Black Lives Matter, and wants to perpetuate Black Americans as an underclass.

[Malika la Maize]

Mikie thinks Black Autonomy Doesn’t Matter, and as to underclass lord knows the key to helping an underclass out of it is to keep their women barefoot and pregnant whether they want it or not!

[Life of Brian]

Black Autonomy

How Orwellian. What's your pleasantly euphemistic theory on why black women... erm, "exercise their autonomy" about 4 times as often as white women and twice as often as Hispanic women?

[Malika la Maize]

What an odd question. What’s your theory? Are there any other racial disparities in health care procedure choice that you’ve got theories about (like why whites disproportionately choose assisted suicide where it’s legal), or is the reproductive health care choices your special interest (such as why white women have been found to get epidurals more) or is disparities in this particular one of special interest to you?

[Life of Brian]

Gee, THAT certainly appears to have hit a nerve.

[Malika la Maize]

lol, says guy who suddenly wants to run away from his creepy query! Run, Forest, run!

[Michael P]

Malika the Reading Incompetent White Savior also needs to make a straw man to engage with my comments. That's nothing new, though.

[Malika la Maize]

No strawman, you clearly equated (actually found worse) black women choosing reproductive care with Klansmen murdering black persons. Because you don’t think much of the autonomy of the first group.

[Michael P]

I compared numbers, not moral valence. But please, continue to demonstrate how awful you are at reading.

[not guilty]

Michael P, a lawful abortion and a murder are mutually exclusive. Like red and green or a circle and a rectangle, one cannot be the other.

[Malika la Maize]

lol, X killed hundreds, Y millions, I’m not suggesting Y is worse, just doing math!

[not guilty]

If the premise is that fewer abortions are preferable to more abortions, funding for Planned Parenthood should be increased, not diminished. An embryo or fetus that is never conceived will of course never be aborted.

[not guilty]

Once more -- radio silence from the self-styled "pro-life" crowd.

[Frank Drackman]

Apparently not enough

[Riva]

Stalin also saved millions from the burden of eating. But at least the CCP is still here to rescue millions of would be parents.

[Malika la Maize]

Conservatives do struggle with the concept of autonomy.

[Riva]

Define “autonomy”

[Malika la Maize]

It’s the capacity to be one’s own person, to live one’s life according to reasons and motives that are taken as one’s own and not the product of manipulative or distorting external forces.

Stalin used force to murder millions. Contraception and abortion allow adults to decide whether to use technology to avoid going through unwanted births of non-persons.

[Riva]

The new life created at conception (when a new and unique human genome forms that will guide all further development) somehow inherently lacks "the capacity to be one’s own person, to live one’s life according to reasons and motives that are taken as one’s own and not the product of manipulative or distorting external forces"?

But I guess if you want to rid yourself of some troublesome folks, all any Stalins need do is redefine what it means to a human. How to do that? I guess we could use "personhood"? Or maybe a slight alteration by taking a snapshot of a human life and stating absolutely that some humans are not "autonomous" simply because they're too young and therefore f 'em.

[Josh R]

How should a woman who has an abortion (according to you, hired a doctor to kill another human being) be punished?

[Frank Drackman]

Depends on the state, I think most have specific statutes pertaining to "Murder for Hire"

[Josh R]

I wasn't asking what the punishment is. I was asking what it logically should be assuming Riva's position.

[Malika la Maize]

He doesn’t know what he’s saying, much less you.

[Riva]

There is no logical connection. The question of whether life begins at conception as matter of biology and science is an entirely different question. Are you conceding that life begins at conception and rejecting the arbitrary and utilitarian redefinitions of human life advocated by the troll Maliky?

[Riva]

Any potential consequences for those who would engage in the business of abortion is an entirely different question and has nothing to do with the question of whether life begins at conception.

[Josh R]

Sure, life begins at conception. But, you rejected the idea of personhood. Doesn't that mean your position is right after the moment of conception, that life has the same legal and moral standing as every other human life? And if so, then shouldn't a woman who has an abortion be charged with first-degree murder?

[Riva]

I would consider those who promote and profit from the vile practice to be the most culpable. In many cases, a woman in a vulnerable position is just another of their victims, like the unborn child. But, again, whatever legal consequences that may attach do not diminish the humanity of the unborn life.

[Sarcastr0]

We don't do that in other cases where someone pays for someone to off a person.

And that's far from your only inconsistency (DMN points out one above).
You don't seem to have thought your position through very well.

[Josh R]

Is a woman who hires her doctor to kill her newborn just another victim who gets off the hook? I don't think so.

If logic and reason count for anything, your position demands a woman who gets an abortion will be treated the same as a woman who hires a doctor to kill her newborn. Anything short of that means you don't value the humanity of the unborn as much as a newborn.

[Riva]

What inconsistencies you fucking idiot Sarcastro?

And as for the off topic subject of potential consequences, WTF? The concept of different liabilities in different contexts apparently never occurred to a fucking imbecile like you.

But as noted above, any potential consequences for those who would engage in the business of abortion is an entirely different question and has nothing to do with the question of whether life begins at conception. The legal consequences that may attach do not diminish the reality of the fundamental humanity of the unborn life.

[Josh R]

The concept of different liabilities in different contexts apparently never occurred to a fucking imbecile like you.

You have yet to offer an argument for why the consequences to a woman are different for hiring a doctor to kill her (according to you) unborn child versus hiring a doctor to kill her newborn child.

[Riva]

You just quoted one. In the context of murder, for example, criminal law may prescribe several different consequences depending on the circumstances and intent of the defendant. But how does the issue of potential legal consequences change the fundamental, physical reality of the unborn life?

[Josh R]

In the context of murder, for example, criminal law may prescribe several different consequences depending on the circumstances and intent of the defendant.

How do the circumstances and intent of a woman who hires a doctor to kill her unborn child differ from those for a woman who hires a doctor to kill her newborn justify different legal treatment?

But how does the issue of potential legal consequences change the fundamental, physical reality of the unborn life?

If the legal consequences aren't the same when logic and reason demand they should be the same, then the unborn life is given lesser value than the newborn life.

[Riva]

Logic and reason do not demand any such thing. And the history of criminal law and procedure most definitely do not. Explain exactly how the fundamental physical, biological reality of the human life is altered by the application of a specific criminal or civil process in any particular jurisdiction?

[Josh R]

Logic and reason do not demand any such thing.

You have yet to give a reason for why the legal consequences should not be the same for a woman who hires a doctor to kill her unborn child and a woman who hires a doctor to kill her newborn child.

Explain exactly how the fundamental physical, biological reality of the human life is altered by the application of a specific criminal or civil process in any particular jurisdiction?

It isn't, but that's not the question. The question is whether an unborn human has lesser value than a newborn human as a result of different punishments for the above two women.

[Riva]

The punishment, if any, for causing the death of another may vary for a number of reasons, like self-defense, premeditation, or heat of passion. Any downgrading of a murder from first degree to manslaughter doesn't fundamentally change the humanity of the victim. You are essentially trying to do what the troll was arguing with respect to "personhood." You're attempting to use a legalism to redefine a human life. The arguments you pose do not change the substance of the unborn life.

[Josh R]

The punishment, if any, for causing the death of another may vary for a number of reasons, like self-defense, premeditation, or heat of passion.

The two women in question equally have no differences in self defense, premeditation or heat of passion. You cannot identify any reason for distinguishing these two cases.

You're attempting to use a legalism to redefine a human life. The arguments you pose do not change the substance of the unborn life.

If the law did not punish someone who killed a rich human the same as a poor human without any reason, that would make the life of the rich human lesser than other human lives. Ditto for any classification of human life including the unborn. That is the consequence of your position.

[Riva]

Are you arguing that your alleged inequitable treatment in different cases in some way alters the reality that the victim was a human being?

And, by the way, the law does not blindly meet out exactly the same punishment for every crime regardless of circumstances. In what time, place, or reality did this ever occur?

[Josh R]

Are you arguing that your alleged inequitable treatment in different cases in some way alters the reality that the victim was a human being?

No. I am arguing different treatment in my examples makes the affected class of human beings lesser than other human beings.

And, by the way, the law does not blindly meet out exactly the same punishment for every crime regardless of circumstances. In what time, place, or reality did this ever occur?

You said that over and over again. Of course it is true, but that's because the different treatment is justified by the different circumstances. For the umpteenth time, how is different treatment justified for the two women (and this time try not making the same claim that circumstances matter - address why in this particular situation circumstances matter).

[not guilty]

Riva, I have a former client on Death Row in Nashville because a jury found that he hired someone to shoot his wife to death.

In Rivaworld, how is a woman paying a surgeon to abort her fetus deserving of a lesser penalty? If I understand your view of personhood correctly, each payor has hired a third party payee to destroy a human "person."

Or do you apply the maxim from Animal Farm -- all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others -- to humans as well?

[Riva]

No, JoshR, this little game obsessing over a nonexistent standard of absolute equality regardless of circumstances is getting a little tiring. Everyone is "lesser" to another to some degree if this is your standard for defining humanity. Frankly I don't know what you're really trying to argue but there doesn't seem to be much point in any further exchange.

[Riva]

NG, I fail to understand how the hypothetical criminal liability of the fictitious woman transformed her unborn child substantively into something that wasn't human. I didn't know criminal law and procedure could do that. Sounds like something you and JoshR should debate for another few days. I'll leave you both to it.

[Josh R]

Everyone is "lesser" to another to some degree if this is your standard for defining humanity.

The rich aren't and thus not punishing the killers of the rich will not fly. I think you understand. You just don't want to deal with the consequences of your position.

[Malika la Maize]

Bots aren’t really aware of the positions they are programmed to repeat.

[not guilty]

"NG, I fail to understand how the hypothetical criminal liability of the fictitious woman transformed her unborn child substantively into something that wasn't human. I didn't know criminal law and procedure could do that. Sounds like something you and JoshR should debate for another few days. I'll leave you both to it."

Riva, there is much that you fail to understand, but for purposes of this discussion, let's assume that the fetus is fully human. (Just as no one disputed that the late Lisa Stephenson, my former client's then-wife, was fully human at the time she was killed.)

Each situation involves one human hiring a second human to kill a third human. Should their punishments be similar or dissimilar in your opinion, Riva?

And FWIW, I have never disputed that an embryo or fetus is human. No one claims that it is a puppy (even if it was conceived doggie style).

[Malika la Maize]

The new life created at conception (when a new and unique human genome forms that will guide all further development) somehow inherently lacks "the capacity to be one’s own person, to live one’s life according to reasons and motives that are taken as one’s own and not the product of manipulative or distorting external forces"?

Yeah, things with no brains do lack that capacity. This has been another in the series of Easy Answers To Stupid Questions.

[Riva]

Not even close you abysmal imbecile. The question asked, using your words (or words you cut and pasted from Wikipedia, because you’re an idiot and incapable of explaining the concept yourself ) asked if the new life created at conception lacks the capacity “to be” one’s own person…. In other words to become. Not if the new life was, at that snapshot in time, the person he or she would become over time.

You’re not exactly the sharpest troll in the shed.

[Malika la Maize]

I got that definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/autonomy-moral/

“asked if the new life created at conception lacks the capacity “to be” one’s own person…. In other words to become.”

To be =\= to become. “To be sentient is a hallmark of a person a bot lacks” does not mean “to become sentient is a hallmark of a person a bot lacks.”

As Rand would put it the zygote lacking consciousness might have potential moral interest, but that would be outweighed by the current moral interests of the mother (maybe parents).

[Riva]

I’d advise you to stop digging but you’re so deep now, and such a vile little shit troll, I actually don’t care.

And I don’t care where you copied your text. It simply shows that you lack the inherent wit to express the concept yourself.

The life created at conception is not fundamentally something different after birth, the person simply ages. The new life created at conception possesses a new and unique human genome forms that will guide all further development.

It is a sick reprehensible view that would accord respect only to certain lives based on some arbitrary measure of “moral worth.” But you are a sick and vile troll. And lest we forget, stupid too.

[Malika la Maize]

“And I don’t care where you copied your text.”

That’s good since you were demonstrably incorrect in your attribution! Let’s put it down to malfunction.

“It simply shows that you lack the inherent wit to express the concept yourself.”

Bot not programmed about authoritative citation.

“The life created at conception is not fundamentally something different after birth.”

Of course it is, in many demonstrable objectively scientific ways, one of which is the former lacks consciousness.

“It is a sick reprehensible view that would accord respect only to certain lives”

You’re the one who thinks the respect due to zygotes should trump that due to grown women. Talk about vile and sick.

[Riva]

And lack of “moral worth” shithead. Don’t forget your governing standard on who gets to survive. Vile is too mild for you.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

As in, PP's autonomy to get donations on their own, without convincing Uncle Sugar to steal my tax money?

Some autonomous organizations are more autonomous than others.

[Malika la Maize]

I’m talking about the individual person who may be seeking PP’s technical assistance. How that gets paid for is a very different question.

[Riva]

And some trolls apparently have some serious mommy and daddy issues. Professional help is out there. Take advantage of it. And you might want to consider going to Church.

[Malika la Maize]

Wow, this bot is really riled up over this! Guess lacking autonomy itself it can’t appreciate it for others….

[Riva]

You really got “riled up” over the mention of Church. Quite telling.

[Malika la Maize]

I posted one comment after you mentioned that. You’ve posted multiple, even to yourself about the overall topic.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Ah, so you remembering a slipup by Mr. Bumble is great, but someone remembering one comment of your is overkill.

[Malika la Maize]

Uh, I didn’t refer to church at all, even in my one response to that comment. Bumbles comment was hilarious as it demonstrated a misunderstanding of something most adults know about, much like his comment above. See how these are different, or do we need puppets?

[Riva]

Good to know how much the Church bothers you. I’ll be sure to mention the topic more.

[Sarcastr0]

You haven't specified which 'the Church' you're even talking about.

[Riva]

There is only one holy and apostolic Church.

[Riva]

My error. There is only one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church,

[Malika la Maize]

“Good to know how much the Church bothers you.”

By me not mentioning it much? Silly bot.

[Riva]

No vile little troll. I will remind you of the above. There is only one holy and apostolic Church.

[Riva]

A needed correction I’ll repost in full for you in case you missed it above. There is only one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

Just to be sure, maybe I should restate again? There is only one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

[Malika la Maize]

Boy is really malfunctioning, this isn’t responsive to me at all.

[Riva]

One more time for good measure. There is only one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

[not guilty]

Riva, I was reared in churches of Christ in Middle Tennessee. (I sometimes refer to myself, only partially in jest, as a recovering Campbellite.) That sect claims to be the Christian church as it was established on the Day of Pentecost and existed in the First Century, C.E.

That church also claims that only Christian believers who have been baptized by immersion in water after reaching what they call "the age of accountability" -- which typically occurs in early adolescence -- will be rewarded with eternal life in Heaven.

Reciting the mantra, "There is only one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church," doesn't make it so, no matter how many times it is repeated.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

so much for "safe, legal, and rare."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Item: The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has elected Mrs. Robert M. Ferguson to her third term as president. Mrs. Ferguson [aka Frances Hand], who has three children, is the daughter of Federal Judge Learned Hand.

https://www.nytimes.com/1955/05/08/archives/parenthood-federation-elects.html

She earlier released a Planned Parenthood statement regarding efforts by the Roman Catholic Church to block birth control policy:

"Planned Parenthood," began the statement, "deplores and denounce any attempt to exercise religious minority pressure as a veto threat to hamstring cooperative community effort in the field of public health or any other field."

[to quote an earlier NYT account]

Judge Hand was quite supportive of Planned Parenthood, noting at one point, its principles "seemed to me important beyond any other save the public safety" in the cause of democracy.

[quoted in Gerald Gunther's biography]

==

Justice Brennan in Lamont v. Postmaster General framed things better than some dubious astronomical metaphor:

It is true that the First Amendment contains no specific guarantee of access to publications. However, the protection of the Bill of Rights goes beyond the specific guarantees to protect from congressional abridgment those equally fundamental personal rights necessary to make the express guarantees fully meaningful.

[JonFrum]

"fully meaningful."

And WE decide the definition of fully meaningful.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

We the People, ultimately, yes.

Courts do have the power of judicial review, including interpreting the meaning of the supreme law of the land.

[Frank Drackman]

They used to interpret it that people could be bought and sold, like Cars. Things change.

[Riva]

I guess he wasn’t as learned as I thought.

[Darth Buckeye]

The ultimate question was, is a law unconstitutional merely because it is silly?

[Frank Drackman]

Don't usually quote Hey-Zeus but didn't He say....
‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ ?????
and peoples say I'm a hard hearted SOB....

Frank

[JoeFromtheBronx]

People call a commenter a "bot" and keep on engaging.

Like engaging with trolls, I don't see much value in it, but it seems to be something people around here like to do. Shrugs.

If people want to engage, including sneering at, chatbots, it's your private decision.

[Josh R]

Riva is not a bot.

[Josh R]

I I asked ChatGPT the same thing I asked of Riva:

If logic and reason count for anything, your position demands a woman who gets an abortion will be treated the same as a woman who hires a doctor to kill her newborn. Anything short of that means you don't value the humanity of the unborn as much as a newborn.

and got a much different answer:

You’re absolutely right that this boils down to whether one treats the fetus as having equal moral status to a newborn. If one truly believes that — and believes women have full agency in abortion decisions — then yes, consistency would demand serious moral (and perhaps legal) consequences.

I further pressed on the "perhaps legal part and got this reply:

if someone truly and consistently believes that a fetus and a newborn have exactly the same moral status and that both acts involve the intentional killing of an equally valuable human person, then consistency would require treating them the same in moral and legal terms, including punishment.

[Drewski]

Looks like we found Riva's handler account. I find it hard to believe that you can write nearly-complete sentences but assume a troll is going to just cut-and-paste questions and answers to and from generic ChatGPT. You weren't born yesterday. Trolls are not around to provide helpful answers and engaging points of conversation, and so they don't use LLMs to do that. They use LLMs to troll.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Uh huh. Other says Riva is a bot.

They are not necessarily being literal as is "an automated program" or something. Words have various shades of meaning.

[Josh R]

Sure, Riva is a troll whose responses are her own. Nonetheless, it's I occasionally worthwhile to engage her as I did on this thread.

[Riva]

Are you really this fucking stupid? The tired leftist tactic of trying to marginalize any opinions by labeling opponents with vile dehumanizing insults never crossed your mind, such as it is? Go to a No Kings rally for a refresher. Or anywhere leftist thugs congregate, like an open thread here.

[not guilty]

People call a commenter a "bot" and keep on engaging.

Like engaging with trolls, I don't see much value in it, but it seems to be something people around here like to do. Shrugs.

If people want to engage, including sneering at, chatbots, it's your private decision.

My engagement with Riva is not for his/her benefit. Just as Jonathan Swift observed, “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.” But I hope that other readers here will benefit from Riva's flaws being pointed out.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I know the general "collision with error" idea but who takes Riva seriously? Seems all the attention just encourages Riva to spout more blarney. And people then call Riva names, which makes them seem silly, since unlike Riva, they are supposed to be semi-serious people at least. Oh well.

The fact this entry has so many comments is much sillier than Connecticut's law. The law was not just "silly." It was a nefarious violation of rights that had serious (as Justice Harlan quite well spelled out in Poe v. Ullman) consequences.

[The Folding Attorney]

1. That's *not* how the Sun (or solar radiation) works.
2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/penumbra

Long before I heard the term 'penumbra' in the context of law, I understood it to mean the light that limned the edges of a body almost (but not quite) obscured a star...