Part 2, Part 3

The catalyst of this response can be found on Gardner’s April 1st, 2008 show which can be heard here.

“I believe that if we are going to establish the state and the state is going to have laws that protect our lives against encroachment of others, then we have to apply those laws consistently.”

Let me prefix this all by saying that this argument is aimed at Gardner’s insistence that an embryo should be covered by murder law and that applying the law consistently to a biological human life is superior to applying it with a different measure of consistency.

“Where in the continuum of life, from conception to death, do you decide there is a line of demarcation where the laws don’t apply, where the woman’s so called choice applies.”

Speaking of a zygote: “Is it human? Is it being?”

What traits must something have to in order to be deserving of or having rights? Is being human the measure we do use or should use for protecting those rights?

This question will garner many responses. What will those responses have in common; especially if one can try to take a more comprehensive look at it all? I think likely it will be sentience (as vague as that may be). Abilities such as reasoning, self awareness and the freedom of will. Their source and uniqueness in man are in question, but I do not believe we will argue that those traits are the reason we separate humans from other entities. It’s not because of our genetic makeup, as that alone does not uniquely provide those traits (theoretically.) If we found that some terrestrial or extraterrestrial entity exhibited these abilities, we’d likely extend them the same rights (assuming they are peaceful) as we do our fellow man. This sentiment is portrayed obviously in our fiction and the inverse in our lives. Data, Hugh, Spock, and others are extended rights and those without apparent brain activity are allowed to die without prosecution.

“Where do we come down consistently at when it is acceptable to end the life of a human being and when it is not acceptable to end the life of a human being.”

Given above, it seems inconsistent to apply murder laws to something which very obviously does not possess those traits: a stone, bacterium, a tree, an earthworm, a human zygote, brainless or heavily brain damned human body. Life is inconsistent in ability and justifiably treated differently. What makes the metric “human” for consistency better than that of “consciousness” when “human” isn’t consistent itself and obviously so? I’m not claiming that determining consciousness is always cut and dry. We do, however, have methods to reasonably determine that in our legal system and using consciousness as a metric seems to me to be more consistent with the idea of legal egalitarianism usually advocated in the concept of rule of law. Not to cut laws vertically based on what you are biologically but horizontally as to who you are mentally.

Following the pro-life platform strictly I see a lot of legal problems:

• Brain dead individuals would be required to be kept on life support.
• Brainless human bodies and likely individually grown organs would not be possible.
• If technology allows for transfering human consciousness would the new vessel not have protection under the law?
• If true synthetic sentient beings are discovered or created they would not be implicitly protected.
• Any use of fertilized embryos are out of the question. Stem cell research, etc.
• If embryos fertilized by scientists are not allowed because their destruction is murder what about naturally fertilized embryos which do not implant? Obviously she could have taken drugs but there could have been other factors which were under her control (diet, exercise, etc.) Miscarriages could be viewed in such suspect ways too. Would the government be expected to monitor for such situations and investigate them?
• If destruction of a blastocyst is murder, the primary component of which are stem cells, would the changing of other cells into embryonic stem cells be restricted too? Or is it only because of the stem cell’s situated in an embryo and their viability in forming a human? Would that conflict with Gardner’s dismissal of viability as a variable for considering law?
• Rape and incest? Fetus’ found to be physically and/or mentally deformed? To be consistent we’d have to force the women to carry the fetus to full term regardless of its condition or the pregnancy’s cause.
• What about suicide? Assisted suicide?

Gardner doesn’t indicate which level of government he is referring to during the conversation. Which is responsible for protecting the individual’s right to life? Given the topic was brought up because of Obama I will assume the federal government. If we are keeping with the theme of being consistent then this entire conversation is pointless given the Constitution does not discuss this supposed crime. At the state level I believe the government can both exist to protect the individual’s life and liberty in a consistent manner without defining an individual by their genetic makeup and without “laws controlling woman in many facets of their lives while pregnant.” Law does not need to be so simplistic.

http://www.gohunter08.com/…

We started this campaign a year ago right here, in San Diego Harbor, against the backdrop of American Naval power. We launched a campaign emphasizing a strong national defense, enforceable borders and restoring the industrial base of America.

Today we end this campaign. The Nevada caucuses reflecting only 2% of the vote for me. I ran the campaign exactly the way I wanted to, and at this point not being able to gain traction in conservative states of Nevada and South Carolina, it’s time to allow our volunteers and supporters to focus on the campaigns that remain viable.

I’m a few days late. I really wasn’t paying much attention to the news this past weekend. This is good to hear. I expected him to drop when a few states had done their thing before Super Tuesday. I’ve not heard that he’s endorsed anyone but some have thought that he should back Paul. I think that’s unlikely given their differences on foreign policy. Though stranger things have happened.

http://www.spectator.org/…

Less than a month after a huge upset victory, and promises that fundraising would be ramped up, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is asking his senior staff to keep working for him without pay, while lower level campaign staff are seeing their salaries cut dramatically or eliminated altogether.

“The goal is to get a leaner, meaner campaign structure moving into Super Tuesday,” says a senior campaign adviser.

But many of those being asked to take the cut are refusing, and walking away, leaving the campaign with holes to fill.

“The money simply hasn’t come in at the rate that we expected,” says the aide. “Florida is a $7 million commitment that we can’t meet, and if we did, that leaves us exposed for Super Tuesday, where we have a lot of states and a lot media buys. We had to make tough decisions.”

This is good news. There are a lot of people who are fearful of a Huckabee candidacy and he may have a real hard time competing without money. Also he has a lot of support from the more conservative Christian crowd which could be brought to supporting Paul.

http://ronpaulgraphs.com/

The 21st was the FreeAtLast2008 Ron Paul money bomb. He raised $1.849 million and has over $74k brought in today so far. He raised 87.2% of what Huckabee raised since the beginning of the year in one day.

http://www.reason.com/…

About an hour ago Norma McCorvey, a.k.a “Jane Roe” from the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, formally endorsed Ron Paul at the Phoenix Park hotel in Washington. Why didn’t she endorse a frontrunner like Mike Huckabee? Thank the grassroots: She saw a newspaper ad in Nevada, bought by Paul supporters, using the analogy of the frog and the pot of boiling water to demonstrate what was happening to America. “It touched my heart.” That was three weeks ago, and McCorvey keynoted a pro-life Paul rally in Nevada on January 12th, but the campaign made the official announcement today before Paul spoke at the March for Life. McCorvey: I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v Wade. Ron Paul doesn’t just talk about being pro-life, he acts on it. His voting record truly is impeccable and he undoubtedly understands our constitutional republic and the inalienable right to life for all. Ron Paul is the prime author of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v. Wade. As the signor of the affidavit that legalized abortion 35 years ago I appreciate Ron Paul’s action to restore protection for the unborn. Ron Paul has also authored H.R. 1094 in Congress, which seeks to define life as beginning at conception. He has never wavered on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn.

I don’t agree with Dr. Paul’s position on abortion but I understand it. I agree that it is not in the federal government’s jurisdiction, that the current laws seem to conflict, and even if abortion where to be made illegal in a state that the mother should not be punished and at worst the doctor. It is interesting to see McCorvey support Paul. I’m not sure how well known she is in the pro-life movement but if Huckabee burns out and drops out I wonder if an endorsement from “Jane Roe” could help convince the pro-life Huckabee supporters to back the good Doctor.

They really jumped on him about abortion but wouldn’t really give him a chance to flesh out his platform and personal beliefs in a single thought. Ultimately the hosts support federal abortion laws because it’s in their favor currently. If it was nationally outlawed they would be supporting putting the responsibility back on the states where it’s constitutionally authorized. Paul should have requested them amend the Constitution if they believe the general government should handle abortion. The immigration part was fairly well explained. The statement about him not winning was classless. It just reaffirms to the layman he has no chance. It could have gone better but it could have been far worse. Too bad they didn’t give him more time. Less than 8 minutes for a man running for POTUS is pretty sad.