*opens up a can of worms*

[dalebert]

Parents who sincerely express interest in disowning and abandoning a 2 or 3 year old should lose guardianship and the child should be placed with someone who wants to voluntarilly care for it. Leaving it with unfit parents would violate the child's rights IMO.

I've always understood that the Libertarian party took a neutral stance on the issue of abortion, but if you look at how the topic is worded in the platform, it sure looks to be worded as pro-choice. After first saying taxes shouldn't pay for it, it says government should stay out of it.

"We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion, sterilization or any other form of birth control."

That's the pro-choice position. That's taking a strong stance on the issue. Given that Libertarians fall about 50/50 based on the whole question of whether it's murder, and if so, when, it seems like they ought to take a more neutral position officially. Is this one of the recent changes that has some people angry?

[FrankChodorov]

what is the legal definition of death?

cessation of brain waves...

what should be the legal definition of a human being deserving legal protection?

evidence of higher brain function (consciousness and ability to feel pain/pleasure)...

[tracysaboe]

Parents who sincerely express interest in disowning and abandoning a 2 or 3 year old should lose guardianship and the child should be placed with someone who wants to voluntarilly care for it. Leaving it with unfit parents would violate the child's rights IMO.

I've always understood that the Libertarian party took a neutral stance on the issue of abortion, but if you look at how the topic is worded in the platform, it sure looks to be worded as pro-choice. After first saying taxes shouldn't pay for it, it says government should stay out of it.

"We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion, sterilization or any other form of birth control."

That's the pro-choice position. That's taking a strong stance on the issue. Given that Libertarians fall about 50/50 based on the whole question of whether it's murder, and if so, when, it seems like they ought to take a more neutral position officially. Is this one of the recent changes that has some people angry?

No. That's about the only thing that the reform did that made it more paletable to pro-lifers. We're complaining about everything else in regards to the planking issue.

Tracy

[dalebert]

No. That's about the only thing that the reform did that made it more paletable to pro-lifers. We're complaining about everything else in regards to the planking issue.

You mean it was even more pro-choice before? Wow. Know where I can see the previous wording?

Just FYI, I'm somewhere in the middle on the actual issue-- probably in the viability group. But I'm not trying to argue for or against abortion laws at the moment. My point is with how we include it (or not) in the plank given the controversy of the subject and the ongoing debate.

[intergraph19]

what is the legal definition of death?

cessation of brain waves...

what should be the legal definition of a human being deserving legal protection?

evidence of higher brain function (consciousness and ability to feel pain/pleasure)...

I don't think that definition should apply to those who are not yet born.  A lot of the time, defining someone as brain dead means they have lost brain function and will not get it back, or the outlook of that is quite bleak.  With most babies, they will have higher brain functions if they can love that long.  The situations are not quite comparable IMHO. (yes, I know I'm a bad speller, just muddle through ^_^)

[tracysaboe]

No. That's about the only thing that the reform did that made it more paletable to pro-lifers. We're complaining about everything else in regards to the planking issue.

You mean it was even more pro-choice before? Wow. Know where I can see the previous wording?

Just FYI, I'm somewhere in the middle on the actual issue-- probably in the viability group. But I'm not trying to argue for or against abortion laws at the moment. My point is with how we include it (or not) in the plank given the controversy of the subject and the ongoing debate.

No that is what it was prior.

I thought the reform caucus just dropped the plank entirely.

So they didn't even do that right.

My bad.

Tracy

[FrankChodorov]

what is the legal definition of death?

cessation of brain waves...

what should be the legal definition of a human being deserving legal protection?

evidence of higher brain function (consciousness and ability to feel pain/pleasure)...

I don't think that definition should apply to those who are not yet born.  A lot of the time, defining someone as brain dead means they have lost brain function and will not get it back, or the outlook of that is quite bleak.  With most babies, they will have higher brain functions if they can love that long.  The situations are not quite comparable IMHO.

well that is the point - isn't it?

without brain function someone else makes the decision as to what should be done (Terri Schiavo) and they are not prosecuted for killing...

similarly if the mother and father make a decision to terminate the pregnancy prior to the embryo being afforded legal protections because it was determined that no higher brain functions are possible at that point in development than no crime has been commited.

[KBCraig]

I don't think that definition should apply to those who are not yet born.  A lot of the time, defining someone as brain dead means they have lost brain function and will not get it back, or the outlook of that is quite bleak.  With most babies, they will have higher brain functions if they can love that long.

I've used that argument frequently. A fetus is undeniably homo sapiens. It's also not dead, thus it must be alive: a living human being.

Medically, "death" is defined as the irreversible cessation of brain wave activity. In a fetus, there is brain wave activity present from a very early stage. Even before it's detectable, such a condition is not "irreversible"; indeed, unless interfered with, it will reverse, and brain wave activity will develop in the normal course.

Kevin

[tracysaboe]

The notion of Brain death itself is also questionable -- but that's not something I'm ready to get into at this time.

Tracy

[FrankChodorov]

I don't think that definition should apply to those who are not yet born.  A lot of the time, defining someone as brain dead means they have lost brain function and will not get it back, or the outlook of that is quite bleak.  With most babies, they will have higher brain functions if they can love that long.

I've used that argument frequently. A fetus is undeniably homo sapiens. It's also not dead, thus it must be alive: a living human being.

Medically, "death" is defined as the irreversible cessation of brain wave activity. In a fetus, there is brain wave activity present from a very early stage. Even before it's detectable, such a condition is not "irreversible"; indeed, unless interfered with, it will reverse, and brain wave activity will develop in the normal course.

you are completely missing the point re: "interfered with"...

it is not a "living human being" prior to HIGHER brain functioning it is only a POTENTIAL human being...to use the word "be" as in "being" means in it's present form.

as a society with a system of laws we only legally protect an ACTUAL human being so prior to HIGHER brain function - that includes sentience (being conscious and able to experience pleasure/pain) - there is no legal protection against a mother who willing "interfered" with a POTENTIAL human being developing in their uterus by killing it - not murdering it.

[intergraph19]

you are completely missing the point re: "interfered with"...

it is not a "living human being" prior to HIGHER brain functioning it is only a POTENTIAL human being...to use the word "be" as in "being" means in it's present form.

as a society with a system of laws we only legally protect an ACTUAL human being so prior to HIGHER brain function - that includes sentience (being conscious and able to experience pleasure/pain) - there is no legal protection against a mother who willing "interfered" with a POTENTIAL human being developing in their uterus by killing it - not murdering it.

I think you are wrong on this argument.  There IS a difference between someone who has been injured and can no longer use thier brain, and an unborn baby who will have brain function.  In the Terry Shivo case, she acctually was lucid and was getting better, when allowed to be seen and administered to.  Her brain damage was not totaly irreversible and she was not brain dead.  She was killed, and that is murder. 

The definition is irreversible brain damage.  A baby's underdevelopment is not consistant with irreversible brain damage.  Does your stance include partial birth abortion as also viable?

[Dreepa]

The notion of Brain death itself is also questionable

I think that Monty Python dealt with this issue.

[FrankChodorov]

There IS a difference between someone who has been injured and can no longer use thier brain, and an unborn baby who will have brain function.

the argument is that we allow a third party to make a legal decision about whether or not to interfere with that human life that is not deemed murder...

in the Schiavo case it was her husband.
in the case of a developing fetus prior to higher brain functioning it is the mother.

In the Terry Shivo case, she acctually was lucid and was getting better, when allowed to be seen and administered to.  Her brain damage was not totaly irreversible and she was not brain dead.  She was killed, and that is murder.

she was unhooked from the machines that kept her alive and she was allowed to die...it was not murder.

when the autoposy was done it was conclusively found that she had no higher brain function capabilities that were irreversible...

A baby's underdevelopment is not consistant with irreversible brain damage.

no it is consistent with the lack of higher brain functioning at that specific point in time

Does your stance include partial birth abortion as also viable?

my stance is consistent...that only sentient human beings that are conscious and can feel pleasure or pain as the result of possessing higher brain function are deserving of legal protection from society.

[intergraph19]

In the Terry Shivo case, she acctually was lucid and was getting better, when allowed to be seen and administered to.  Her brain damage was not totaly irreversible and she was not brain dead.  She was killed, and that is murder.

she was unhooked from the machines that kept her alive and she was allowed to die...it was not murder.

when the autoposy was done it was conclusively found that she had no higher brain function capabilities that were irreversible...

The "machines" she was "unhooked" from was a feeding tube.  It was murder.

Is that a yes or no to partial birth?

[FrankChodorov]

In the Terry Shivo case, she acctually was lucid and was getting better, when allowed to be seen and administered to.  Her brain damage was not totaly irreversible and she was not brain dead.  She was killed, and that is murder.

she was unhooked from the machines that kept her alive and she was allowed to die...it was not murder.

when the autoposy was done it was conclusively found that she had no higher brain function capabilities that were irreversible...

The "machines" she was "unhooked" from was a feeding tube.  It was murder.

Is that a yes or no to partial birth?

and who is being prosecuted for this so-called "murder"? (I rest my case)

I am against the killing of any human life that has attained the personhood status of human being as designated by higher brain function (sentience - consciousness and ability to feel pleasure/pain) and recognized by society as being deserving of legal protection.

prior to this designation it is killing but not murder
after this designation it is killing and it is murder