Bio

Tommy De Seno was Tea Party before the rest of America boiled the water.

This proud Catholic hails from Asbury Park, NJ (the town that rips the bones from your back, it's a death trap, it's a suicide rap, we've got to get out while we're young).

The only chink in his conservative armor is his job as an evil trial lawyer, transferring wealth from fat cat insurance companies to injured people thoughout New Jersey.

Speaking of Jersey, don't call him North or South Jersey. Tommy's a clamdigger from the Jersey Shore - sand between his toes and white stuff on his nose.

When not making welching insurance companies pay on the bets they made and lost, or shredding riffs on his guitar, Tommy is a Little League and Pop Warner coach. He's married and has fruitfully multiplied to head a family of 6.

His writing credits include over 400 published columns in the triCityNews (Asbury Park, NJ), on FoxNews.com, on Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller, and now, ready to prove he can piss in the tall grass with the big dogs, on Ricochet.

He is the editor of www.JustifiedRight.com


People Tommy De Seno is Following (1)



People Following Tommy De Seno (22)

Display starting at 22 of 22 followers


Conversations Tommy De Seno is Following (270)

Display starting at 270 of 270 followed conversations


Conversations Tommy De Seno has Started (179)

Display starting at 49 of 179 user conversations

Tommy De Seno's Profile

Tommy De Seno
Name:
Tommy De Seno
Hometown:
Asbury Park, NJ
Joined:
Jun 23, 2010

Recent Comments

Tommy De Seno

Duane Oyen

Salvatore Padula

I'm interested in where the authority comes from for you to decide at what point someone becomes human, and who beside you actually gets to make that decision.

Also, you need to switch to "person" because that is what you are attempting to describe.  "Human" is a settled scientific designation based upon DNA

You seem to have already reached the conclusion by asking at what point "someone" becomes human. I see the question as being when something becomes a human being. As I've stated, I think it is self-evident that there is a distinction between human life and a human being. Individual skin cells are human life, but are not themselves human beings.

Once again you give your conclusion.

Please tell me where you derive the authority to make the determination, and who else gets to make the determination.    Must we look for consensus, or will individuals be allowed to make their own conclusion on how far along personhood is established?

Tommy, your argument has flipped here to the opposite of your earlier "human life begins at fertilization" assertion.

How so?  I'm asking Sal about his idea, not mine.

Tommy De Seno

Salvatore Padula

Tommy De Seno

Salvatore Padula

Tommy De Seno:

I thought I addressed that in #113. To borrow your own phrase, you may not have agreed with my answer.

You gave me the conclusion.

I'm interested in where the authority comes from for you to decide at what point someone becomes human, and who beside you actually gets to make that decision.

Also, you need to switch to "person" because that is what you are attempting to describe.  "Human" is a settled scientific designation based upon DNA

You seem to have already reached the conclusion by asking at what point "someone" becomes human. I see the question as being when something becomes a human being. As I've stated, I think it is self-evident that there is a distinction between human life and a human being. Individual skin cells are human life, but are not themselves human beings.

Once again you give your conclusion.

Please tell me where you derive the authority to make the determination, and who else gets to make the determination.    Must we look for consensus, or will individuals be allowed to make their own conclusion on how far along personhood is established?

Tommy De Seno

Salvatore Padula

Tommy De Seno

Salvatore Padula

Tommy De Seno: Salvatore how about an answer on my question regarding moral equivalencies? · 3 minutes ago

What would you like to know? · 29 minutes ago

From my prior post:

How about you explain this "moral equivalent" business to me.  You seem to have some external factor, decided upon by other men, that values some humans over another.

Delve into that.  What is the factor?  Where did it originate from?  Who gets to be in control of it? · · 9 minutes ago

I thought I addressed that in #113. To borrow your own phrase, you may not have agreed with my answer. · 12 minutes ago

You gave me the conclusion.

I'm interested in where the authority comes from for you to decide at what point someone becomes human, and who beside you actually gets to make that decision.

Also, you need to switch to "person" because that is what you are attempting to describe.  "Human" is a settled scientific designation based upon DNA

Tommy De Seno

Salvatore Padula

Tommy De Seno: Salvatore how about an answer on my question regarding moral equivalencies? · 3 minutes ago

What would you like to know? · 29 minutes ago

From my prior post:

How about you explain this "moral equivalent" business to me.  You seem to have some external factor, decided upon by other men, that values some humans over another.

Delve into that.  What is the factor?  Where did it originate from?  Who gets to be in control of it? ·

Tommy De Seno

Salvatore how about an answer on my question regarding moral equivalencies?

Tommy De Seno

Salvatore Padula

Tommy De Seno

GayFreedomLover

Tommy De Seno: There is no such thing as a pro-abortion libertarian.  Just as there is no color black that is white.  Simply impossible.

It's settled science that an embryo is both human and alive.

It's settled libertarian politics that we are endowed with rights upon creation.

I don't want to be politically correct and say don't have the debate.  Feel free.  But it's pointless. · 6 hours ago

I agree with "alive."  I don't think there's a definition of "alive" that would exclude embryos.  "Human" is a different story.  I agree with your conclusion, but defining the other side's argument out of existence isn't an answer.  Science doesn't provide a definitive conclusion as to when an embryo becomes "human." · 19 minutes ago

It does it's genetic.

It's not genetic. Each and every individual cell in your body has a complete set of your genetic material. It has to be something else.

I don't think you will find a scientist in the world who will agree with you that an embryo is not human.  Do you have a citation?

Tommy De Seno

Salvatore Padula

 

My answer is that not all living material that is genetically human is a human being. I would say it's safe to say that you cannot call an embryo a human being until it is a distinct organism that will naturally develop into a single, identifiable fetus (though it is human life genetically). Until the embryo has moved beyond the blastocyst stage, it is possible that it will develop into two or more fetuses (twins etc.). This occurs at around fourteen days after fertilization. I think that the earliest that it can be argued that an embryo is a human being is at that point. At this point, a proto-nervous system begins to develop and the embryo, if left to develop, will become a single person. I think the latest it could be argued that an embryo attains moral status as a person is at viability. Like I said, I'm open to argument, and I assume that the correct answer is closer to the blastocyst stage than it is to viability.

You are conceding human and parsing the word "being."

Being is synonymous with live.  We are back to killing a live human.

Edited 22 hours ago
Tommy De Seno

GayFreedomLover

Tommy De Seno: There is no such thing as a pro-abortion libertarian.  Just as there is no color black that is white.  Simply impossible.

It's settled science that an embryo is both human and alive.

It's settled libertarian politics that we are endowed with rights upon creation.

I don't want to be politically correct and say don't have the debate.  Feel free.  But it's pointless. · 6 hours ago

I agree with "alive."  I don't think there's a definition of "alive" that would exclude embryos.  "Human" is a different story.  I agree with your conclusion, but defining the other side's argument out of existence isn't an answer.  Science doesn't provide a definitive conclusion as to when an embryo becomes "human." · 19 minutes ago

It does it's genetic.

Tommy De Seno

Salvatore Padula

Tommy De Seno

Salvatore Padula

Richard Fulmer: So, when does an embryo become a person? · 7 minutes ago

Legally at birth, as has been the case throughout history. Morally, I think that when an embryo carries the same moral significance as an infant is difficult question to answer. I would rule out the notion that a zygote is the moral equivalent and I would say that a viable fetus is clearly the equivalent. Between the two, I'm open to argument and I think we should err on the side of protecting life. · 5 minutes ago

How about you explain this "moral equivalent" business to me.  You seem to have some external factor, decided upon by other men, that values some humans over another.

Delve into that.  What is the factor?  Where did it originate from?  Who gets to be in control of it? · 2 minutes ago

I'll answer your question when you answer mine. I'm on strike as far as you're concerned. · 7 minutes ago

My apologies I thought I answered all your questions several times.  Which is still pending? (note:  merely disagreeing with my answer does not mean I owe you another).

Tommy De Seno

Salvatore Padula

Richard Fulmer: So, when does an embryo become a person? · 7 minutes ago

Legally at birth, as has been the case throughout history. Morally, I think that when an embryo carries the same moral significance as an infant is difficult question to answer. I would rule out the notion that a zygote is the moral equivalent and I would say that a viable fetus is clearly the equivalent. Between the two, I'm open to argument and I think we should err on the side of protecting life. · 5 minutes ago

How about you explain this "moral equivalent" business to me.  You seem to have some external factor, decided upon by other men, that values some humans over another.

Delve into that.  What is the factor?  Where did it originate from?  Who gets to be in control of it?

Tommy De Seno

Richard Fulmer

Salvatore Padula

Richard Fulmer

Salvatore Padula

Richard Fulmer

 

Saying that you are a libertarian and oppose abortion is not the same thing as saying that in order to be a libertarian it is necessary to oppose abortion. Are you making the claim that it is inherently impossible to be a libertarian who does not oppose abortion?

Yes.  Anyone can claimto be a libertarian, but no one who advocates initiating force against innocent human beings truly isa libertarian.

Agreed, but you seem to be saying that anyone who disagrees with the proposition that an embryo is a human being from the moment of conception cannot be a libertarian. Is that the case?

Maybe I've missed something.  I'm not aware of any serious person who argues that an embryo is not a human being.  Pro-choice advocates have been forced by science to admit that embryos are human.  Their argument has become that embryos aren't "persons."  For a response to this argument, see my original point: No one has the right to decide that a human being is not a "person" and therefore is not protected by the Constitution. · 3 minutes ago

Precisely.

Tommy De Seno

Salvatore Padula

Jojo

Salvatore Padula

Jojo

Tommy De Seno

Jojo

Tommy De Seno:

That's not quite fair. Technically, birth control which prevents the implantation of a fertalized egg isn't contraception. Someone who believes that human life begins at conception doesn't necessarily oppose methods which prevent conception from taking place. · 15 minutes ago

Some people do, that's why I asked, which seems fair to me.  From his answer apparently Tommy is among them.  · 4 minutes ago

I don't want to put words in Tommy's mouth (I'm actually hoping that he'll respond to our earlier conversation, but he seems to have given up), but I'm not sure he's said that he considers contraceptives to be murder. To me, he appeared to be referring to the use of birth control which operates on a fertalized egg. I could be wrong. · 12 minutes ago

Yes I was referring to contraceptives that work on fertilized eggs (it's a misnomer to call them contraceptives since conception has occurred - they are abortifacients - formally proscribed by the Hippocratic oath when it meant something).

And I would not use the word murder there.  Killing of a human baby.

Tommy De Seno

And JoJo the "reasonablist"  reference was not intended for you.  Sorry.  You seem completely reasonable.

I did try to think of a masculine counterpart to "feminist" and couldn't, so I made a silly joke with "reasonablist."

Tommy De Seno

Jojo

 

Do you want all forms of abortion, even contraceptives that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, made illegal? 

We have a full panoply of laws regarding homicide.  There will be no need to pass more.

Soooo a woman using contraception should face the same consequences as any other murderer, you say.

You're bringing out my inner feminist.

   Also only a lawyer would quibble over the difference  between homicide and murder in this context, and then insult the other party by suggesting they were unreasonable.   You did not really answer.  Should I rephrase?

JoJo there is a HUGE difference between homicide and murder, in every context.  It is set and subset.

Homicide encompasses every human on human killing, whether intentional, reckless, negligent or accidental. 

"Murder" is a legal construct and is only 1 of many forms of homicide.  Murder is a very particular definition of a certain behavior, said behavior being proscribed by a legislature and carrying parameters of punishment for violation.

Compare my shooting an armed intruder.  Still a homicide, but not the behavior proscribed by the murder statute (or at least its a listed exception).

All murder is a homicide, but not all homicide is murder.

Tommy De Seno

Jojo

 

Sounds like a logical stance, but I'm curious how it works out. What should the law be? Do you want all forms of abortion, even contraceptives that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, made illegal? What happens to a woman who uses them?  Is she fined?  Jailed? Sent for mandatory re-education?  I think this is the enforcement problem to which some have alluded. · 27 minutes ago

We have a full panoply of laws regarding homicide.  There will be no need to pass more. · 29 minutes ago

Soooo a woman using contraception should face the same consequences as any other murderer, you say.

You're bringing out my inner feminist. · 3 minutes ago

I did not say that.   Your question was about contraceptive post-fertilization.  Now you seem to be moving to pre-fertilization.

Also, I said, homicide.  You said murder.  That's an incredible narrowing of what I said.

If a father kills his baby he will go to jail.  But not the mother? 

You are bringing out my inner...whatever the male counterpart to feminist is.  Reasonablist? 

Tommy De Seno

Herbert Woodbery: We have a full panoply of laws regarding homicide. There will be no need to pass more.

What does this mean? In existing law abortion is legal and not deemed homicide. · 13 minutes ago

The question to me was about what should be, not what is.

And abortion isn't deemed by law "not homicide."  Homicide is a scientific word meaning one human killing another. 

Killing a baby human is homicide.  Under the current state of the law, it is not criminally actionable homicide so long as the killer is the mother or her doctor.  For anyone else, it is criminal homicide.

Edited on May 20, 2013 at 10:04pm
Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In