A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state's GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.
"The bill in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers."
The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one.
Jensen did not return calls to his home or his office requesting comment on the bill, which is cosponsored by 22 other state representatives and four state senators.
"The bill in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers," says Vicki Saporta, the president of the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion providers. Since 1993, eight doctors have been assassinated at the hands of anti-abortion extremists, and another 17 have been the victims of murder attempts. Some of the perpetrators of those crimes have tried to use the justifiable homicide defense at their trials. "This is not an abstract bill," Saporta says. The measure could have major implications if a "misguided extremist invokes this 'self-defense' statute to justify the murder of a doctor, nurse or volunteer," the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families warned in a message to supporters last week.
Advertise on MotherJones.com
The original version of the bill did not include the language regarding the "unborn child"; it was pitched as a simple clarification of South Dakota's justifiable homicide law. Last week, however, the bill was "hoghoused"—a term used in South Dakota for heavily amending legislation in committee—in a little-noticed hearing. A parade of right-wing groups—the Family Heritage Alliance, Concerned Women for America, the South Dakota branch of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, and a political action committee called Family Matters in South Dakota—all testified in favor of the amended version of the law.
Jensen, the bill's sponsor, has said that he simply intends to bring "consistency" to South Dakota's criminal code, which already allows prosecutors to charge people with manslaughter or murder for crimes that result in the death of fetuses. But there's a difference between counting the murder of a pregnant woman as two crimes—which is permissible under law in many states—and making the protection of a fetus an affirmative defense against a murder charge.
"They always intended this to be a fetal personhood bill, they just tried to cloak it as a self-defense bill," says Kristin Aschenbrenner, a lobbyist for South Dakota Advocacy Network for Women. "They're still trying to cloak it, but they amended it right away, making their intent clear." The major change to the legislation also caught abortion rights advocates off guard. "None of us really felt like we were prepared," she says.
Sara Rosenbaum, a law professor at George Washington University who frequently testifies before Congress about abortion legislation, says the bill is legally dubious. "It takes my breath away," she says in an email to Mother Jones. "Constitutionally, a state cannot make it a crime to perform a constitutionally lawful act."
South Dakota already has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, and one of the lowest abortion rates. Since 1994, there have been no providers in the state. Planned Parenthood flies a doctor in from out-of-state once a week to see patients at a Sioux Falls clinic. Women from the more remote parts of the large, rural state drive up to six hours to reach this lone clinic. And under state law women are then required to receive counseling and wait 24 hours before undergoing the procedure.
Before performing an abortion, a South Dakota doctor must offer the woman the opportunity to view a sonogram. And under a law passed in 2005, doctors are required to read a script meant to discourage women from proceeding with the abortion: "The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." Until recently, doctors also had to tell a woman seeking an abortion that she had "an existing relationship with that unborn human being" that was protected under the Constitution and state law and that abortion poses a "known medical risk" and "increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide." In August 2009, a US District Court Judge threw out those portions of the script, finding them "untruthful and misleading." The state has appealed the decision.
The South Dakota legislature has twice tried to ban abortion outright, but voters rejected the ban at the polls in 2006 and 2008, by a 12-point margin both times. Conservative lawmakers have since been looking to limit access any other way possible. "They seem to be taking an end run around that," says state Sen. Angie Buhl, a Democrat. "They recognize that people don't want a ban, so they are trying to seek a de facto ban by making it essentially impossible to access abortion services."
South Dakota's legislature is strongly tilted against abortion rights, which makes passing restrictions fairly easy. Just 19 of 70 House members and 5 of the 35 state senators are Democrats—and many of the Democrats also oppose abortion rights.
The law that would legalize killing abortion providers is just one of several measures under consideration in the state that would create more obstacles for a woman seeking an abortion. Another proposed law, House Bill 1217, would force women to undergo counseling at a Crisis Pregnancy Center (CPC) before they can obtain an abortion. CPCs are not regulated and are generally run by anti-abortion Christian groups and staffed by volunteers—not doctors or nurses—with the goal of discouraging women from having abortions.
A congressional investigation into CPCs in 2006 found that the centers often provide "false or misleading information about the health risks of an abortion"—alleging ties between abortion and breast cancer, negative impacts on fertility, and mental-health concerns. "This may advance the mission of the pregnancy resource centers, which are typically pro-life organizations dedicated to preventing abortion," the report concluded, "but it is an inappropriate public health practice." In a recent interview, state Rep. Roger Hunt, one of the bill's sponsors, acknowledged that its intent is to "drastically reduce" the number of abortions in South Dakota.
House Bill 1217 would also require women to wait 72 hours after counseling before they can go forward with the abortion, and would require the doctor to develop an analysis of "risk factors associated with abortion" for each woman—a provision that critics contend is intentionally vague and could expose providers to lawsuits. A similar measure passed in Nebraska last spring, but a federal judge threw it out it last July, arguing that it would "require medical providers to give untruthful, misleading and irrelevant information to patients" and would create "substantial, likely insurmountable, obstacles" to women who want abortions. Extending the wait time and requiring a woman to consult first with the doctor, then with the CPC, and then meet with the doctor again before she can undergo the procedure would add additional burdens for women—especially for women who work or who already have children.
The South Dakota bills reflect a broader national strategy on the part of abortion-rights opponents, says Elizabeth Nash, a public policy associate with the Guttmacher Institute, a federal reproductive health advocacy and research group. "They erect a legal barrier, another, and another," says Nash. "At what point do women say, 'I can't climb that mountain'? This is where we're getting to."
Wow. Anyone who complains that the "left wing" goes roundabout to get things passed needs to realize how bs everyone is. And yet again the right wing + violence stigma gets a nod.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You also have to be careful with the actual language. There are multiple states that have additional penalties for harming a fetus. They are designed to add crimes for injury to a baby when you injure the mother. This appears to go beyond that, but then again its a push piece so the veracity of it and the full law are...tenuous.
So what stops a woman going to the next state over for an abortion
I don't get why the state needs to regulate this, make it avalible, and if you don't want to use it, don't. I don't see why they should try to force there veiws on other people.
The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one.
If this is actually how the bill reads, then it seems as though a woman who tried to induce a miscarriage would also be open to justifiable homicide; which is just damn strange. So strange that I think that's probably not the whole story, though stranger bills have certainly passed legislative scrutiny.
FM Ninja 048 wrote:So what stops a woman going to the next state over for an abortion
I don't get why the state needs to regulate this, make it avalible, and if you don't want to use it, don't. I don't see why they should try to force there veiws on other people.
Some people believe that if there is "immorality" in the legal system that it will have negative supernatural impact. Basically anything bad that happens will get blamed on the boogey man because gays/abortion/pre-marital sex/drinking/drugs/a non-christian president. It's really rather annoying. When confronted about it, they sidestep what they actually believe, which should tell them how ridiculous it all really is.
The south part of their name is misleading to an outsider, as most states were split into "south" during the War called "Belligerent Unionist Lincon Lovers Starting Harm Inside Tennessee." Or Bull *&^%. The fact that it has "South" and is an over the top "red" state, is a sad random happenstance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The south part of their name is misleading to an outsider, as most states were split into "south" during the War called "Belligerent Unionist Lincon Lovers Starting Harm Inside Tennessee." Or Bull *&^%. The fact that it has "South" and is an over the top "red" state, is a sad random happenstance.
FM Ninja 048 wrote:So what stops a woman going to the next state over for an abortion
I don't get why the state needs to regulate this, make it avalible, and if you don't want to use it, don't. I don't see why they should try to force there veiws on other people.
Some people believe that if there is "immorality" in the legal system that it will have negative supernatural impact. Basically anything bad that happens will get blamed on the boogey man because gays/abortion/pre-marital sex/drinking/drugs/a non-christian president. It's really rather annoying. When confronted about it, they sidestep what they actually believe, which should tell them how ridiculous it all really is.
Way to slam billions of people there. Where's the Ayatollah of Iran to issue a fatwa for your head when we need him? LALALA!!
Ribon Fox wrote:And here I thought this is how the US sees the world
Wait, thats not accurate?
About as accurate as your (Hollywoods) take on history Pro-choice here, what a woman does to her bodie is her own business, not the goverments and most definitely not the churchs.
I'm not slamming them, more the belief that because certain things occur that it makes other, completely unrelated or unverifiable things occur. If enough people say it then the mob forms and people start to assume it's true.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Some people believe that if there is "immorality" in the legal system that it will have negative supernatural impact.
People with a Pro-Life agenda are not solely concerned about supernatural impacts (if at all) but also (or rather) legal, social, and even economic impacts. MotherJones makes a strong case against this law (wait, this is a news article?) but please don't pretend that people who disagree with you have no good reasons to do so.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Some people believe that if there is "immorality" in the legal system that it will have negative supernatural impact.
People with a Pro-Life agenda are not solely concerned about supernatural impacts (if at all) but also (or rather) legal, social, and even economic impacts. MotherJones makes a strong case against this law (wait, this is a news article?) but please don't pretend that people who disagree with you have no good reasons to do so.
Please quote where I said all people with a pro-life agenda believe that or that no other reasons (even legitimate ones) exist. I was merely trying to answer why some people "try to force their views" as the other poster asked. For the record, my mother is head of the board for an organization full of people with the belief I described so they do exist.
Ribon Fox wrote:And here I thought this is how the US sees the world
Wait, thats not accurate?
About as accurate as your (Hollywoods) take on history Pro-choice here, what a woman does to her bodie is her own business, not the goverments and most definitely not the churchs.
You think Hollywood is silly, you should see our textbooks!
Seriously though, if you don't legislate morality, the next thing you know, people will be acting on their base desires and might, you know, be content! Though alternative means not officially sanctioned by the church! GASP!
Since 1993, eight doctors have been assassinated at the hands of anti-abortion extremists, and another 17 have been the victims of murder attempts. Some of the perpetrators of those crimes have tried to use the justifiable homicide defense at their trials.
Bloody hell!
Does this bill actually stand a snowball's chance then? Because that's terrifying.
Wait... I just had a thought. So then, if it's legal to murder a doctor preparing to perform an abortion, because you're saving a life, would it be legal to murder an abortion doctor murderer because you're saving the doctor's life? Do you have to save the fetus at the same time? Can you murder both of them (the doctor and the hypothetical murderer) at the same time and it be justified?
I'm pretty sure that, through recursion, I can use this to justify killing all life (in South Dakota).
daedalus wrote:Wait... I just had a thought. So then, if it's legal to murder a doctor preparing to perform an abortion, because you're saving a life, would it be legal to murder an abortion doctor murderer because you're saving the doctor's life? (in South Dakota).
You can already do that most likely. The rule for self defense usually extends to those within physical range.
For example. Due to his insults certain clerics issue a fatwa against Cannerus. Frazzled, passing by to pick up a few metric tons of Dachshund Chow (TM), comes across certain persons attempting to instigate a manmade disaster upon Cannerus. Under many jurisidictions, Frazzled can unleash the full power of untamed weiner dogs to prevent Cannerus from being harmed in a lethal manner.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Please quote where I said all people with a pro-life agenda believe that or that no other reasons (even legitimate ones) exist. I was merely trying to answer why some people "try to force their views" as the other poster asked. For the record, my mother is head of the board for an organization full of people with the belief I described so they do exist.
Okay, I see the technical point there. But let me address it with a hypothetical: Person A asks "why do so many people like the Avatar movie" and Person B responds "some people believe they are actually Na'vi from Pandora trapped in human bodies." Undoubtedly, some tiny amount of people do like Avatar for that very reason. Does it explain in any way how the movie grossed almost three billion dollars? Not even remotely. The technical veracity of Person B's response does not make it any less misleading. Similarly, your response in this case is misleading. It's a piece of rhetoric whereby you associate a policy that you believe is totally unreasonable with a belief system that your audience will find totally unreasonable so as to confirm in the audience that the policy is unreasonable. It's exactly like saying Avatar is bad movie because some people like it based on their beliefs of being Na'vi trapped in human bodies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Does this bill actually stand a snowball's chance then? Because that's terrifying.
Given what MotherJones has to say about the political willpower of SD representatives regarding abortion, I'd say yes.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Please quote where I said all people with a pro-life agenda believe that or that no other reasons (even legitimate ones) exist. I was merely trying to answer why some people "try to force their views" as the other poster asked. For the record, my mother is head of the board for an organization full of people with the belief I described so they do exist.
Okay, I see the technical point there. But let me address it with a hypothetical: Person A asks "why do so many people like the Avatar movie" and Person B responds "some people believe they are actually Na'vi from Pandora trapped in human bodies." Undoubtedly, some tiny amount of people do like Avatar for that very reason. Does it explain in any way how the movie grossed almost three billion dollars? Not even remotely. The technical veracity of Person B's response does not make it any less misleading. Similarly, your response in this case is misleading. It's a piece of rhetoric whereby you associate a policy that you believe is totally unreasonable with a belief system that your audience will find totally unreasonable so as to confirm in the audience that the policy is unreasonable. It's exactly like saying Avatar is bad movie because some people like it based on their beliefs of being Na'vi trapped in human bodies.
'twas not my intention to mislead, I was merely trying to throw a viewpoint out there I wasn't even necessarily saying the bill was bad because of that reason, I was more relying on the fact that people get to kill other people as "common sense" to let it look bad all by itself. It's not the first time that my hyper-literal answers have been misunderstood nor will it be the last, I'm sure I typically say exactly what I mean.
Just be aware that proponents of these wacky laws love to be drawn out on arguments about the supernatural. The debate that inevitably results once their constituents have been suitably offended as to their religion provides excellent cover for introducing even wackier laws.
FM Ninja 048 wrote:So what stops a woman going to the next state over for an abortion
I don't get why the state needs to regulate this, make it avalible, and if you don't want to use it, don't. I don't see why they should try to force there veiws on other people.
Let's say that your friend is drunk. He wants to drive. If you give him his keys, there is a realistic danger that he might hurt somebody, or himself. If he does, do you not bear some measure of responsibility for his actions?
To extend this to abortion, many pro-life people see the fetus as having rights and value that mean that it should not be terminated, but rather, protected. Thus, they have the responsibility to do what they can to limit abortion; every abortion that occurs is one that could have been stopped.
Why they think that the fetus has rights and such varies from person to person, but mostly it's because of religion. And then you've got a double whammy, because one who performs an abortion or has one performed on them is committing a grievous sin. They need to be protected from themselves.
daedalus wrote:Wait... I just had a thought. So then, if it's legal to murder a doctor preparing to perform an abortion, because you're saving a life, would it be legal to murder an abortion doctor murderer because you're saving the doctor's life? Do you have to save the fetus at the same time? Can you murder both of them (the doctor and the hypothetical murderer) at the same time and it be justified?
I'm pretty sure that, through recursion, I can use this to justify killing all life (in South Dakota).
What if the abortion is being performed because to allow the foetus to come to term will threaten the mother's life?
I get that people can believe abortion is wrong. If you believe it is a human life and you want to protect human life, then it makes perfect sense. But I don't really get how those same people can have so little interest in protecting any life that isn't a foetus, to the point where they'd support expanding justifiable homicide against abortion doctors.
Meanwhile, all the talk of Americans being dumb reminds me of this;
Point is, we're all dumb, and most of us really, really don't know much about the world.
sebster wrote: But I don't really get how those same people can have so little interest in protecting any life that isn't a foetus, to the point where they'd support expanding justifiable homicide against abortion doctors.
Because, sebster, none of it is really about life or religion or dignity at all. It's a self-perpetuating industry of political power at top and a pattern of self-validation at the bottom.
Manchu wrote:Because, sebster, none of it is really about life or religion or dignity at all. It's a self-perpetuating industry of political power at top and a pattern of self-validation at the bottom.
I'd have gone for the much more direct 'it's about women getting what they deserve for sleeping around' thing, personally.
Not that that's the position of all anti-abortionists, I know folk that are anti-abortionist but they extend their values of protecting human life to all human life, not just the unborn kind. I don't agree with those people on abortion but I understand their view and I respect it. The folk that only appear to be worried about life when it's in the womb and are otherwise pro-war, or pro-this justifiable homicide law - feth those people.
On topic, I don't beleive this is write, and I doubt it will pass, even though I am pro-life.
I have always wondered, how differently things would be if this abortion debate had happened years ago and half of us were aborted by our parents. How many lives have each of us affected/been affected by? One girl I knew came from a family of bad people, drug users, alchohol problems, family abuse, the whole deal.... She saved my life, and her family is the sort where if abortion had been this popular back then, she wouldn't have been born....
If you won't settle for maps we also have multimedia learning formats.
This abortion law is quite silly, but only allows relatives to murder the doctor, however it probably means that the murder MUST be committed at the time the abortion is being carried out. Last time I checked a family member is not likely going to risk shooting another family member at the time. Killing the doctor after the murder or before the murder should still be illegal under this law and if the person murdering the doctor isn't related then its illegal outright.
So this law may be passed with some caveats in it, but as it stands now probably not.
Slarg232 wrote:I have always wondered, how differently things would be if this abortion debate had happened years ago and half of us were aborted by our parents.
grumblegrumblegrumble
Abortion existed before Roe, it will exist even after it. We still exist as a species even if we allow women to choose openly instead of behind closed doors.
Slarg232 wrote:On topic, I don't beleive this is write, and I doubt it will pass, even though I am pro-life.
I have always wondered, how differently things would be if this abortion debate had happened years ago and half of us were aborted by our parents. How many lives have each of us affected/been affected by? One girl I knew came from a family of bad people, drug users, alchohol problems, family abuse, the whole deal.... She saved my life, and her family is the sort where if abortion had been this popular back then, she wouldn't have been born....
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? How exactly is abortion supposed to be 'popular,' and you are, perhaps, aware that this isn't a modern invention, yes? If her family 'is the sort' like you say, then there was nothing stopping them from aborting her back back then. Anyways, it's a silly and pointless hypothetical, with about as much relevance to the discussion as, 'what if people had a 50% to spontaneously combust?' I don't know, the world would always smell like burning pork chops, but that doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand.
Slarg232 wrote:I have always wondered, how differently things would be if this abortion debate had happened years ago and half of us were aborted by our parents.
If half of us had been aborted we wouldn't be here to be part of the debate. That's kind of how abortion works.
Slarg232 wrote:I have always wondered, how differently things would be if this abortion debate had happened years ago and half of us were aborted by our parents.
If half of us had been aborted we wouldn't be here to be part of the debate. That's kind of how abortion works.
Well, duh.
One might suggest that the question that Slarg is asking is not what would have happened to the half of us that never existed, but what would have happened differently to the other half left alive.
While you lot argue the toss in a pc manner, ill state the obvious.
It's religions fault.
You find me a sensible person who isn't religious who thinks this is anywhere near acceptable and ill show you a fething liar.
The only people who feel strongly enough about this issue to murder actual living people, are the staggeringly hypocritical followers of the desert god.
My loathing for them knows no bounds.
If my daughter was off for an abortion and she was merely verbally abused by one of them, they'd need a doctor themselves, but for major facial reconstruction not an abortion.
Many normal people feel strongly about the abortion issue, but none behave in as murderous or as aggressive a manner as the shower of gak that harp on about Jesus.
On other websites there are discussions of the proposed law. Evidently, it doesn't cover abortion doctors as that is a legal act-illegal activities being the key.
I don't know, its a law for an issue that barely exists.
Slarg232 wrote:On topic, I don't beleive this is write, and I doubt it will pass, even though I am pro-life.
I have always wondered, how differently things would be if this abortion debate had happened years ago and half of us were aborted by our parents. How many lives have each of us affected/been affected by? One girl I knew came from a family of bad people, drug users, alchohol problems, family abuse, the whole deal.... She saved my life, and her family is the sort where if abortion had been this popular back then, she wouldn't have been born....
Meh. I was a genetic coinflip away from being aborted. I still fully support the choice to have one.
Slarg232 wrote:On topic, I don't beleive this is write, and I doubt it will pass, even though I am pro-life.
I have always wondered, how differently things would be if this abortion debate had happened years ago and half of us were aborted by our parents. How many lives have each of us affected/been affected by? One girl I knew came from a family of bad people, drug users, alchohol problems, family abuse, the whole deal.... She saved my life, and her family is the sort where if abortion had been this popular back then, she wouldn't have been born....
Meh. I was a genetic coinflip away from being aborted. I still fully support the choice to have one.
Yeah thats my point, surely we all could have been, the point is, you arent sentient when your a ten week old foetus, but you ARE sentient when you are a grown woman. Why does a blob of brainless goo have more importance than a 15 year old girl who got raped by her Dad, or even an 18 year old who simply doesnt want a kid because it going to feth her life up? They should ALWAYS have a right to choose. Why should it be anybodys decision other than the mothers? Possibly the fathers to some degree as well maybe, but nobody sees this issue as black and white other than the brainwashed adherants of Christianity, because their faith (apparently) demands it.
I can understand people being pro-life, but not to the point of utter stupidity as per the Religious zealot.
Seriously, there are many pro-lifers, lots of them, but do any of them other than the fething redneck Jebus freak think that they should be able to force a 14 year old recently raped incest victim should be FORCED into having a child? Its a grand nonsense. I hope they ban abortions in the USA and everyone starts finding babies bodies in dumpsters when they put the garbage out. Can they not understand that human beings are stubborn and dont like their hands being forced? All this gak does is increase ptentially lethal backalley abortions or have people dump their kids in a skip.
Nobody is saying abortion is "super awesome" but the heartbreaking decision should only be down to the person it actually involves, and I feel the same way about everything, euthanasia is another good example. If my mother is rotting from cancer and she wants to end it all with a pill, who the feth else does that involve other than her and my Dad?
Im really not happy with random fethers trying to force their rules onto me, it makes me very angry.
Didnt they just do a recent study and they catagorically proved that a foetus could feel nothing at all until at least 18 weeks or something?
Ill look into it when im not on my phone. Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.
But im a bastard. I also think that people who have been on wellfare for more than 2 years should be forcibly sterilised, and their still living children under 16 should be liquidized and fed to their parents.
mattyrm wrote:Didnt they just do a recent study and they catagorically proved that a foetus could feel nothing at all until at least 18 weeks or something?
Ill look into it when im not on my phone. Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.
But im a bastard. I also think that people who have been on wellfare for more than 2 years should be forcibly sterilised, and their still living children under 16 should be liquidized and fed to their parents.
So your point is when they give the appearance of feeling pain? So the law applies well then. What was your point again?
Kilkrazy wrote:What if the abortion is being performed because to allow the foetus to come to term will threaten the mother's life?
Why make the issue so one-sided?
If you accept that the fetus is a human life (even for purposes of this arguement), why do we allow the mother to kill the fetus to save her life, but don't allow the fetus to temporarily inconvenience the mother to save its own life?
mattyrm wrote:Didnt they just do a recent study and they catagorically proved that a foetus could feel nothing at all until at least 18 weeks or something?
Ill look into it when im not on my phone. Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.
But im a bastard. I also think that people who have been on wellfare for more than 2 years should be forcibly sterilised, and their still living children under 16 should be liquidized and fed to their parents.
So people with congenital analgesia are less important than people without it?
mattyrm wrote:Didnt they just do a recent study and they catagorically proved that a foetus could feel nothing at all until at least 18 weeks or something?
Ill look into it when im not on my phone. Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.
But im a bastard. I also think that people who have been on wellfare for more than 2 years should be forcibly sterilised, and their still living children under 16 should be liquidized and fed to their parents.
So people with congenital analgesia are less important than people without it?
Kilkrazy wrote:What if the abortion is being performed because to allow the foetus to come to term will threaten the mother's life?
Why make the issue so one-sided?
If you accept that the fetus is a human life (even for purposes of this arguement), why do we allow the mother to kill the fetus to save her life, but don't allow the fetus to temporarily inconvenience the mother to save its own life?
Because, assuming you're in your right mind, nobody has the right to force you to do anything to your body that you don't consent to. If you're the only person who can donate marrow to save someone's life, you cannot and should not be forced to donate it. Why should a fetus be given greater power than someone already extant?*
*Depending on where you live, the preceding may or may not be true.
Kilkrazy wrote:What if the abortion is being performed because to allow the foetus to come to term will threaten the mother's life?
Why make the issue so one-sided?
If you accept that the fetus is a human life (even for purposes of this arguement), why do we allow the mother to kill the fetus to save her life, but don't allow the fetus to temporarily inconvenience the mother to save its own life?
Actually I was making a joke to point out the absurdity of the proposed law.
I don't accept that the foetus is a human life.
However, accepting that it is for the sake of the argument, then I don't see the equality of a situation in which to allow a foetus to come to term will medically threaten the mother, and a situation in which it won't. Apart from anything, the foetus which kills its mother will be in danger of dying itself, owing to the removal of her life support function.
Nearly 1% of abortions are carried out after the 24 week limit and are usually due to this sort of medical situation.
mattyrm wrote:Didnt they just do a recent study and they catagorically proved that a foetus could feel nothing at all until at least 18 weeks or something?
Ill look into it when im not on my phone. Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.
But im a bastard. I also think that people who have been on wellfare for more than 2 years should be forcibly sterilised, and their still living children under 16 should be liquidized and fed to their parents.
So people with congenital analgesia are less important than people without it?
mattyrm wrote:While you lot argue the toss in a pc manner, ill state the obvious.
It's religions fault.
You find me a sensible person who isn't religious who thinks this is anywhere near acceptable and ill show you a fething liar.
The only people who feel strongly enough about this issue to murder actual living people, are the staggeringly hypocritical followers of the desert god.
My loathing for them knows no bounds.
If my daughter was off for an abortion and she was merely verbally abused by one of them, they'd need a doctor themselves, but for major facial reconstruction not an abortion.
Many normal people feel strongly about the abortion issue, but none behave in as murderous or as aggressive a manner as the shower of gak that harp on about Jesus.
We're all fed up with you blaming anything you don't like on religion and tarring everyone with the same brush.
There are plenty of religious people who don't think this law is an acceptable idea.
... I appreciate that people are somewhat polarised on this/related issues, I would suggest perhaps counting to 10 and rereading what you're about to post before hitting submit.
We have, odds be damned, managed some semblance of discussion on serious, even some non zombie/WW II related (!), topics at times here, I've every faith...well.... small hope would be more accurate but... what the hell.. that we could even manage it again if, you know, we all try. Together. Like some crazed suicide and destruction driven cult.
..err... perhaps not like that exactly anyway, but I'm sure you get the idea.
It sure would be nice though if we could avoid making massive sweeping statements about people's faith/lack thereof/ people's general morals and intelligence and setting up only tangentially related arguments then.
At least try and focus your incandescent rage eh folks.
mattyrm wrote:Didnt they just do a recent study and they catagorically proved that a foetus could feel nothing at all until at least 18 weeks or something?
Ill look into it when im not on my phone. Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.
But im a bastard. I also think that people who have been on wellfare for more than 2 years should be forcibly sterilised, and their still living children under 16 should be liquidized and fed to their parents.
So people with congenital analgesia are less important than people without it?
That's a nice straw man you've got there.
It seems like a logical extension of the bolded.
Well if you paid attention to what you bolded, you'd have notice that he specified non-living people. (well, technically none living, but I'm assuming that he meant non-living) I'm pretty sure individuals with congenital analgesia would fall into the category of "living".
Kilkrazy wrote:What if the abortion is being performed because to allow the foetus to come to term will threaten the mother's life?
Why make the issue so one-sided?
If you accept that the fetus is a human life (even for purposes of this arguement), why do we allow the mother to kill the fetus to save her life, but don't allow the fetus to temporarily inconvenience the mother to save its own life?
Because, assuming you're in your right mind, nobody has the right to force you to do anything to your body that you don't consent to. If you're the only person who can donate marrow to save someone's life, you cannot and should not be forced to donate it. Why should a fetus be given greater power than someone already extant?*
*Depending on where you live, the preceding may or may not be true.
Really? Vaccinations are generally mandatory. Judges can and do force procedures on children against their parents' wishes. etc. etc.
mattyrm wrote:Didnt they just do a recent study and they catagorically proved that a foetus could feel nothing at all until at least 18 weeks or something?
Ill look into it when im not on my phone. Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.
But im a bastard. I also think that people who have been on wellfare for more than 2 years should be forcibly sterilised, and their still living children under 16 should be liquidized and fed to their parents.
So people with congenital analgesia are less important than people without it?
That's a nice straw man you've got there.
It seems like a logical extension of the bolded.
Well if you paid attention to what you bolded, you'd have notice that he specified non-living people. (well, technically none living, but I'm assuming that he meant non-living) I'm pretty sure individuals with congenital analgesia would fall into the category of "living".
I'm sure it'll freak you out to discover that a fetus is alive.
Frazzled wrote:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Because, assuming you're in your right mind, nobody has the right to force you to do anything to your body that you don't consent to. If you're the only person who can donate marrow to save someone's life, you cannot and should not be forced to donate it. Why should a fetus be given greater power than someone already extant?*
*Depending on where you live, the preceding may or may not be true.
Really? Vaccinations are generally mandatory. Judges can and do force procedures on children against their parents' wishes. etc. etc.
On children, yes, who have no capacity to consent to anything legally anyway.
Kilkrazy wrote:What if the abortion is being performed because to allow the foetus to come to term will threaten the mother's life?
Why make the issue so one-sided?
If you accept that the fetus is a human life (even for purposes of this arguement), why do we allow the mother to kill the fetus to save her life, but don't allow the fetus to temporarily inconvenience the mother to save its own life?
Because, assuming you're in your right mind, nobody has the right to force you to do anything to your body that you don't consent to. If you're the only person who can donate marrow to save someone's life, you cannot and should not be forced to donate it. Why should a fetus be given greater power than someone already extant?*
*Depending on where you live, the preceding may or may not be true.
Really? Vaccinations are generally mandatory. Judges can and do force procedures on children against their parents' wishes. etc. etc.
But yea I think we've got the essential issue that is the issue. When does life quantify as being sufficient to be protected as a human? Literally everything except the brightline standard of (protected level) life begins at life is a slippery slope.
Inception, medical viability, Matty's pain theory, all are differing standards, and all except the first one ebb and flow with our understanding of technology.
mattyrm wrote:While you lot argue the toss in a pc manner, ill state the obvious.
It's religions fault.
You find me a sensible person who isn't religious who thinks this is anywhere near acceptable and ill show you a fething liar.
The only people who feel strongly enough about this issue to murder actual living people, are the staggeringly hypocritical followers of the desert god.
My loathing for them knows no bounds.
If my daughter was off for an abortion and she was merely verbally abused by one of them, they'd need a doctor themselves, but for major facial reconstruction not an abortion.
Many normal people feel strongly about the abortion issue, but none behave in as murderous or as aggressive a manner as the shower of gak that harp on about Jesus.
We're all fed up with you blaming anything you don't like on religion and tarring everyone with the same brush.
There are plenty of religious people who don't think this law is an acceptable idea.
Of course there are, I never said there wasnt, or presumed that was the case.
I know lots of normal healthy Religious people, ones that dont ram it incessantly down your throat are far more common than ones who do.
What i said was, the people that are super aggressive and murderous about it (George Tillers killer was) are almost always strongly religious. They are.
Why are you fed up with it? Why does it upset you so much?
mattyrm wrote:Didnt they just do a recent study and they catagorically proved that a foetus could feel nothing at all until at least 18 weeks or something?
Ill look into it when im not on my phone. Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.
But im a bastard. I also think that people who have been on wellfare for more than 2 years should be forcibly sterilised, and their still living children under 16 should be liquidized and fed to their parents.
So people with congenital analgesia are less important than people without it?
That's a nice straw man you've got there.
It seems like a logical extension of the bolded.
Well if you paid attention to what you bolded, you'd have notice that he specified non-living people. (well, technically none living, but I'm assuming that he meant non-living) I'm pretty sure individuals with congenital analgesia would fall into the category of "living".
I'm sure it'll freak you out to discover that a fetus is alive.
Slarg232 wrote:I have always wondered, how differently things would be if this abortion debate had happened years ago and half of us were aborted by our parents.
If half of us had been aborted we wouldn't be here to be part of the debate. That's kind of how abortion works.
Well, duh.
One might suggest that the question that Slarg is asking is not what would have happened to the half of us that never existed, but what would have happened differently to the other half left alive.
Yes, exactly. It has plenty of relevence to the topic, and I do know what I am talking about (sometimes).
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Because, assuming you're in your right mind, nobody has the right to force you to do anything to your body that you don't consent to. If you're the only person who can donate marrow to save someone's life, you cannot and should not be forced to donate it. Why should a fetus be given greater power than someone already extant?*
*Depending on where you live, the preceding may or may not be true.
That isn't true anywhere. Anywhere there is a government, you are limited in what you can do. Want to smoke in your office? The government can (and has in many places) stop that. Recreational or self-prescribed medicines? Nope. Accept a loan with a high interest rate? Can't do that either. Heck, in the US you can't even make your own liquor.
Also, I am not advocating giving a fetus greater power. In fact, it is lesser power. If moms life is threatened (by medical reasons), she can kill the fetus. If the fetus' life is threatened (essentially by homicide), he has the right not to be killed. Very lopsided in fact.
Kilkrazy wrote:I don't accept that the foetus is a human life
Do you not accept that it is human or do you not accept that it is alive?
BTW, I think that Roe was wrongly decided (for a number of reasons) and that states should be able to decide the issue themselves. I would vote against abortion laws because:
1) They are inherently discriminatory; and
2) Taking a life is immoral, especially if the victim can't dispute the taking.
rubiksnoob wrote:Well if you paid attention to what you bolded, you'd have notice that he specified non-living people. (well, technically none living, but I'm assuming that he meant non-living) I'm pretty sure individuals with congenital analgesia would fall into the category of "living".
I'm sure it'll freak you out to discover that a fetus is alive.
As are people with congenital analgesia.
I'm actually aware of that. I don't know if you think I'm not, or something.
Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.
The point of differentiation as regards importance is the ability to feel, not the being alive, because, as we agree, fetuses are alive.
It follows that without further qualification, anyone with congenital analgesia is less important because they can't feel.
mattyrm wrote:While you lot argue the toss in a pc manner, ill state the obvious.
It's religions fault.
You find me a sensible person who isn't religious who thinks this is anywhere near acceptable and ill show you a fething liar.
The only people who feel strongly enough about this issue to murder actual living people, are the staggeringly hypocritical followers of the desert god.
My loathing for them knows no bounds.
If my daughter was off for an abortion and she was merely verbally abused by one of them, they'd need a doctor themselves, but for major facial reconstruction not an abortion.
Many normal people feel strongly about the abortion issue, but none behave in as murderous or as aggressive a manner as the shower of gak that harp on about Jesus.
We're all fed up with you blaming anything you don't like on religion and tarring everyone with the same brush.
There are plenty of religious people who don't think this law is an acceptable idea.
Of course there are, I never said there wasnt, or presumed that was the case.
I know lots of normal healthy Religious people, ones that dont ram it incessantly down your throat are far more common than ones who do.
What i said was, the people that are super aggressive and murderous about it (George Tillers killer was) are almost always strongly religious. They are.
Why are you fed up with it? Why does it upset you so much?
Because:
1. You have become like a broken record which always jumps back to the same place and repeats itself.
2. Everyone religious isn't the same. When you go on about hypocritical followers of the desert god or whatever, you are being rude to a lot of people including fellow forum members.
3. It doesn't in any way help advance the debate or solve the problem.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Because, assuming you're in your right mind, nobody has the right to force you to do anything to your body that you don't consent to. If you're the only person who can donate marrow to save someone's life, you cannot and should not be forced to donate it. Why should a fetus be given greater power than someone already extant?*
*Depending on where you live, the preceding may or may not be true.
That isn't true anywhere. Anywhere there is a government, you are limited in what you can do. Want to smoke in your office? The government can (and has in many places) stop that. Recreational or self-prescribed medicines? Nope. Accept a loan with a high interest rate? Can't do that either. Heck, in the US you can't even make your own liquor.
You've either misread my post, or you're conflating the concept of not being allowed to do something to your body with being forced to do something to your body. They are two separate things, and not a one of the examples you listed is the latter.
biccat wrote:Also, I am not advocating giving a fetus greater power. In fact, it is lesser power. If moms life is threatened (by medical reasons), she can kill the fetus. If the fetus' life is threatened (essentially by homicide), he has the right not to be killed. Very lopsided in fact.
Reread my post. The extant person that I'm talking about is the guy who needs the marrow.
biccat wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:I don't accept that the foetus is a human life
Do you not accept that it is human or do you not accept that it is alive?
BTW, I think that Roe was wrongly decided (for a number of reasons) and that states should be able to decide the issue themselves. I would vote against abortion laws because:
1) They are inherently discriminatory; and
2) Taking a life is immoral, especially if the victim can't dispute the taking.
rubiksnoob wrote:Well if you paid attention to what you bolded, you'd have notice that he specified non-living people. (well, technically none living, but I'm assuming that he meant non-living) I'm pretty sure individuals with congenital analgesia would fall into the category of "living".
I'm sure it'll freak you out to discover that a fetus is alive.
As are people with congenital analgesia.
I'm actually aware of that. I don't know if you think I'm not, or something.
Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.
The point of differentiation as regards importance is the ability to feel, not the being alive, because, as we agree, fetuses are alive.
It follows that without further qualification, anyone with congenital analgesia is less important because they can't feel.
What mattrym stated was that living people who can feel are more important than NON-LIVING people who can't. So going on that statement alone, you cannot justifiably state that according to that statement individuals afflicted with congenital analgesia are less important. Saying so would be wrong because, although they cannot feel, they are alive.
Ok, well.. ill give you number 3 in this instance.
As for number 1, thats totally false, I dont start on about Religion when were talking about footy or movies or anything else. I only mention the big R when it is pertinent to the conversation, and yes, it most definately is pertinent to this conversation.
Seriously, are do you wanna bet that practically all the people that are attepting to have this gak pushed are NOT religiously motivated? You would lose your money mate.
rubiksnoob wrote:Well if you paid attention to what you bolded, you'd have notice that he specified non-living people. (well, technically none living, but I'm assuming that he meant non-living) I'm pretty sure individuals with congenital analgesia would fall into the category of "living".
I'm sure it'll freak you out to discover that a fetus is alive.
As are people with congenital analgesia.
I'm actually aware of that. I don't know if you think I'm not, or something.
Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.
The point of differentiation as regards importance is the ability to feel, not the being alive, because, as we agree, fetuses are alive.
It follows that without further qualification, anyone with congenital analgesia is less important because they can't feel.
What mattrym stated was that living people who can feel are more important than NON-LIVING people who can't. So going on that statement alone, you cannot justifiably state that according to that statement individuals afflicted with congenital analgesia are less important. Saying so would be wrong because, although they cannot feel, they are alive.
Is a fetus alive or not alive?
If a fetus is alive, then by your interpretation mattrym's post was utterly meaningless.
By mine, it has some semblance of meaning.
Given the context of the quote, where he talks about the ability to feel, i'm disclined to say that that the substantive part of the comparison is whether or not you're alive.
Its relevant is all im saying. Its the number one reason for this bill existing. Im absolutely certain of it, ergo, how can i not mention it?
I dont wax lyrical on the subject all the time, it just crops up alot in politics because people base their political motivations around their beliefs.
WARLORD TZOO wrote:You've either misread my post, or you're conflating the concept of not being allowed to do something to your body with being forced to do something to your body. They are two separate things, and not a one of the examples you listed is the latter.
Actually, abortion fits neatly into the first catagory. The government (assuming it prohibits abortion) is not forcing an action, but rather prohibiting one. Just because I can argue that the government can't force me to stay sober doesn't make consuming heroin a civil right.
Marrow donation (or any other kind of donation) on the other hand would require me to undergo a procedure that I don't want. It is not a natural consequence that I'm asking to avoid, but a forced procedure that requires my consent.
WARLORD TZOO wrote:You're vegan, right?
Should have said HUMAN life. I firmly believe in human superiority on the food chain. And when something disputes that, I support our ability to commit lots of fast moving metal to enforce our position.
rubiksnoob wrote:Well if you paid attention to what you bolded, you'd have notice that he specified non-living people. (well, technically none living, but I'm assuming that he meant non-living) I'm pretty sure individuals with congenital analgesia would fall into the category of "living".
I'm sure it'll freak you out to discover that a fetus is alive.
As are people with congenital analgesia.
I'm actually aware of that. I don't know if you think I'm not, or something.
Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.
The point of differentiation as regards importance is the ability to feel, not the being alive, because, as we agree, fetuses are alive.
It follows that without further qualification, anyone with congenital analgesia is less important because they can't feel.
What mattrym stated was that living people who can feel are more important than NON-LIVING people who can't. So going on that statement alone, you cannot justifiably state that according to that statement individuals afflicted with congenital analgesia are less important. Saying so would be wrong because, although they cannot feel, they are alive.
Is a fetus alive or not alive?
If a fetus is alive, then by your interpretation mattrym's post was utterly meaningless.
By mine, it has some semblance of meaning.
Given the context of the quote, where he talks about the ability to feel, i'm disclined to say that that the substantive part of the comparison is whether or not you're alive.
Well given matty's posts on the issue, it would seem that he believes that a fetus is not alive, thus his statement that living, feeling individuals are more important than non-living, non-feeling ones. In this context, your statement that individuals with congental analgesia are thus less important makes no sense because they are alive, which cleary disqualifies them from the "non-feeling, non-living" category. Matty's statement does not apply to people with congenital analgesia.
WARLORD TZOO wrote:You've either misread my post, or you're conflating the concept of not being allowed to do something to your body with being forced to do something to your body. They are two separate things, and not a one of the examples you listed is the latter.
Actually, abortion fits neatly into the first catagory.
No, it doesn't, any more than pulling the plug on your life support does. If the government prohibits abortion, it forces women to act as incubators. In doing so, it forces them to provide nutrients to a fetus.
biccat wrote:The government (assuming it prohibits abortion) is not forcing an action, but rather prohibiting one.
If the government prohibits abortion, it forces women to act as incubators. In doing so, it forces them to provide nutrients to a fetus.
biccat wrote:Just because I can argue that the government can't force me to stay sober doesn't make consuming heroin a civil right.
The only reason the government can't force you to stay sober is because it doesn't have the power to do so, not because it's legally dubious. Go back in time a few decades and look at prohibition.
biccat wrote:Marrow donation (or any other kind of donation) on the other hand would require me to undergo a procedure that I don't want. It is not a natural consequence that I'm asking to avoid, but a forced procedure that requires my consent.
If consent isn't required to force a woman to provide nutrients to a fetus, why should consent be required to force you to provide marrow to someone who will die without it? What's the difference?
biccat wrote:
Do you not accept that it is human or do you not accept that it is alive?
BTW, I think that Roe was wrongly decided (for a number of reasons) and that states should be able to decide the issue themselves. I would vote against abortion laws because:
1) They are inherently discriminatory; and
2) Taking a life is immoral, especially if the victim can't dispute the taking.
This probably makes me a religious nutter.
I don't agree with you, but I don't think you're a religous nutter. You have a point, and given that it's not based around some kind of rant about how humans shouldn't dare play God, I doubt you're the type of radical that annoys most people so much.
But yes, my point of contention with you is twofold:
1) How is an abortion law inherently discriminatory? There is nothing in a law allowing abortion that would imply discrimination against anyone for any reason as far as I can tell. Care to elaborate more on this point?
2) I don't believe that killing is immoral in and of itself. As the saying goes, if you let me control the subjective scales, I can give you a moral responsibility to do anything. The taking away of a human life is not necessarily an evil, sometimes the taking of a life can be a good thing. It all depends on the circumstances.
Just for the record, I'd never contes that the fetus is 'alive'. Of course it's alive. However, I question whether or not it is a human life. It may be made out of human cells, but so are your internal organs, and since alcohol and tobacco use are still legal, we seem to have agreed that humans have the right to screw up their own bodies. The fetus does not display any traits of independence beyond that of just any other clump of cells within a human body. FOr me, personally, the line at which this changes, and fetus changes from a mindless ball of cells into a human life is when the fetus is capable of survivng outside the womb. Yes, it may need life support, but if we took it out right now and tried to get it to live, there is a chance it could survive outside the womb, and grow up into a fully functional human being. To me, that is the line at which a new human life is created.
Slarg232 wrote:You know, the one thing I hate about the whole abortion deal is: Why doesn't the father have any say in it? It's his kid too...
... or is this just a secret, uber-feminist political move to screw men out of even more stuff?
I mean, sure, it's her body, but still....
How much say do you think men should have? What legal force should their wishes be supported with?
rubiksnoob wrote:Well given matty's posts on the issue, it would seem that he believes that a fetus is not alive, thus his statement that living, feeling individuals are more important than non-living, non-feeling ones.
Then he's so misinformed on the subject that his opinion is meaningless, so why do you care what I'm saying about it?
Further, you're wrong. There's no logical connection between "fetuses are not alive" and "feeling beings are more important than non-feeling beings".
rubiksnoob wrote:In this context, your statement that individuals with congental analgesia are thus less important makes no sense because they are alive, which cleary disqualifies them from the "non-feeling, non-living" category. Matty's statement does not apply to people with congenital analgesia.
If you don't understand what I'm saying after this, you never will, so this is the last reply you'll get from me:
The important part of the comparison is not whether you are alive or dead, it is whether or not you can feel.
mattyrm wrote:Didnt they just do a recent study and they catagorically proved that a foetus could feel nothing at all until at least 18 weeks or something?
Ill look into it when im not on my phone. Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.
But im a bastard. I also think that people who have been on wellfare for more than 2 years should be forcibly sterilised, and their still living children under 16 should be liquidized and fed to their parents.
WARLORD TZOO wrote:If the government prohibits abortion, it forces women to act as incubators. In doing so, it forces them to provide nutrients to a fetus.
It appears that you support abortion on the grounds that one person cannot be forced to provide for another, is this correct?
First, the mother is not in this position involuntarily (ignoring for the moment rape cases which make up a small minority of cases). She is at least as responsible for becoming pregnant as the father.
Second, you are affording a right to the mother that is not afforded to the father. The mother can not be "an incubator" for 9 months, but the father has to pay child support for 18+ years.
Finally, it is not government action to allow someone to reap the consequences of their actions. This is not "anti-woman", because the father likewise has consequences to his actions. The difference between forced marrow donation and prohibited abortion is very real. One is a consequence that you can avoid (by avoiding related activities) and the other is not. Absent government intervention (or voluntary acts), there is no conceivable series of events that would cause me to donate bone marrow.
And to be clear, there should be exceptions for rape, despite it being abhorrant, due to the lack of consentual activity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChrisWWII wrote:1) How is an abortion law inherently discriminatory? There is nothing in a law allowing abortion that would imply discrimination against anyone for any reason as far as I can tell. Care to elaborate more on this point?
2) I don't believe that killing is immoral in and of itself. As the saying goes, if you let me control the subjective scales, I can give you a moral responsibility to do anything. The taking away of a human life is not necessarily an evil, sometimes the taking of a life can be a good thing. It all depends on the circumstances.
1) It gives women an out from pregnancy that is unavailable to a man.
2) There is no absolute morality without a moral authority. But "don't murder people" is a pretty widely accepted moral tenet.
WARLORD TZOO wrote:If the government prohibits abortion, it forces women to act as incubators. In doing so, it forces them to provide nutrients to a fetus.
It appears that you support abortion on the grounds that one person cannot be forced to provide for another, is this correct?
First, the mother is not in this position involuntarily (ignoring for the moment rape cases which make up a small minority of cases). She is at least as responsible for becoming pregnant as the father.
Second, you are affording a right to the mother that is not afforded to the father. The mother can not be "an incubator" for 9 months, but the father has to pay child support for 18+ years.
First, consent does not exist in perpetuity. If you are having sex, and your partner tells you to stop, and you do not, it is rape, even if they previously said yes. Why should consent to sex equate to consent to pregnancy?
Second, I do not support mandatory child support. However, two wrongs don't make a right.
biccat wrote:Finally, it is not government action to allow someone to reap the consequences of their actions. This is not "anti-woman", because the father likewise has consequences to his actions. The difference between forced marrow donation and prohibited abortion is very real. One is a consequence that you can avoid (by avoiding related activities) and the other is not. Absent government intervention (or voluntary acts), there is no conceivable series of events that would cause me to donate bone marrow.
The natural consequence of being in a car is being in a car crash. It wouldn't be government action for the government to ban treatment of car crash victims, you say?
The natural consequence of being in the sun is cancer. It wouldn't be government etc.
Would it also not be government action to ban the pill?
biccat wrote:And to be clear, there should be exceptions for rape, despite it being abhorrant, due to the lack of consentual activity.
And in giving exceptions for rape, you're either forcing women make a charge against their rapists, which is something that they might well like to avoid given that it can be extremely traumatic and has an exceptionally low conviction rate (largely because in many instances it's simply hesaid-shesaid), or you're giving the law no real force, because any woman who wants an abortion can simply say that she was raped.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:2) There is no absolute morality without a moral authority. But "don't murder people" is a pretty widely accepted moral tenet.
This crap can go on forever, Im sure half of you know it as soon as you type it. If a gakky thumb sized fetus is as important as the mother, why are rats or squirrels not protected?
They can feel pain, they are sentient, they have a more obvious intellect, they are more active and more animated than a blob with no nerve endings.
Yes, we were all one genetic disorder away from abortion unless our parents were in a third world country or religious nuts.
Would you suggest that all parents who produce children with Down should be forced to carry the child to term? What about Angelman syndrome? Or some other disease or genetic defect beyond their control? What about 48, XXYY syndrome? Turner syndrome? Leukemia? Uniparental disomy? Aneuploidy? One of the thousands of unknown and unnamed genetic defects? So who's going to pay for the care of all of these children with their genetic disorders, most of whom have learning disorders at the very LEAST and often have other physiological or psychological effects causing them to be unstable?
That's not to say that the actual tests on the baby's genetics themselves don't have a chance ot cause the child to miscarry (IE, abortion).
I don't think that parents should have a right to kill children who have genetic defects or other diseases. At what point something is a ball of sells instead of a child is another matter (I tend to agree with mattyrm on it but, sadly, technology has invalidated the faculty of common sense).
Manchu wrote:I don't think that parents should have a right to kill children who have genetic defects or other diseases. At what point something is a ball of sells instead of a child is another matter (I tend to agree with mattyrm on it but, sadly, technology has invalidated the faculty of common sense).
So you can care for the children with defects then, right? Or pay for it in the case of hte government.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:How do we know that a woman was raped?
Again with the word games. By "know," I mean accept as "more likely than not," as "a reasonable conclusion." Of course, we have to look to legal standards. If a particular law says that rape involves a certain degree of physical violence, then we look for the signs of that violence. If a law says that rape is when a woman does not actively consent, then all we need is her post-facto analysis of whether or not she wanted to have sex. As was mentioned my Shuma in another thread, the real problem here is with the definition of rape.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Manchu wrote:I don't think that parents should have a right to kill children who have genetic defects or other diseases. At what point something is a ball of sells instead of a child is another matter (I tend to agree with mattyrm on it but, sadly, technology has invalidated the faculty of common sense).
So you can care for the children with defects then, right? Or pay for it in the case of hte government.
Kids without diseases are expensive, too. I guess we shouldn't even talk about whether a (prospective?) child has any genetic defects if the real concern is the expense.
There is a point at which a ball of cells becomes a "human being" and it is generally established that most western nations which permit the use of abortion to terminate unwanted pregnancies (for whatever reason) have set the latest stage you can abort at or around that point (with certain exceptions as mentioned such as if the mother will be in terminal danger if the pregnancy is allowed to continue). This is determined as scientifically as possible and is based off many different lines of research.
I would be inclined to agree with this view.
The extreme other side of the coin would be the old "every sperm is sacred"/"birth control is murder" argument, which I don't really understand.
Also as mentioned earlier, I don't really get people who are willing to violently (to the extent of murder/etc) the who espouse "pro life" viewpoint. This also goes for animal rights activists who kill/harm/etc people involved with animal testing.
SilverMK2 wrote:The extreme other side of the coin would be the old "every sperm is sacred"/"birth control is murder" argument, which I don't really understand.
Don't worry, there is no need to understand something that's only parody.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:How do we know that a woman was raped?
Again with the word games. By "know," I mean accept as "more likely than not," as "a reasonable conclusion." Of course, we have to look to legal standards. If a particular law says that rape involves a certain degree of physical violence, then we look for the signs of that violence.
So then the woman asks her partner to rough her up a little so that she doesn't have to carry to term.
Manchu wrote:If a law says that rape is when a woman does not actively consent, then all we need is her post-facto analysis of whether or not she wanted to have sex.
Making the law effectively toothless.
Manchu wrote:As was mentioned my Shuma in another thread, the real problem here is with the definition of rape.
I don't see how that's the real problem, but okay.
Melissia wrote:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Manchu wrote:Having thought that second-to-last one out a bit, we don't actually need to know who raped a woman to know that she was raped.
How do we know that a woman was raped?
How do you know that someone who fell from a skyscraper was committing suicide instead of having been murdered?
What medical procedure is contingent on knowing whether or not Sue E. Cidey was pushed?
Manchu wrote:I don't think that parents should have a right to kill children who have genetic defects or other diseases. At what point something is a ball of sells instead of a child is another matter (I tend to agree with mattyrm on it but, sadly, technology has invalidated the faculty of common sense).
So you can care for the children with defects then, right? Or pay for it in the case of hte government.
Kids without diseases are expensive, too. I guess we shouldn't even talk about whether a (prospective?) child has any genetic defects if the real concern is the expense.
The expense is part of the issue. Not the entire issue, but it's there like the rhino in the living room. Just speaking on that particular issue and no other one (nevermind the actual ethics of the situation) for this particular argument. A devil's advocate if you will.
Who pays for the child's care? When the child's guardians die, who cares for the child then? Because quite a few genetic disorders mean that they will always be children, their entire lives-- up until death by old age. Learning disabilities of various severity are by far the most common side effects of these disorders. So when the parents die, what happens to the child then? They're twenty seven with a birth defect that prevents them from aging mentally past age seven, they'll never be productive members of society, the government will not earn any of that money back as it is not an investment. Even if the child lucks out and the learning disorder isn't as severe as it could be, they'll still have problems-- people with low academic achievement, with learning disabilities and the like, are more likely to become criminals (an estimated twenty to fifty five percent, depending on the definition used for learning disorder, of criminal justice clients qualify as having some form of learning disorder-- quite an astounding amount even at the smallest number)..
Kilkrazy wrote:I don't accept that the foetus is a human life
Do you not accept that it is human or do you not accept that it is alive?
I do not accept that a foetus is a human. I believe it is an entity that has the capacity to become a human and gradually grows up to fulfil that capacity during gestation.
A foetus is alive in the sense that my foot is alive. If I cut my foot off it would die. If the foetus is deprived of the protection of the mother’s body, it will die.
The 24 week limit (used as a time limit in most countries that allow abortion) was chosen partly because after this time the foetus shows signs of mentation and begins to have some capability of survival independent of its mother. In other words, around the 24 week time, the foetus changes from being a pre-human foetus to being a potentially premature baby.
biccat wrote:[
1) It gives women an out from pregnancy that is unavailable to a man.
2) There is no absolute morality without a moral authority. But "don't murder people" is a pretty widely accepted moral tenet.
1) There are lots of birth control features that only work within specific genders. Saying that abortion is discriminatory because it doesn't work for both genders is the equivalent of saying that birth control pills, morning after pills and condoms are discriminatory.
2) I would even question that. Like I said, if you let me screw with the circumstances, I can create a situation where it is moral to torture and murder a 3 year old child. Ignoring that, you didn't say 'murder' originally, you said 'kill'. While it may seem like semantics there is a big difference between murdering someone and killing someone. All murdering is killing, but not all killing is murder.
Ulitmately we enter the realms of philosophy when we get to this point, who decides what "life" is etc etc
The simple fact is, certainly in the UK, the law is the law for logical reasons and I agree with it.
If our knowledge of biology and science deems by demonstable means that a foetus can feel pain at a certain amount of weeks, then by all means change the law and make it so that the procedure can only be carried out before said time.
But as it stands, as far as we can ascertain with common fething sense, a ten week old foetus is the size of a frigging walnut, does not have the cognitive skills, nerve endings, or mental faculties of a living breathing girl or woman, and as such, cannot have as many rights. Logic dictates that we preserve the feelings and wishes of the living breathing person stood right there in front of us.
Do we not have a moral duty to attempt to stop human suffering? So lets stop some, not worry about stopping the suffering of that which it is 99.99% certain has no ability to feel any suffering at all. Foetus cannot suffer, human being can.
On a related note i saw some awesome fething propaganda. I was given a pamphlet on the campus at UCSB, and the pro-life pamphlet had a "12 week" foetus on the front with more teeth than I fething do!
It was also wearing a fez and reading a home bargains catalogue. (Not really)
@Melissia: A gestating foetus without apparent genetic defects can develop into a child that expresses them after birth. Quite apart from genetic defects, children obviously can suffer from non-congenital diseases or debilitating accidents that make caring for them intolerably expensive. Again, every child is factually very expensive to her/his parents or the government. And every child is potentially even more expensive if she/he develops health problems.
A child that is known to fall into this "really expensive" category before birth can conveniently and legally be terminated -- or, if your prefer, the development of some tissue into a child can be terminated. Whether we're talking about a child or some tissue, the calculus is the same: "I am willing to pay $X for this child and not two times that." Well, what about the people who don't even want to pay $X? The argument in favor of aborting children/proto-children with genetic defects because they are expensive is very similar to the argument in favor of aborting them because their quality of life will not measure up to someone else's standard. They both ultimately lead to the same conclusion: abortion for any reason within a certain time frame.
Which is what we already have. No need to even bring up those poor ones who would have lived with congenital diseases or defects.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Or are you saying that rape should be differently defined for abortion law?
I think this is the only practical solution, which leads to a loophole -- and from there to the current proposed legislation.
mattyrm wrote:Ulitmately we enter the realms of philosophy when we get to this point, who decides what "life" is etc etc...
If I kill you without causing you to suffer, am I doing wrong?
The point is that many people consider it to not be wrong because what is being destroyed is not "alive" in the sense that a fully formed human (or indeed any other animal) is. Trillions of pounds is spent to help wipe out bacterial strains, fungi, viruses etc... all are "alive" (although that is arguable in the sense of viruses), but not alive enough to be worthy of any remorse or penalty for their destruction.
Is it wrong to wipe out a bunch of cells with no higher function?
I say no, it is not. Even if that bunch of cells may one day go on to become a sentient creature. To my mind, it is no more a crime than using the morning after pill, condoms, or any other birth control measure.
The point is that at a certain point (which is generally well established), that bunch of cells has developed enough that you are no longer destroying "just a bunch of cells", but are killing an independent life form. Once that transformation has occured, I (and others) do not believe that termination should be permitted unless the continuation of pregnancy causes terminal threats to the mother.
Manchu wrote:@Melissia: A gestating foetus without apparent genetic defects can develop into a child that expresses them after birth. Quite apart from genetic defects, children obviously can suffer from non-congenital diseases or debilitating accidents that make caring for them intolerably expensive. Again, every child is factually very expensive to her/his parents or the government. And every child is potentially even more expensive if she/he develops health problems.
Irrelevant. I did not ask what to do about defects which happen without being predicted and for which we have no preventative measures for, that is another topic entirely and is not connected to this one. Compare, for example, two natural disasters. One was a massive earthquake in a place not known for earthquakes, which caused untold damage. The other one was a hurricane, however by government law the denizens of the town are not allowed to build in such a way as to prevent the damage the hurricane would do. I am asking about government assistance for the latter, not the former, because it is entirely the government's fault.
When we do tests on children, the option of abortion is there if the tests reveal the child has a defect. The question I asked was that when tests are done that let us know of the defect in the early stages of pregnancy, and we find out that they are present and these defects will add substantial cost to the care of the child, who pays for it when the parents are not allowed to choose to not have the child?
mattyrm wrote:Yes, however this wouldnt happen because I would kill you first easily.
Why is it wrong to kill you if you don't suffer in doing so? I thought that was why it was fine to abort?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:The point is that at a certain point (which is generally well established), that bunch of cells has developed enough that you are no longer destroying "just a bunch of cells", but are killing an independent life form. Once that transformation has occured, I (and others) do not believe that termination should be permitted unless the continuation of pregnancy causes terminal threats to the mother.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:By what measure is it independent?
There are various standards for establishing when a foetus becomes "independent" and what it means and some, all or none are used in various legal systems throughout the world.
Take your pick.
Personally I use the standard established in UK law, which I think is reasonably sensible and I believe has been stated by KK prevoiusly.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:By what measure is it independent?
There are various standards for establishing when a foetus becomes "independent" and what it means and some, all or none are used in various legal systems throughout the world.
Take your pick.
Personally I use the standard established in UK law, which I think is reasonably sensible and I believe has been stated by KK prevoiusly.
Okiedokie.
Assuming that abortion is illegal past the point of viability (except for life-of-the-mother), should it be illegal to induce labour?
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Assuming that abortion is illegal past the point of viability (except for life-of-the-mother), should it be illegal to induce labour?
I don't see why it should be. Obvously there are medical reasons for and against it in various circumstances, but I would not think a blanket ban on it would achieve anything. Why would you suggest it be made illegal?
Induced labor used on a premature child and then letting it die on its own is abortion by another name. Don't mind me, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.
Melissia wrote:The question I asked was that when tests are done that let us know of the defect in the early stages of pregnancy, and we find out that they are present and these defects will add substantial cost to the care of the child, who pays for it when the parents are not allowed to choose to not have the child?
Do you not accept that it is human or do you not accept that it is alive?
I do not accept that a foetus is a human. I believe it is an entity that has the capacity to become a human and gradually grows up to fulfil that capacity during gestation.
A foetus is alive in the sense that my foot is alive. If I cut my foot off it would die. If the foetus is deprived of the protection of the mother’s body, it will die.
Your foot has living cells, it in itself is alive although not a seperate living creature.
An adult/teenager/toddler/baby/neonatal/fetus/embryo/blastocyst is alive in that it it is a totally new and seperate creature to its mother, hence it has its own life. All that varies is size.
The 24 week limit (used as a time limit in most countries that allow abortion) was chosen partly because after this time the foetus shows signs of mentation and begins to have some capability of survival independent of its mother. In other words, around the 24 week time, the foetus changes from being a pre-human foetus to being a potentially premature baby.
Pre-human? Was it Klingon before it was human? It was entirely 'human' genetically speaking from its conception.
But as it stands, as far as we can ascertain with common fething sense, a ten week old foetus is the size of a frigging walnut, does not have the cognitive skills, nerve endings, or mental faculties of a living breathing girl or woman, and as such, cannot have as many rights. Logic dictates that we preserve the feelings and wishes of the living breathing person stood right there in front of us.
But as it stands, as far as we can ascertain with common fething sense, a mentally disabled person is BIGGER, does not have the cognitive skills, nerve endings, or mental faculties of a living breathing girl or woman, and as such, cannot have as many rights. Logic dictates that we preserve the feelings and wishes of the living breathing person stood right there in front of us?
Is he an Ork, size is everything? It's ok to kill people if they are really small?
Do we not have a moral duty to attempt to stop human suffering? So lets stop some, not worry about stopping the suffering of that which it is 99.99% certain has no ability to feel any suffering at all. Foetus cannot suffer, human being can.
Silent scream. Also to end suffering nuke the planet. No humans = no human suffering. Simple.
Manchu wrote:I don't think that parents should have a right to kill children who have genetic defects or other diseases. At what point something is a ball of sells instead of a child is another matter (I tend to agree with mattyrm on it but, sadly, technology has invalidated the faculty of common sense).
So you can care for the children with defects then, right? Or pay for it in the case of hte government.
Yes, we were all one genetic disorder away from abortion unless our parents were in a third world country or religious nuts.
In the uk 98% of pregnancies carrying a downs baby are terminated.
Recently a mother terminated twin boys because 'she wanted a girl'
In india desire to have boys means sex selective abortion takes place.
So its not just 'defects', it's gender too...
Would you suggest that all parents who produce children with Down should be forced to carry the child to term? What about Angelman syndrome? Or some other disease or genetic defect beyond their control? What about 48, XXYY syndrome? Turner syndrome? Leukemia? Uniparental disomy? Aneuploidy? One of the thousands of unknown and unnamed genetic defects? So who's going to pay for the care of all of these children with their genetic disorders, most of whom have learning disorders at the very LEAST and often have other physiological or psychological effects causing them to be unstable?
That's not to say that the actual tests on the baby's genetics themselves don't have a chance ot cause the child to miscarry (IE, abortion).
When we do tests on children, the option of abortion is there if the tests reveal the child has a defect. The question I asked was that when tests are done that let us know of the defect in the early stages of pregnancy, and we find out that they are present and these defects will add substantial cost to the care of the child, who pays for it when the parents are not allowed to choose to not have the child?
That leads down a slippery slope Melissa.
If you value people on their financial value then we need to grind up the homless to feed people. Also the old who don't contribute and the fething social welfare leeches. Clearly they are sub-human and should be exterminated. (sarcasm)
When I take over the world I will screen everyone and if they don’t possess functioning lac genes then I will cull them seeing as they have not caught up with the times. Also the blind, type 1 diabetics and people in wheel chairs – I don’t want to have to provide guide dogs, insulin or wheelchair ramps which are expensive.
Flippancy aside additionally who has the right to put a value on anyone else's life? We're all 'just a pile of cells' at the end of the day?
On topic it makes sense to be able to protect the unborn - we can protect a newborn with violence if necessary but yet if the same child is in a uterus it has no rights?
Melissia wrote:Induced labor used on a premature child and then letting it die on its own is abortion by another name. Don't mind me, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.
In my experience that is not how it is used. I don't know what kind of problems you may have in America with your healthcare system (/insurance) vis a vis taking care of premature babies (either "natural" or induced") but in the UK they are kept alive for as long as practically possible or until it is able to function on its own.
Funnily enough I have 3 cousins who were premature (and I think one of them was induced) - just a random thought, not meaning to have any relation to the discussion.
I've not heard of inducing prematurely being used as a form of "late abortion" before though.
Edit: certainly not in professional healthcare anyway.
Good point, Phototoxin. Some cultures view raising a girl to be too expensive an investment relative to the payoff. In this case, the cost-prohibitive "genetic defect" is having two x chromosomes.
I guess the government could pay for raising all those girls. Oh wait, that's supposed to be an argument in favor of aborting them . . .
Automatically Appended Next Post: This makes me think of a hypothetical:
Let's say that scientists do determine that specific and identifiable genetic sequence does determine whether a child is heterosexual or homosexual. Parents could then decide to abort children who are genetically homosexual.
Or how about we talk about genetic predispositions. What if a foetus is genetically predisposed to some congentital disease that only expresses after birth. Abort them, too, I guess.
WARLORD TZOO wrote:First, consent does not exist in perpetuity. If you are having sex, and your partner tells you to stop, and you do not, it is rape, even if they previously said yes. Why should consent to sex equate to consent to pregnancy?
You're right that consent isn't perpetual, but there are situations where consent cannot be revoked, or is implied.
If you swim out to save a drowning person, the law can presume you've undertaken a duty to save that person. Once you've taken that duty, you can't abandon it without consequence.
Then there's the issue of general consent to lifesaving procedures that must be expressly revoked.
Or we can analyze the issue based on detrimental reliance of the fetus having an interest in providing life. Just like a doctor can't pull the plug on you, a mother shouldn't have the ability to unilaterally and unavoidably terminate a life.
WARLORD TZOO wrote:And in giving exceptions for rape, you're either forcing women make a charge against their rapists, which is something that they might well like to avoid given that it can be extremely traumatic and has an exceptionally low conviction rate (largely because in many instances it's simply hesaid-shesaid), or you're giving the law no real force, because any woman who wants an abortion can simply say that she was raped.
Yes, I am asking for at least an allegation of rape. I don't think that this is an unreasonable hurdle. Allegations that are provably false can be dealt with by law enforcement. But not guilty =/= provably false.
WARLORD TZOO wrote:Would it also not be government action to ban the pill?
Under my definition, this is not government action. Or more specifically, not government control over what you do with your body.
Lots of drugs, chemicals, and medical treatments are illegal to seek out, perform, or have performed on your body. Somehow abortion receives a free pass from ethical review. I'd be happy if people would at least acknowledge that abortion is a non-unique medical procedure and at least subject to SOME regulation, oversight, and informed consent.
But for some reason it is insisted that anything approaching ethical medical standards is illegal and/or irrational.
Well statistically <95% of criminals all have a certain multiplex of genes. I think we should pre-emptively imprison/cull people with this. It would stop a lot of the muder, rape and child abuse.
If you want to attempt that route of arguing, try also explaining why something is irrelevant after saying such, as I did. As it is, you are wrong, because what I stated was at the very core of the subject matter I brought up.
The two subject matters are different. One could easily argue that the government has no obligation to step in and support the victims of one catastrophe but they do have an obligation to step in and support the victims of the other through their outlawing the victims' own ability to prevent the disaster. It is very easy to argue that a government disallowing stone or brick homes and is responsible for the ensuing firestorm if the city catches on fire, for example, while it is not so easy to argue the government is responsible if the average person had a choice in the matter.
Melissia wrote:As it is, you are wrong, because what I stated was at the very core of the subject matter I brought up.
All you are saying is that what you brought up is relevant and what I brought up is not. This is a problem with a lot of your posting.
It is very easy to argue that a government disallowing stone or brick homes and is responsible for the ensuing firestorm if the city catches on fire, for example, while it is not so easy to argue the government is responsible if the average person had a choice in the matter.
I get it: if government doesn't allow abortions, government should step up welfare. This is only relevant to what you yourself posted and not to anything that was posted in this thread before you arrived today.
Melissa your line of reasoning is like Aperture science - we do what we must because we can - and it is wrong and dangerous
Because parents CAN abort a downs/disabled/whatever baby doesn't mean they should or can.
Because they COULD have 'gotten rid' of the child doesn't mean that they shouldn't get support for that child if it is carried to term.
You can gauge a society by how it treats the least of all its peoples. If tomorrow we decide that all people called 'Melissa' are inferior its not right or moral to kill you because you would be perceived to inconvenience us.
Essentially abortion leads to eugenics.. which as I explained is already happening.
Manchu wrote:I get it: if government doesn't allow abortions, government should step up welfare. This is only relevant to what you yourself posted and not to anything that was posted in this thread before you arrived today.
It's relevant. Everything has a cost, and the question of who pays that cost is an important one that needs to be answered. With an abortion, the patient pays the cost either way because it is their choice in the matter. With the suggestion of abortion being banned, I find it unethical to force parents to pay the cost of something which they could have prevented but weren't allowed to.
Phototoxin wrote:Then what's stopping the mother-state aborting the inferior children (jews, slovaks... oh wait some EVIL BASTARD ALREADY TIRED THAT!)
Ignoring the godwin effect, that's a logical fallacy. I, at least, am not suggesting at the government should decide on who has an abortion . Actually, quite the opposite.
ChrisWWII wrote:1) There are lots of birth control features that only work within specific genders. Saying that abortion is discriminatory because it doesn't work for both genders is the equivalent of saying that birth control pills, morning after pills and condoms are discriminatory.
2) I would even question that. Like I said, if you let me screw with the circumstances, I can create a situation where it is moral to torture and murder a 3 year old child. Ignoring that, you didn't say 'murder' originally, you said 'kill'. While it may seem like semantics there is a big difference between murdering someone and killing someone. All murdering is killing, but not all killing is murder.
1 - Two problems:
A - All birth control is not 100% effective. Abortion is a second bite at the apple, and a lot more effective, and verifiable.
B - Birth control decision must be made at the time of conception. Abortion decisions can be made post hoc.
2 - Yes, you can create such a situation, but only by redefining morality to fit your position. This is acting as an absolute moral authority.
On murder/killing - I wasn't overly broad, I said kill without a chance to dispute it. That saves cases of self defense and state sanctioned killing.
In abortion there is no voice for the fetus, it is only the mother making the decision for herself and the child. This is, at best, a conflict of interest.
Melissa: one solution to the issues you raise: adoption/fostering.
I think that, even from a nonreligious perspective, some life, even if it is painful and hard, is better than no life. I know people with DS or other diseases that today would be aborted. My life and theirs are better because they weren't.
It's frightening that some think they're not entitled to have the chance to live.
Anyway, we won't decide anything here, and I've got a meeting. Thanks for the interesting discussion.
Melissia wrote:Everything has a cost, and the question of who pays that cost is an important one that needs to be answered. With an abortion, the patient pays the cost either way because it is their choice in the matter.
This isn't technically correct. I think KK mentioned in another thread that 1% of abortions in the US are funded by the government. One percent isn't going to break the bank but neither does one percent satisfy Pro-Choice lobbyists. In any case, let's hypothetically say that the government eventually pays for the same number of abortions and cases of caring for children with genetic defects. The abortions are unquestionably cheaper. But that does not lead me to believe that aborting children with genetic defects is preferable to them being born. You see, I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to abort children/proto-child tissues. I'm saying that allowing this on the basis of its cost is inappropriate.
And who is going to adopt or foster parent a child? The system is already overtasked, what with so many parents selfishly saying they want to have a child instead of adopting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:But that does not lead me to believe that aborting children with genetic defects is preferable to them being born.
No, but giving the parents a choice in the matter is preferable to no choice. I never suggested to abort all babies with defects.
Melissia wrote:Because it's basically abortion by another name, as it is an intentional act that will lead to the death of what some people call a child.
No, it isn't.
It's a standard medical procedure routinely used for mothers-to-be who have not gone into about within two weeks after the due date.
My wife was to have been induced but she went into labour naturally the night before the procedure was to have been done.
Melissia wrote:With the suggestion of abortion being banned, I find it unethical to force parents to pay the cost of something which they could have prevented but weren't allowed to.
People have to pay the costs of things they are not allowed to prevent when the method of prevention is deemed intolerable. People who think of abortion as murder do not feel that they should support through their tax dollars the result of other people not being allowed to murder their children. You're argument is premised on the moral neutrality of abortion. If we accept that, you're argument becomes very compelling. Something like "if the government doesn't allow me to mow my lawn, I shouldn't have to pay a messy lawn fine." But for people who think otherwise, it's akin to saying "well, the government did not allow me to take my child off of life support right after the accident so they better be the ones who pay her medical bills now that she's disabled."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Manchu wrote:But that does not lead me to believe that aborting children with genetic defects is preferable to them being born.
No, but giving the parents a choice in the matter is preferable to no choice. I never suggested to abort all babies with defects.
And I keep telling you, people can abort for any reason within a certain time period. Cost is not a factor at all (as you would say "Irrelevant.") The argument is redundant, as I have already explained. If childcare of a kid with genetic problems is expensive enough to warrant abortion then childcare itself can be expensive enough to warrant abortion.
Do you not accept that it is human or do you not accept that it is alive?
I do not accept that a foetus is a human. I believe it is an entity that has the capacity to become a human and gradually grows up to fulfil that capacity during gestation.
A foetus is alive in the sense that my foot is alive. If I cut my foot off it would die. If the foetus is deprived of the protection of the mother’s body, it will die.
Your foot has living cells, it in itself is alive although not a seperate living creature.
An adult/teenager/toddler/baby/neonatal/fetus/embryo/blastocyst is alive in that it it is a totally new and seperate creature to its mother, hence it has its own life. All that varies is size.
Viability varies too. A blastula cannot survive and develop outside its mother. Blah blah, hence the 24 week limit.
The 24 week limit (used as a time limit in most countries that allow abortion) was chosen partly because after this time the foetus shows signs of mentation and begins to have some capability of survival independent of its mother. In other words, around the 24 week time, the foetus changes from being a pre-human foetus to being a potentially premature baby.
Phototoxin wrote:
Pre-human? Was it Klingon before it was human? It was entirely 'human' genetically speaking from its conception.
A human being isn’t simply a matter of genetics. I can scrape a cell off the inside of my cheek and it will have exactly the same genes as I do. Who would call it a human being?
Manchu wrote:Cost is not a factor at all (as you would say "Irrelevant.") The argument is redundant, as I have already explained. If childcare of a kid with genetic problems is expensive enough to warrant abortion then childcare itself can be expensive enough to warrant abortion.
Cost is always a factor and always will be. I don't know if I made myself clear enough, but I wasn't talking specifically about the monetary cost.
You really don't understand what it takes to care for these children if you think the cost in time, effort, frustration, and a thousand other intangibles is equivalent to that of caring for a child without these disorders. It's not that simple.
As for my assumption on its neutrality, yes, I am making that assumption. If one goes by the assumption of abortion is killing a human being, all discussion on the subject goes out the window and it is and always will be pointless to argue anything on the topic unless you're specifically arguing about whether or not abortion is killing a human being. Unless you make the assumption on neutrality, the only topic that will ever come up in an abortion idebate is whether or not abortion itself is killing a human being.
biccat wrote:
1 - Two problems:
A - All birth control is not 100% effective. Abortion is a second bite at the apple, and a lot more effective, and verifiable.
B - Birth control decision must be made at the time of conception. Abortion decisions can be made post hoc.
2 - Yes, you can create such a situation, but only by redefining morality to fit your position. This is acting as an absolute moral authority.
On murder/killing - I wasn't overly broad, I said kill without a chance to dispute it. That saves cases of self defense and state sanctioned killing.
In abortion there is no voice for the fetus, it is only the mother making the decision for herself and the child. This is, at best, a conflict of interest.
1. No it is not, and neither is abortion. There is always a possibility that it can fail. FInally, I fail to understand how these features add up to being discriminatory against men. I simply fail to understand your logic leading to that conclusion.
2. Actually, the opposite is true. I'm not redefining morality, I'm redefining the situation and having morality alter because of the situation. An absolute moral authority would be drawing aline in the sand and saying THIS is moral, THIS is immoral, regardless of the circumstances. Using circumstances to change the morality of a situation is the opposite of absolute morality.
I see your point that there is no voice for the fetus, but I'd contend that depending on the stage of development, there is no need for such a voice. It all depends on how you define when a fetus becomes a human life.
@M: Whatever point you're driving at, I'm missing it. (I am assuming there is one, which is getting to be generous.) Simply put: Cost is not a factor in determining whether or not an abortion can be legally performed.
Manchu wrote:@M: Whatever point you're driving at, I'm missing it. (I am assuming there is one, which is getting to be generous.) Simply put: Cost is not a factor in determining whether or not an abortion can be legally performed.
No, it isn't, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be. The cost a law has on society should always be thought of before the law is enacted.
I see your point that there is no voice for the fetus, but I'd contend that depending on the stage of development, there is no need for such a voice. It all depends on how you define when a fetus becomes a human life.
A foetus, being pre-rational, by definition cannot have a "voice", however its interests have been represented by concerned groups such as the British Medical Council, the churches, and so on, who made representations and gave advice to the governing body (i.e. Parliament) which deliberated on the issue of legalising abortion.
Melissia wrote:Simply put: Cost is not a factor in determining whether or not an abortion can be legally performed.
No, it isn't, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be.
Are you saying that a woman should be required to show a certain level of financial burden relative to her current/future status before she can legally obtain an abortion?
Manchu wrote:Are you saying that a woman should be required to show a certain level of financial burden relative to her current/future status before she can legally obtain an abortion?
It would certainly be a viable means to exclude unnecessary abortions, with other caveats included. Alternatively, one could interpret it as a statement that taking away someone's rights is not a simple matter. Or for even more fun, one could also suggest a financial qualifier for having children to begin with, which would be quite interesting to see people pick sides on THAT debate.
You wold have to define 'christian' as its can be such a broad an loaded term.
Viability varies too. A blastula cannot survive and develop outside its mother. Blah blah, hence the 24 week limit.
I cannot survive outside the earths atmosphere - does this make me any less human? I
A human being isn’t simply a matter of genetics. I can scrape a cell off the inside of my cheek and it will have exactly the same genes as I do. Who would call it a human being?
But if left in its natural state it was to grow into a child you'd probably call it human.
It's relevant. Everything has a cost, and the question of who pays that cost is an important one that needs to be answered. With an abortion, the patient pays the cost either way because it is their choice in the matter. With the suggestion of abortion being banned, I find it unethical to force parents to pay the cost of something which they could have prevented but weren't allowed to.
Parents with disabled children should get help. Unfortunately nowadays children can be seen as some sort of 'burden' or that people who have them are merely 'doing their bit. Quite worrying really.
Additionally if we start putting a cost on lives how long before we decide that the cost of care for Bobby McDowns and Jane McDiabetic's care and insulin are too expensive to supply and for the sake of finances we 'cull' them?
Phototoxin wrote:]
I cannot survive outside the earths atmosphere - does this make me any less human?
That's a strawman, the argument is that the fetus can not survive independelty of the mother. It is essentially a parasite that will die if it is removed from its host (God that sounds horribly evil...). As it can not survive independently of the mother, it is not a seperate living organism.
The ability of you to survive only in the atmosphere does not refute this argument at all.
Yes it does - the earth is my natural environment as an adult human, similarly as a fetus the womb/uterus is its natural environment.
The fact that they die outside it does not make them less human. It is a strawman, but to point out that the 'would not survive outside the womb' while arguably true, is not a valid argument in terms of life.
Phototoxin wrote:Additionally if we start putting a cost on lives how long before we decide that the cost of care for Bobby McDowns and Jane McDiabetic's care and insulin are too expensive to supply and for the sake of finances we 'cull' them?
What do you mean if we start putting a cost on human lives? We already are. Medicine isn't free, life saving surgeries aren't free, the expertise of a doctor isn't free. All of these things add up and must be accounted for. Whether you like it or not, someone has to foot the cost somewhere down the line.
Viability varies too. A blastula cannot survive and develop outside its mother. Blah blah, hence the 24 week limit.
I cannot survive outside the earths atmosphere - does this make me any less human? I
You can, actually. Loads of people have done it. There are several people on the International Space Station right now.
But if you take a blastula out of a woman it will die.
A human being isn’t simply a matter of genetics. I can scrape a cell off the inside of my cheek and it will have exactly the same genes as I do. Who would call it a human being?
Phototoxin wrote:
But if left in its natural state it was to grow into a child you'd probably call it human.
I’m not exactly sure what your point is here. If I understand it correctly, you are saying that I would accept a child grown from a mucous membrane cell (i.e. a clone) as human.
I would. I don’t see how that compels me to accept a mucous membrane cell or a blastula as human. My whole point is that being a human is a state we arrive at after a long process of development, not a state that exists at the beginning of that process.
SilverMK2 wrote:There is a point at which a ball of cells becomes a "human being" and it is generally established that most western nations which permit the use of abortion to terminate unwanted pregnancies (for whatever reason) have set the latest stage you can abort at or around that point (with certain exceptions as mentioned such as if the mother will be in terminal danger if the pregnancy is allowed to continue). This is determined as scientifically as possible and is based off many different lines of research.
I would be inclined to agree with this view.
The extreme other side of the coin would be the old "every sperm is sacred"/"birth control is murder" argument, which I don't really understand.
Also as mentioned earlier, I don't really get people who are willing to violently (to the extent of murder/etc) the who espouse "pro life" viewpoint. This also goes for animal rights activists who kill/harm/etc people involved with animal testing.
You completely and dare I say potentially deliberatley DIDN'T answer the question.
When is that point.
And no its not generally established. In the US SCOTUS views this as viability basically.
The way how many american laws seem to be based on fundamentalist christian ethics never ceases to amaze me. We do have that problem in germany, too, but at a much lower level, and it is also in decline, whereas in the US, fundamentalism seems to be increasing instead.
(Btw, I am not saying you could not be opposed to abortion based on other reasons, it's just that the way it is depicted in the media, most support for laws like this is based on fundamentalist voters, not people who choose to have the same opinion as them but based on educated reasoning.)
Actually I remember hearing a quite serious and non-parody argument that masturbation (he seemed to use the assumption that only males masturbate) was murder of uncounted unborn children, and equivalent ot abortion as an "evil". But let's not focus on the nutjobs.
mattyrm wrote:
But as it stands, as far as we can ascertain with common fething sense, a ten week old foetus is the size of a frigging walnut, does not have the cognitive skills, nerve endings, or mental faculties of a living breathing girl or woman, and as such, cannot have as many rights. Logic dictates that we preserve the feelings and wishes of the living breathing person stood right there in front of us.
Many slowed persons cannot make cognitive sense. Can they be retroactively aborted?
How about people in comas?
So the test is mental? I have a whole list of people who wouldn't make that test, including the entire US congress...
Melissia wrote:Actually I remember hearing a quite serious and non-parody argument that masturbation (he seemed to use the assumption that only males masturbate) was murder of uncounted unborn children, and equivalent ot abortion as an "evil". But let's not focus on the nutjobs.
Melissia wrote:Induced labor used on a premature child and then letting it die on its own is abortion by another name. Don't mind me, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.
In my experience that is not how it is used. I don't know what kind of problems you may have in America with your healthcare system (/insurance) vis a vis taking care of premature babies (either "natural" or induced") but in the UK they are kept alive for as long as practically possible or until it is able to function on its own.
Funnily enough I have 3 cousins who were premature (and I think one of them was induced) - just a random thought, not meaning to have any relation to the discussion.
I've not heard of inducing prematurely being used as a form of "late abortion" before though.
Edit: certainly not in professional healthcare anyway.
Thats how late term abortion works. How did you think it works?
Mr Meatballs wrote:Good ol' American south. so civilised so educated.
It's not in the south. It's actually kind of close to Canada, just south of North Dakota which is on the Canadian border. It is located in what I like to call the "empty states", including Idaho, the Dakotas, Wyoming... I have been through there a few times. About 8-9 hours of driving through nothing but grassland and cattle and really REALLY small towns that have three things in common: a gun shop, a small church, and a porn/liquor store right next to the gas-station/supermarket that would be considered "downtown".
. Makes me smile to see that the Fear of God still takes part in modern lawmaking despite all the separation-of-church-and-state attempts to drown out His true voice that sayeth unto his flock of loyal and true believers "Thou Shalt not Kill Fetuses, only Abortion Doctors".
I for one love abortion. I see too many bad parents with stupid kids. I would like to see more abortions, not less. Adoption is a nice utopian idealistic solution in theory, but in practice it is overtaxing and unrealistic. State sponsored sterilization is the way to go, but then I don't expect to get elected any time soon either.
Melissia wrote:(he seemed to use the assumption that only males masturbate)
By his (seeming) standards, female masturbation has no moral dimension. In Imperial China, homosexual acts between males was illegal as immoral but the law did not even recognize female homosexuality. This was because the immorality was considered to be a matter of the penatrator getting penatrated.
Many slowed persons cannot make cognitive sense. Can they be retroactively aborted?
How about people in comas?
So the test is mental? I have a whole list of people who wouldn't make that test, including the entire US congress...
No Frazz, It isnt.
See, i can understand photo making these statements, but not you mate. I rather like you, and you are above this type of argument.
What with his "nuke the world, simple eh?!" or "I cant survive in space so am I a human?" (Or whatever the feth he comes out with, Ive stopped reading what he types) garbage.
The point I was onbiously making was that there is a difference between an actual living human, and a foetus. Even the most hugely disabled person, both physically and mentally has far far far far, 10,000 times a thousand, more senses than a foetus, and you knew exactly what I was getting at, so why try to grossly misrepresent what I am saying? Of course its not just mental.
A foetus isnt born yet. When its born, then yes its a person, but a ball of cells isnt a person, and common sense and Science have said that about 24 weeks is a good cut off date for when the foetus becomes an actual baby. It makes sense, and thats why the law is the way that it is. At ten weeks a foestus cant feel anything, has no emotions, it basically it utterly unaware of its existence, and the "oh lets all gas disabled people then" argument is childish, because you and I both know that that isnt what anybody is proposing.
Anyway, im off to play wow. But just remember, the law is on my side, and abortions are getting cracked every day. So I win.
And the more toothless state fed simpletons that I see breeding like rats... the more I think its a wonderful thing.
Many slowed persons cannot make cognitive sense. Can they be retroactively aborted?
How about people in comas?
So the test is mental? I have a whole list of people who wouldn't make that test, including the entire US congress...
No Frazz, It isnt.
See, i can understand photo making these statements, but not you mate. I rather like you, and you are above this type of argument.
What with his "nuke the world, simple eh?!" or "I cant survive in space so am I a human?" (Or whatever the feth he comes out with, Ive stopped reading what he types) garbage.
The point I was onbiously making was that there is a difference between an actual living human, and a foetus. Even the most hugely disabled person, both physically and mentally has far far far far, 10,000 times a thousand, more senses than a foetus, and you knew exactly what I was getting at, so why try to grossly misrepresent what I am saying? Of course its not just mental.
A foetus isnt born yet. When its born, then yes its a person, but a ball of cells isnt a person, and common sense and Science have said that about 24 weeks is a good cut off date for when the foetus becomes an actual baby. It makes sense, and thats why the law is the way that it is. At ten weeks a foestus cant feel anything, has no emotions, it basically it utterly unaware of its existence, and the "oh lets all gas disabled people then" argument is childish, because you and I both know that that isnt what anybody is proposing.
Anyway, im off to play wow. But just remember, the law is on my side, and abortions are getting cracked every day. So I win.
And the more toothless state fed simpletons that I see breeding like rats... the more I think its a wonderful thing.
The problem is you're not actually defining anything, just making statements. Thats why its a slippery slope. Frankly you should have stuck with your argument about the appearance of pain, its a slightly definable term.
You think I'm being daft but all these arguments have been made by people pushing agendas, including certain "bioethicists" arguing babies shouldn't have any rights for several months AFTER birth.
So this conversation has went from a discussion about a law that makes it legal for a relative to kill the doctor giving another relative(as long as its not a cousin) an abortion, but only at the time the abortion is being carried out to a flame war about abortion rights and matty saying that he hates drains on the social state?
halonachos wrote:So this conversation has went from a discussion about a law that makes it legal for a relative to kill the doctor giving another relative(as long as its not a cousin) an abortion, but only at the time the abortion is being carried out to a flame war about abortion rights and matty saying that he hates drains on the social state?
halonachos wrote:So this conversation has went from a discussion about a law that makes it legal for a relative to kill the doctor giving another relative(as long as its not a cousin) an abortion, but only at the time the abortion is being carried out to a flame war about abortion rights and matty saying that he hates drains on the social state?
Welcome to dakka OT!
Looks like someone didn't check the number of posts... it usually goes this way but I've never seen Matty argue with Frazzled before. The OT is changing after all...
Automatically Appended Next Post: I now declare this thread silly and anyone who posts after this post silly as well.
halonachos wrote:So this conversation has went from a discussion about a law that makes it legal for a relative to kill the doctor giving another relative(as long as its not a cousin) an abortion, but only at the time the abortion is being carried out to a flame war about abortion rights and matty saying that he hates drains on the social state?
Welcome to dakka OT!
Looks like someone didn't check the number of posts... it usually goes this way but I've never seen Matty argue with Frazzled before. The OT is changing after all...
Automatically Appended Next Post: I now declare this thread silly and anyone who posts after this post silly as well.
SilverMK2 wrote:There is a point at which a ball of cells becomes a "human being" and it is generally established that most western nations which permit the use of abortion to terminate unwanted pregnancies (for whatever reason) have set the latest stage you can abort at or around that point (with certain exceptions as mentioned such as if the mother will be in terminal danger if the pregnancy is allowed to continue). This is determined as scientifically as possible and is based off many different lines of research.
The problem is that the question isn't as simple as "What is a human being?" That's one relevant question (and its really not a very simple one), sure, but its only one of many. Just a short list:
"How should human beings be treated ideally?"
"How Should human beings be treated practically?"
"If we can dispose of some human beings because we don't want them (murderers etc.), then why cannot we not dispose of a fetus if we don't want it?"
"If there is a meaningful distinction between being something one way (a murderer) and being something in another way (a fetus), what is it?"
"If the answer is choice, then what is choice?"
halonachos wrote:So this conversation has went from a discussion about a law that makes it legal for a relative to kill the doctor giving another relative(as long as its not a cousin) an abortion, but only at the time the abortion is being carried out to a flame war about abortion rights and matty saying that he hates drains on the social state?
SilverMK2 wrote:There is a point at which a ball of cells becomes a "human being" and it is generally established that most western nations which permit the use of abortion to terminate unwanted pregnancies (for whatever reason) have set the latest stage you can abort at or around that point (with certain exceptions as mentioned such as if the mother will be in terminal danger if the pregnancy is allowed to continue). This is determined as scientifically as possible and is based off many different lines of research.
The problem is that the question isn't as simple as "What is a human being?" That's one relevant question (and its really not a very simple one), sure, but its only one of many. Just a short list:
"How should human beings be treated ideally?"
"How Should human beings be treated practically?"
"If we can dispose of some human beings because we don't want them (murderers etc.), then why cannot we not dispose of a fetus if we don't want it?"
"If there is a meaningful distinction between being something one way (a murderer) and being something in another way (a fetus), what is it?"
"If the answer is choice, then what is choice?"
...and so on.
Oh my, I'm agreeing with Dogma. Whats ironical is that my position is close to Matty's...
I for one love abortion. I see too many bad parents with stupid kids. I would like to see more abortions, not less. Adoption is a nice utopian idealistic solution in theory, but in practice it is overtaxing and unrealistic. State sponsored sterilization is the way to go, but then I don't expect to get elected any time soon either.
When you go down that route Chairman Mao would like to welcome you into the People's Republic.. along with the rest of its human rights' abuses.
See, i can understand photo making these statements, but not you mate. I rather like you, and you are above this type of argument.
What with his "nuke the world, simple eh?!" or "I cant survive in space so am I a human?" (Or whatever the feth he comes out with, Ive stopped reading what he types) garbage.
Flamebait? I'm not that flammable.
The example of 'nuke the world' is to prevent suffering.
The point I was onbiously making was that there is a difference between an actual living human, and a foetus. Even the most hugely disabled person, both physically and mentally has far far far far, 10,000 times a thousand, more senses than a foetus, and you knew exactly what I was getting at, so why try to grossly misrepresent what I am saying? Of course its not just mental.
10,000 eh? This 'statistic' comes from where? What research? Are you a neuro-scientist?
There's a difference between me and a child, me an my brother, you and me, we're all different, what's your point - it's ok to kill/abort/terminate those who are different? The Jews were different...
A foetus isnt born yet. When its born, then yes its a person, but a ball of cells isnt a person, and common sense and Science have said that about 24 weeks is a good cut off date for when the foetus becomes an actual baby. It makes sense, and thats why the law is the way that it is. At ten weeks a foestus cant feel anything, has no emotions, it basically it utterly unaware of its existence, and the "oh lets all gas disabled people then" argument is childish, because you and I both know that that isnt what anybody is proposing.
Why ISN'T a ball of cell's a person? You are a collection of organs, made of tissues made of cells. Why isn't a fetus a person? Common sense is sadly not that common and 'consensus' of an arbitrary date isn't fact. Essentially you're saying that science has said: magically overnight after week 23 day 6 hour 23 minute 59 and second 59 the 'clump of cells' becomes a person?
Science does not work that way.
Mr Meatballs wrote:Good ol' American south. so civilised so educated.
despite its name... its in the north
ALSO...
I'm not sure someone LEGALLY performing abortions would qualify as a someone causing harm... I think this bill wouldn't cover non legal versions... like someone punching a pregnant woman in the stomach....
Phototoxin wrote:
There's a difference between me and a child, me an my brother, you and me, we're all different, what's your point - it's ok to kill/abort/terminate those who are different? The Jews were different...
That's a lame argument. Difference itself is not, and has never been, the exclusive reason for killing others. What's important is how they are different or why they are different.
You can't force an argument from specificity into a reductio ad absurdum.
Phototoxin wrote:
Why ISN'T a ball of cell's a person? You are a collection of organs, made of tissues made of cells. Why isn't a fetus a person?
Why can't we abort a fetus if it is a person?
I mean, we kill people all the time. People that don't depend on another being for their non-transferable care and protection.
Phototoxin wrote:
Common sense is sadly not that common and 'consensus' of an arbitrary date isn't fact. Essentially you're saying that science has said: magically overnight after week 23 day 6 hour 23 minute 59 and second 59 the 'clump of cells' becomes a person?
Science does not work that way.
Actually, yeah, it often does. At least in biology many of the barriers of classification are simply accepted by convention, and don't hold up to close philosophical scrutiny; in essence they're used because they're useful. In any case "personhood" isn't a biologically meaningful concept, nor is it really meaningful in a neuroscientific sense. It really is just an arbitrary sort of concept without any firm definition.
Looks like someone didn't check the number of posts... it usually goes this way but I've never seen Matty argue with Frazzled before. The OT is changing after all...
When I said "Welcome to dakka OT," the whole thing was in massive sarcasm quotes.
corpsesarefun wrote:I think the issue is harming the foetus rather than the mother.
Usually happens dude if the baby is in the womb and you punch the mom... conservation of momentum and all...
I am aware of the effects on a foetus when punching a pregnant woman in the womb.
The issue raised in the thread however is that abortion doctors are seen to be harming fetus's by terminating them thus are targetted by the bill.
This is the same as a jump as saying people who euthanize prisoners on death row murderers. They are performed LEGALLY.
Also... if you were aware that harming the mom can harm the fetus... I don't understand your first comment...
I am attempting to tell you that while I don't give a gak who lives and dies whether it be people or foetus the bill WILL target those who practice legal abortions if harming a foetus (IE abortion) is seen as harming a human being. No one gives a flying feth about the mother, the foetus is what is under debate.
That's a lame argument. Difference itself is not, and has never been, the exclusive reason for killing others. What's important is how they are different or why they are different.
You can't force an argument from specificity into a reductio ad absurdum.
You can if it is absurd - such as size or developmental stage.
A fetus is developing child, the same way as a child is a developing teenager. Discrimination on size isn't ethical.
Why can't we abort a fetus if it is a person?
I mean, we kill people all the time. People that don't depend on another being for their non-transferable care and protection.
Do 'we' ? When? Generally? Casually? On-demand, for being 'defective' ? (well some did!) People have the right to life generally - unless the state deems it forfeit for the protection of its citizens (war and executions et cetera) however an unborn child has yet to murder,rape or burgle anyone, let alone invade or commit acts of terrorism!
Essentially its all or nothing - either human life is important and should be preserved and defended (although not at the expense of another's life) or else life is worthless and that if I murder someone tomorrow I shouldn't be prosecuted because we now have the right to kill who we want. Alternatively mothers should just be able to randomly and at will kill their children whenever they want - yet cases of maternal child abuse are seen as particularly horrific, yet maternal infantcide isn't? It's quite a double standard.
No one gives a flying feth about the mother, the foetus is what is under debate.
Mothers who get support, maternity leave and so one - no one cares about them how?
Also if someone aborts their child they are not it's mother since in the view of the pro-abortionist/choice it's not a child. Not a child = not a mother so make up your mind!
People are blowing the entire thing out of proportion, it doesn't give people the free right to kill abortion specialists.
All it does is guarantee the fact that people who wish to want to protect their pregnant daughter, wife, or sister can do it worry free.
Think about it a little bit. If a woman is willingly getting an abortion then she is an accomplice to harming the fetus as well, for the immediate relative to be 100% in the legal boundaries they would have to kill the woman getting an abortion as well. If they kill just the doctor and not the woman they're being selective in their 'defense' of the fetus, but laws are not selective. You're either in the wrong or in the right you don't get to choose.
This law does not give Joe Extremist the right to kill an abortion specialist nor does it give Abortion Seeking Wanda's spouse/immediate family the right to kill an abortion specialist.
If they were going to get away with legally killing an abortion specialist they would have to 1) Be an immediate relative of the woman getting the abortion, 2) Kill the abortion specialist during the actual abortion, and 3) Kill the mother.
I can totally see why someone would want to kill an abortion doctor. I mean, if someone was going around knifing six year olds because their mom said they didn't want them, everyone would lose their gak.
If someone went and killed that guy, half the country would be calling that dude a hero. I can see where people would think that was basically the same thing. Are they right? I don't think so, but I can understand where they are coming from.
Personally the whole "is a fetus alive" debate has always kinda bored me. As far as I can tell, a good two thirds of the world lack the insight and intellect to be what I consider "alive", so some random kid doesn't matter to me. I think to be officially considered "alive", you should have to pass a series of rigorous philosophical debates, which you can try as often and as early as you'd like, but until you pass you are just another talking animal.
So by doing something legally that someones brother or father doesn't like, they can kill another human being legally. That is just splendid. What other legal things should we allow each other to kill for? Stupid freedoms, who needs them? I say kill em all.
I find fundamentalist Christians and Muslims to be extremely dangerous physically and mentally, to other humans. If someone tries to get my cousin to go to a church should I be able to legally kill them to protect her ability to make rational decisions?
Bromsy wrote:IPersonally the whole "is a fetus alive" debate has always kinda bored me. As far as I can tell, a good two thirds of the world lack the insight and intellect to be what I consider "alive", so some random kid doesn't matter to me. I think to be officially considered "alive", you should have to pass a series of rigorous philosophical debates, which you can try as often and as early as you'd like, but until you pass you are just another talking animal.
That statement means you just failed your own test.
corpsesarefun wrote:
I am attempting to tell you that while I don't give a gak who lives and dies whether it be people or foetus the bill WILL target those who practice legal abortions if harming a foetus (IE abortion) is seen as harming a human being. No one gives a flying feth about the mother, the foetus is what is under debate.
No it won't, some of the pro-choice people are using it to slam a political figure they don't want in office. Go figure they would take something and manipulate it to their cause, good thing Al Gore invented the internet so they could spread their message globally.
You have a test tube with sperm in it, and a test tube with an egg in it, and you tip it down the sink, is that murder? Had you combined them you would have had a group of cells that could have matured into human life.
What about if you tip the sperm into the test tube with the egg, wait two minutes then tip it down the sink, is that murder? All it needed was more time to become human life.
What about if you place it in an artificial womb, leave it for three months, then turn the artificial womb off? Is that murder?
What about if you left it for nine months until it left the artificial womb, then killed the baby? Is that murder?
Whatever your answer is, think about why that point is murder, but not the one before. Think about if your answer really makes absolute, objective sense, or if it's just the best approach you can muster.
The thing is there is no magic point where cells become human life so we muddle by as best we can. The important thing to realise is that other people are doing much the same, just reaching a different point on when it is human and needs protection, and that different points can be reached entirely differently.
It is also important to recognise that many arguments are utterly ridiculous, of course, and that some people really, really need to think about things a lot more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:On other websites there are discussions of the proposed law. Evidently, it doesn't cover abortion doctors as that is a legal act-illegal activities being the key.
I don't know, its a law for an issue that barely exists.
Interesting, thanks for that. So this is basically a law designed to build up enthusiasm from a certain voter group, while actually doing nothing.
Politics as usual, it seems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:And to be clear, there should be exceptions for rape, despite it being abhorrant, due to the lack of consentual activity.
But if the foetus is alive and needing our protection, surely it is alive and needing our protection whether the mother consented to sex or not?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phototoxin wrote:But as it stands, as far as we can ascertain with common fething sense, a mentally disabled person is BIGGER, does not have the cognitive skills, nerve endings, or mental faculties of a living breathing girl or woman, and as such, cannot have as many rights. Logic dictates that we preserve the feelings and wishes of the living breathing person stood right there in front of us?
A person can be mentally disabled, but still capable of thought, ideas, and emotions. This is entirely different to a foetus. Where we get a person with the mental faculties of a foetus, that is to say none at all... we pull the plug.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:Good point, Phototoxin. Some cultures view raising a girl to be too expensive an investment relative to the payoff. In this case, the cost-prohibitive "genetic defect" is having two x chromosomes.
And when abortion isn't available, we see girls born and then abandoned. The problem here is culture failing to value both genders, not access to abortion.
Let's say that scientists do determine that specific and identifiable genetic sequence does determine whether a child is heterosexual or homosexual. Parents could then decide to abort children who are genetically homosexual.
Or how about we talk about genetic predispositions. What if a foetus is genetically predisposed to some congentital disease that only expresses after birth. Abort them, too, I guess.
Both decisions are currently legal in the US.
This is an extremely difficult question to answer. I think ultimately the answer is the same as above, though, if parents would choose to abort a pregnancy because of a disability or even homosexuality, then they're likely to abandon the child if they were forced to take it to term.
The answer is in getting people to value human diversity, and love the person, not love the list of most desirable attributes.
So you admit that you kill people on a regular basis?
A sperm consists of just one single cell, therefor its not a person.
I wasn't talking about masturbation. Your body kills groups of its cells on a regular basis through apoptosis, and nevermind shedding of skin and hair.
Actually if you put a sperm and an egg together it would need an environment around it or something to guide the sperm to the egg. Sperm dies within minutes of ejaculation and if you put a small egg and a single sperm in a test tube I doubt conception would happen. Sperm, like the men they come from, are fething slowed and don't ask for directions. Chances are the sperm would bounce off of the edge of the glass until it died.
As far as developing a fetus in a test tube and then flushing it down the drain, that would be pointless. Why take the time to make a fetus in a test tube and then toss it down the drain?
Sperm and Eggs are single sex cells, when combined in the right environment under the right conditions they could create a blastula. That blastula would then develope and along the way the body itself would perform regular checks on development. If the fetus is deemed incapable of living by the body it will kill itself. In fact if a woman misses her period and has a heavy flow a week or so afterwards there's a chance she was at a time pregnant but her body aborted the fetus naturally.
At the time of the second trimester a child can be born and still survive outside of the womb, at that point I would consider it a living thing. For all intents and purposes though a fetus is actually a parasite and remains a parasite even after it leaves the womb.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
halonachos wrote:
Melissia wrote:
dogma wrote:Why ISN'T a ball of cell's a person?
So you admit that you kill people on a regular basis?
A sperm consists of just one single cell, therefor its not a person.
I wasn't talking about masturbation. Your body kills its cells on a regular basis through apoptosis.
Apoptosis is vastly different from killing a cell. One is natural thanks to telomeres on the chromosomes, the other is just killing cells.
So genetically programmed cell death is okay, malicious cell murder is not.
Slarg232 wrote:You know, the one thing I hate about the whole abortion deal is: Why doesn't the father have any say in it? It's his kid too...
... or is this just a secret, uber-feminist political move to screw men out of even more stuff?
I mean, sure, it's her body, but still....
How much say do you think men should have? What legal force should their wishes be supported with?
Ideally, it should be enforced with a new law. This law would require police to record reported rapes, and any Abortion Clinic would have to see if that person had been raped and impregnated. If they were raped, Abort away, that is soley her decision. However, if that person didn't report the rape, and had a boyfriend with which the baby was conceived, then his consent would have to be given too.
This makes everyone happy: No one is forced to having a baby from a traumatizing event (remember, as long as the Police have a reported file prior to her visit to the Clinic, she is good to go), Pro Life people have two chances to let the baby live (both mother and father have to decide, if even one of them wants it, it becomes a crime to abort it), and it also enforces the golden rule of pregnancy prevention: Don't want to get pregnant? Don't have sex.
Kilkrazy wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:You know, the one thing I hate about the whole abortion deal is: Why doesn't the father have any say in it? It's his kid too...
... or is this just a secret, uber-feminist political move to screw men out of even more stuff?
I mean, sure, it's her body, but still....
Because of exactly that.
That, however, doesn't fly. Technically, even if the fetus isn't "alive" yet (Don't know what to say on that, personally), it's still the Fetus' body. Saying that the Fetus not being alive means it doesn't matter is, to me at least, kind of like saying it is ok to harvest a man in a comas organs. He ain't using them, right?
halonachos wrote:Actually if you put a sperm and an egg together it would need an environment around it or something to guide the sperm to the egg. Sperm dies within minutes of ejaculation and if you put a small egg and a single sperm in a test tube I doubt conception would happen.
It's a hypothetical, dude, just assume the test tubes contain the environment needed. Or don't, but they're magic sperm. Whatever. It doesn't matter, the point is to consider the different points the people declare life to have begun, not the specific biological factors of contraception.
As far as developing a fetus in a test tube and then flushing it down the drain, that would be pointless. Why take the time to make a fetus in a test tube and then toss it down the drain?
To demonstrate the arbitrary nature of when we consider life to have begun. Even more pointless would be raising the child in the artificial womb for nine months, seeing it born then smashing it's head in with a rock, yet that example is there as well. Because we're giving examples that demonstrate a point, not actually describing what people might actually do.
[qote]At the time of the second trimester a child can be born and still survive outside of the womb, at that point I would consider it a living thing. For all intents and purposes though a fetus is actually a parasite and remains a parasite even after it leaves the womb.
Except medical technology is increasingly capable of sustaining the foetus outside of the womb sooner and sooner. Is that moving the acceptable stage for abortion? And since when was dependance a defining part of being human? I now some utterly useless people that are completely dependant on their parents, and while I don't think much of them as people, I never doubted they were human.
Again, go back and read the example, but this time do it sensibly. Then realise that your position, like everyone's position, is arbitrary.
27 weeks after conception the second trimester ends. During the second trimester certain things happen, certain important things like developing the uterus, movement of the intestines, nerve connections are still being formed, you know things that science will never be able to do.
No matter what science develops, a fetus will most likely never be able to survive if its removed from the womb during the second trimester. So no medical technology will never, ever be able to sustain a fetus outside of the womb "sooner and sooner".
The limit to the date is 21 weeks and will most likely stay at 21 weeks. If you want at least a 50% chance of survival you're looking at 25 weeks.
Science cannot change how fast a fetus develops and won't be able to.
halonachos wrote:Apoptosis is vastly different from killing a cell.
No it's not. Apoptosis is a method for the body to kill off cells which are undesirable to the body. Just because it is natural does not mean it is not killing the cells. Such a distinction is unnecessarily arbitrary. Solanaceae is natural too, does that mean that feeding a baby nightshade is not killing the baby?
halonachos wrote:My position is so not arbitrary, its awesome.
27 weeks after conception the second trimester ends. During the second trimester certain things happen, certain important things like developing the uterus, movement of the intestines, nerve connections are still being formed, you know things that science will never be able to do.
No matter what science develops, a fetus will most likely never be able to survive if its removed from the womb during the second trimester. So no medical technology will never, ever be able to sustain a fetus outside of the womb "sooner and sooner".
The limit to the date is 21 weeks and will most likely stay at 21 weeks. If you want at least a 50% chance of survival you're looking at 25 weeks.
Science cannot change how fast a fetus develops and won't be able to.
DOes no one on this forum know what a bloody though experiment is
halonachos wrote:Apoptosis is vastly different from killing a cell.
No it's not. Apoptosis is a method for the body to kill off cells which are undesirable to the body. Just because it is natural does not mean it is not killing the cells. Such a distinction is unnecessarily arbitrary. Solanaceae is natural too, does that mean that feeding a baby nightshade is not killing the baby?
Does a human digestive tract naturally process nightshade or arsenic? Does the human body naturally process oil?
Apoptosis is a genetically programmed cell 'death'. The cell is not killed by an outside force, it just knows when to die. Think of the difference between a person dieing and a person being killed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youbedead wrote:
DOes no one on this forum know what a bloody though experiment is
You mean 'thought' experiment? What's wrong with the thoughts I gave concerning that the previous would most likely not happen. Just my thoughts vs the proposed thoughts.
halonachos wrote:Does a human digestive tract naturally process nightshade or arsenic? Does the human body naturally process oil?
Yes, when the nightshade is introduced to the human digestive tract, it processes the nightshade like it would any other plant. The human body also and attempts to break down oil (IE, it processes the oil) when it is introduced into the body like it would any other chemical. Weasel word all you want, apoptosis is still the body killing off cells which are undesirable to the body.
I assume you mean produce? But then, if you only fed a person chemicals the human body could naturally synthesize, they'd die due to lack of the essential amino acids that the body cannot produce (Lysine, Methionine, Tryptophan, et al), so that itself is a flawed argument.
Slarg232 wrote:Ideally, it should be enforced with a new law. This law would require police to record reported rapes, and any Abortion Clinic would have to see if that person had been raped and impregnated.
You've lost track of your own coversation. This was in response to your argument that the man should have a say in whether the pregnancy was terminated, rape wasn't mentioned in this argument at all.
So, ignoring the whole rape issue, I explained earlier that while it isn't fair that the man is removed from the issue, there's really not much that can be done about it, as the alternative involves the man telling the woman she has to abort the child he doesn't want, or that she has to carry to term the child she doesn't want.
It sucks, but the alternatives suck more.
If they were raped, Abort away, that is soley her decision.
I asked earlier but you probably missed it, if the foetus is a human life and deserves the protection of the state, what does it matter whether it was created through rape or not?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:My position is so not arbitrary, its awesome.
Every position is arbitrary, and yours is considerably less awesome than most.
27 weeks after conception the second trimester ends. During the second trimester certain things happen, certain important things like developing the uterus, movement of the intestines, nerve connections are still being formed, you know things that science will never be able to do.
People who declare they know what science will never be able to do are silly.
Second up, what if science advances and we can keep a child alive outside the womb after 18 weeks? Does that change the point at which it becomes life? What if they then advance it to 16 weeks, but realise that's as good as it'll ever get... does that become the point at which abortion is murder?
What the feth has the point of life got to do with the ability of technology to keep a foetus alive, anyway?
The point you've decided it is a life is just as arbitrary as any other point. Go back and read the example I gave, and think about it for a minute, and gain some perspective.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youbedead wrote:DOes no one on this forum know what a bloody though experiment is
They do. It's just that if they don't like the conclusion or can't argue against it, so they find it easier to target bizarre technicalities.
The body doesn't kill the cells Melissia, there's a difference between the body sending out cells to kill another cell and the cell killing itself. One is an autoimmune disease and the other is apoptosis.
The body doesn't control genetics, genetics controls the body.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I meant oil as in the stuff we dig up from the gound and process into gasoline.
halonachos wrote:You mean 'thought' experiment? What's wrong with the thoughts I gave concerning that the previous would most likely not happen. Just my thoughts vs the proposed thoughts.
The problem with your thoughts is that they ignore the actual point put forward. It doesn't matter that sperm and egg will need a certain environment to survive long enough to achieve conception, for the purposes of the argument. The point is to realise that taking each part and pouring them down the sink is basically what happens when you practice safe sex.
It doesn't matter that there's no point to mixing sperm and egg then pouring it down the sink, the point is to realise that's the same thing as a morning after pill, or a very early term abortion.
The point overall, is to understand that each of these represents a different point that different groups believe abortion should limited to, but that nothing actually happens from one stage to the next to absolutely, objectively determine life. So we have to accept that the point we decide upon, whatever it is, is not actually some objectively determined point that is more right than anyone else's, it's just the point that works for us.
halonachos wrote:The body doesn't kill the cells Melissia, there's a difference between the body sending out cells to kill another cell and the cell killing itself.
Apoptosis is oft triggered by other cells coming into contact with the degraded or damaged cell; it has many means of being activated, but the one in particular I am thinking of is when a cell recognizes the other cell as damaged, mutated, deformed, or otherwise undesirable to the body, and send a chemical to a receptor protein, which causes a chain reaction that eventually leads to caspase activation and then apoptosis. This is an important way for the body to prevent cancer-- the body effectively has figurative explosive collars attached to all of its cells' figurative necks, and apoptosis is when the body collectively presses the button.
Well hypothetically a sperm and egg left in a test tube for one creates an instant 22 year old and you murder the 22 year old. Is that still murder?
Am I doing it right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
halonachos wrote:The body doesn't kill the cells Melissia, there's a difference between the body sending out cells to kill another cell and the cell killing itself.
Apoptosis is oft triggered by other cells coming into contact with the degraded or damaged cell; it has many means of being activated, but the one in particular I am thinking of is when a cell recognizes the other cell as damaged, mutated, deformed, or otherwise undesirable to the body, and send a chemical to a receptor protein, which causes a chain reaction that eventually leads to caspase activation and then apoptosis. This is an important way for the body to prevent cancer.
An important feature of cancer is its lack of apoptosis and cell differentiation. Destroyed and dead cells are eaten by macrophages, but the cell is usually damaged and then the cell pulls its own trigger before it is broken down.
Apoptosis by definition is programmed cell death. Can it be stimulated by outside forces, yes as you just said. Cells break down into little pieces before they are removed though.
Well hypothetically a sperm and egg left in a test tube for one creates an instant 22 year old and you murder the 22 year old. Is that still murder?
Am I doing it right?
Yes, now you are. Now consider that if you consider tipping the sperm and the egg to be not murder, and killing the 22 year old to be murder, then you have to be able to explain at what point things changed from one to the other, and why.
Phototoxin wrote:
You can if it is absurd - such as size or developmental stage.
A fetus is developing child, the same way as a child is a developing teenager. Discrimination on size isn't ethical.
No, that's flatly incorrect. If I argue that in specific case X criteria Y is the best, or only, criteria of demarcation with any reasonable utility, then you cannot argue as though my argument is absurd by extending it beyond that specific case as you're fundamentally changing a central premise of the argument that you're critiquing. It is arguing against a strawman by necessity.
If you believe that the criteria is absurd per the premises of the argument outline, then you need to show why that its absurd given those. You cannot simply say that its absurd in other cases, and therefore absurd in all cases.
In any case, developing children can have their care transferred to others via certain social norms, like adoption, fetuses cannot undergo similar procedures; this is a categorical difference that is sufficient to render your comparison above overly simplistic.
Phototoxin wrote:
Do 'we' ? When? Generally? Casually? On-demand, for being 'defective' ? (well some did!) People have the right to life generally - unless the state deems it forfeit for the protection of its citizens (war and executions et cetera) however an unborn child has yet to murder,rape or burgle anyone, let alone invade or commit acts of terrorism!
Its guilty of being a thing that is necessarily dependent upon its mother for life, which certainly bear consideration when considering what rights it might have when those rights are in competition with those of the mother.
Phototoxin wrote:
Essentially its all or nothing - either human life is important and should be preserved and defended (although not at the expense of another's life) or else life is worthless and that if I murder someone tomorrow I shouldn't be prosecuted because we now have the right to kill who we want.
No, that's utter nonsense. Stating that something does not have limitless worth is not the same as stating that it has no worth at all.
Bromsy wrote:IPersonally the whole "is a fetus alive" debate has always kinda bored me. As far as I can tell, a good two thirds of the world lack the insight and intellect to be what I consider "alive", so some random kid doesn't matter to me. I think to be officially considered "alive", you should have to pass a series of rigorous philosophical debates, which you can try as often and as early as you'd like, but until you pass you are just another talking animal.
That statement means you just failed your own test.
Oookay buddy. Thanks for that insight. I guess i'll just go about my business then.
halonachos wrote:
If they were going to get away with legally killing an abortion specialist they would have to 1) Be an immediate relative of the woman getting the abortion, 2) Kill the abortion specialist during the actual abortion, and 3) Kill the mother.
Actually, killing the mother would necessarily involve attempting to kill the child, so killing the mother creates a catch-22. Moreover, you don't have to kill the practitioner during the procedure. You would only have to kill him when imminent might come to the fetus, which would depend more on the judge in question than the legislation itself. There's also the issue of how this law might impact laws regarding criminal endangerment with respect to the behavior of the mother towards the fetus.
In any case, this is a really awful law that has no business being passed. Not because it denies mothers certain rights, though it certainly could be used to do so, but because it creates so many stupid legal problems that its full ramifications won't be sorted out for years, if not decades.
Hmmm... perhaps the reason would be that the 22 year old is a collection of cells combined with a mind and a perceived soul while a sperm and egg are just monocellular things. Sperm is really just protein after all, no thought and no cognition or processes. It just bumps around for awhile.
As far as a fetus being alive... I would consider the point and time it starts to do basic human processes(digestion, movement, and the such) its a human being.
Now if a cow fetus began to do basic human processes it would be a cow and not a human because its genetic encoding designates it as a cow and not a human. Same thing with x is an x because its genetics say that its an x.
I put it at basic multicellular living processes and that's that. A ball of cells has cellular processes but lacks multicellular processes.
I do need to make a point about the male influence on abortion though. While its a woman's body she alone didn't create that child a male cell needs to be used to make it. If a woman gets an abortion it could be like telling the man that his genetics are not good enough to be passed on in another living creature and even though it sounds stupid men also are affected by abortion. Some men want to go out into the world and have children and if that man's wife conceives and considers an abortion the man will feel bad about himself but he'll repress his emotions to help his wife cope.
Abortion affects both genders no matter what the media tells you.
sebster wrote:
Yes, now you are. Now consider that if you consider tipping the sperm and the egg to be not murder, and killing the 22 year old to be murder, then you have to be able to explain at what point things changed from one to the other, and why.
Did anyone mention the Trolley Problem yet?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Hmmm... perhaps the reason would be that the 22 year old is a collection of cells combined with a mind and a perceived soul while a sperm and egg are just monocellular things. Sperm is really just protein after all, no thought and no cognition or processes. It just bumps around for awhile.
But then we have to start talking about what a mind is, which brings up many more problems than it solves.
And a soul...best to just leave that out altogether.
halonachos wrote:
If they were going to get away with legally killing an abortion specialist they would have to 1) Be an immediate relative of the woman getting the abortion, 2) Kill the abortion specialist during the actual abortion, and 3) Kill the mother.
Actually, killing the mother would necessarily involve attempting to kill the child, so killing the mother creates a catch-22. Moreover, you don't have to kill the practitioner during the procedure. You would only have to kill him when imminent might come to the fetus, which would depend more on the judge in question than the legislation itself. There's also the issue of how this law might impact laws regarding criminal endangerment with respect to the behavior of the mother towards the fetus.
I would consider imminent to mean the time the doctor enters the operating room, at any other time the doctor can still deny the patient the abortion or is finished with the operation.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, no we shall debate what is a mind and what is soul and whether or not they are connected right now! Hell, lets just get the 'does God exist' debate going while we're at it. You know its only a matter of time.
In which case I put forth the motion that once a fetus is the same consistency of peanut butter it is a living thing as it proves that God exists.
halonachos wrote:
I would consider imminent to mean the time the doctor enters the operating room, at any other time the doctor can still deny the patient the abortion or is finished with the operation.
The point is that it doesn't matter what you consider to be imminent. It matters what can be successfully argued to be imminent.
halonachos wrote:
I would consider imminent to mean the time the doctor enters the operating room, at any other time the doctor can still deny the patient the abortion or is finished with the operation.
The point is that it doesn't matter what you consider to be imminent. It matters what can be successfully argued to be imminent.
I think that imminent can be argued as being the time the person decided to get an abortion, but would be easier to argue as being within a certain number of minutes to the actual abortion.
halonachos wrote:
I think that imminent can be argued as being the time the person decided to get an abortion, but would be easier to argue as being within a certain number of minutes to the actual abortion.
Yeah, I agree, but I also think that there's more leeway in a conservative state with a strong pro-life movement.
halonachos wrote:Hmmm... perhaps the reason would be that the 22 year old is a collection of cells combined with a mind and a perceived soul while a sperm and egg are just monocellular things. Sperm is really just protein after all, no thought and no cognition or processes. It just bumps around for awhile.
Please read more carefully. I didn't ask for a description of the differences between the two, I asked for the point at which one thing, lacking whatever it is that grants the right to life, becomes a thing that has whatever grants the right to life. In the 22 year peiod, at what point exactly does it go from being a pile of cells and become a human with the right to life?
As far as a fetus being alive... I would consider the point and time it starts to do basic human processes(digestion, movement, and the such) its a human being.
Digestion and movement is what grants the right to life? Can I go around shooting people in wheelchairs with colostomy bags?
Surely what matters has nothing to do with digestion or other basic faculties, and everything to do with mental faculties?
I do need to make a point about the male influence on abortion though. While its a woman's body she alone didn't create that child a male cell needs to be used to make it. If a woman gets an abortion it could be like telling the man that his genetics are not good enough to be passed on in another living creature and even though it sounds stupid men also are affected by abortion. Some men want to go out into the world and have children and if that man's wife conceives and considers an abortion the man will feel bad about himself but he'll repress his emotions to help his wife cope.
Abortion affects both genders no matter what the media tells you.
Yes, it does, and far more important than any of that is the idea that he believes he has just created a human life and that he's responsible for raising this to be a healthy, happy person, but then the woman decides to abort.
But the alternative is to have a system where the man can tell the woman she has to carry a child to term that she doesn't want.
So it sucks, but lots of things do. Man up and deal, because there's no solution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Did anyone mention the Trolley Problem yet?
corpsesarefun wrote:
I am attempting to tell you that while I don't give a gak who lives and dies whether it be people or foetus the bill WILL target those who practice legal abortions if harming a foetus (IE abortion) is seen as harming a human being. No one gives a flying feth about the mother, the foetus is what is under debate.
No it won't, some of the pro-choice people are using it to slam a political figure they don't want in office. Go figure they would take something and manipulate it to their cause, good thing Al Gore invented the internet so they could spread their message globally.
That sounds like the normal political process.
A politician invents a law you consider bad, which you oppose, and you use that to attack him and his law in order to oppose him and his law.
Aye I've no time for the male argument, sure it would suck if my missus wanted am abortion and I wanted the kid, but she puts the most effort into pregnancy, It's her body. We don't play an equal part in carrying it, so we shouldnt have an equal say in keeping it.
Frazzled wrote:You completely and dare I say potentially deliberatley DIDN'T answer the question.
When is that point.
And no its not generally established. In the US SCOTUS views this as viability basically.
I'm sorry for bringing this up after a couple of pages have passed but I felt I had to answer it.
I "didn't answer the question" for the simple reason I was not answering a question. That was my first post in this discussion and it was outlining my views on the matter.
Regards to answering the question "when is that point" I can only steer you to my later posts where I suggest I would be in agreement with the majority of research into this subject suggesting the point of viability would be somewhere around the mid 20 weeks.
You may say it is "not generally established" but I beg to differ. Please, prove me wrong. Find me peer reviewed and academically rated research to suggest that a foetus can survive as a separate viable entity much before this period. If a large government body (such as SCOTUS) backs it, how exactly is it not "established"?
Yes, our technology continues to get better, yes, one day it may be possible to incubate a foetus artificially from conception, but the point will still remain that without significant aid, that foetus will not survive, and much research has shown, the foetus will not have reached the point at which it could be considered "alive/viable/etc".
Kilkrazy wrote:I expect that one day a machine will be invented to incubate a foetus from blastula stage through to nine months.
However, at the moment, the viability limit is about 24 weeks.
How does changing technology justify whether something is or isn't life?
"Ms Johnson, last month you aborted your 24 weeks old pregnancy."
"Yes, it would not be sustainable outside the womb so it isn't life and therefore I can legally abort."
"Ah, but Ms Johnson, there was a breakthrough just this year in medical technology, we can now sustain a foetus outside the womb at just 16 weeks. You should have kept up your reading with the latest medical journals. Come with us, Ms Johnson."
I mean, it's as convenient a point as any other, but it's hardly definitive. In fact, it's just another arbitrary point for when life begins.
Medicine has to deal with various aspects of life and death. It used to be considered that someone was dead if they had stopped breathing. Modern medicine uses the brain death test, which of course was impossible in earlier times.
There's no reason why this sort of change in technology should not be applied at the start of life.
Medicine has to deal with various aspects of life and death. It used to be considered that someone was dead if they had stopped breathing. Modern medicine uses the brain death test, which of course was impossible in earlier times.
There's no reason why this sort of change in technology should not be applied at the start of life.
But when technology is applied to keeping a person alive after they stopped breathing, we're actually keeping their brain functioning. That is, technology is being used to maintain an important part of what we consider life (a functioning brain).
But in your example the foetus itself is unchanged, it remains in the womb developing as it does whether its 1811 or 2011, so the idea that it becomes life sooner in 2011 because it could survive with modern technology if it were taken out of the womb in 2011 is a bit of a nonsense.
The thing is, if we're to get to the basics of the issue and talk about what human life really is and what we find precious about it, we end up looking at consciousness, personality, and things like that. Unfortunately, those things develop slowly, with no clearly defined changes from one moment to the next. So instead we create these arbitrary points where human life has begun.
Which is fine, because there's no alternative really, but we should recognise them as being as arbitrary as they are.
sebster wrote:Which is fine, because there's no alternative really, but we should recognise them as being as arbitrary as they are.
I think that is kind of the point KK is making. With increased levels of technological ability it will be possible to do what was once impossible. The point then is do we move the goal posts because technology has improved, or do we find another way of more "accurately" determining a point at which a procedure should not be carried out?
Already there has been much debate on when someone should be taken off life support systems and left to "die naturally" due to our increased ability to keep a body functioning long after it would otherwise have perished.
SilverMK2 wrote:I think that is kind of the point KK is making. With increased levels of technological ability it will be possible to do what was once impossible. The point then is do we move the goal posts because technology has improved, or do we find another way of more "accurately" determining a point at which a procedure should not be carried out?
But the point is that 'able to survive outside the womb' is just as arbitrary a point as any other, only it has the added disadvantage of moving with technological breakthroughs that have nothing to do with the actual foetus.
We don't have a point where the procedure should not be carried out, nor do we have a means of determining such. Because what makes life sacred isn't it's ability to survive outside the womb, or the promise that it'll one day be a person, what makes life sacred is consciousness, is the unique personality of that individual. Unfortunately that develops very slowly, so that you can't ever point to one specific moment and declare 'that is now a person that deserves the right to life'.
So instead we pick a point, conception, first trimester, second, birth, whenever else, and declare that the point, no matter how arbitrary that point is. Which is all we can do, we just need to recognise it as such.
I think we are coming at the same point from different angles. I am not disagreeing with anything you are saying, I am simply saying that we can only hope determine, to the best of our abilities, what we determine a suitable (arbitrary) point at which abortion should be and should not be considered at.
As technology advances, we may be able to detect the point at which consiousness develops, we may not. We may discover or use some other yard stick for assessing when we should be able to terminate a pregnancy, we may not.
The point remains however that no matter how able we are to support life outside the womb, there will still be a point when a bundle of cells "becomes" a human being. How we choose to define that point is, as you say, decided arbitrarily. However, I would hope that it is determined as scientifically as possible, rather than based on emotional or religious grounds.
sebster wrote:
So instead we pick a point, conception, first trimester, second, birth, whenever else, and declare that the point, no matter how arbitrary that point is. Which is all we can do, we just need to recognise it as such.
In terms of personhood, you're correct, it is almost completely arbitrary.
However, what often goes amiss in these debates, often because many people get caught up in the self-righteousness inherent in making moral proclamations, is that any matter of ethics is necessarily going to be limited by practicality. Life begins at conception, we might even argue that personhood begins at conception, but until we develop technology to permit that life to develop without the aid of its mother the question of whether or not that life has the same rights as any similar life is always going to be nebulous. Technology might not change the moment at which life becomes itself, or even when a person becomes a person, but definitely changes the way we are able to treat both life and people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:
The point remains however that no matter how able we are to support life outside the womb, there will still be a point when a bundle of cells "becomes" a human being. How we choose to define that point is, as you say, decided arbitrarily. However, I would hope that it is determined as scientifically as possible, rather than based on emotional or religious grounds.
First we have to decide what a human being actually is.
There's a a relatively famous story about Diogenes plucking a chicken in order to refute Socrates' definition of a man as a "featherless biped".
SilverMK2 wrote:I think that is kind of the point KK is making. With increased levels of technological ability it will be possible to do what was once impossible. The point then is do we move the goal posts because technology has improved, or do we find another way of more "accurately" determining a point at which a procedure should not be carried out?
But the point is that 'able to survive outside the womb' is just as arbitrary a point as any other, only it has the added disadvantage of moving with technological breakthroughs that have nothing to do with the actual foetus.
We don't have a point where the procedure should not be carried out, nor do we have a means of determining such. Because what makes life sacred isn't it's ability to survive outside the womb, or the promise that it'll one day be a person, what makes life sacred is consciousness, is the unique personality of that individual. Unfortunately that develops very slowly, so that you can't ever point to one specific moment and declare 'that is now a person that deserves the right to life'.
So instead we pick a point, conception, first trimester, second, birth, whenever else, and declare that the point, no matter how arbitrary that point is. Which is all we can do, we just need to recognise it as such.
What you say is true. Conception, gestation and birth is a continuing process without discrete steps.
US abortion law rests partly on the concept of viability, though, so any medical advances affect the meaning of the law.
Of course, this is all science fiction at the moment. If and when "exowombs" become available, there will be a much wider argument than just about the abortion issue.
You have a test tube with sperm in it, and a test tube with an egg in it, and you tip it down the sink, is that murder? Had you combined them you would have had a group of cells that could have matured into human life.
Not murder - just 2 seperate gamete cells.
What about if you tip the sperm into the test tube with the egg, wait two minutes then tip it down the sink, is that murder? All it needed was more time to become human life.
(Despite the lack of sterility and odds of nothing actuall happening. Assuming conception occured then yes, otherwise no.
What about if you place it in an artificial womb, leave it for three months, then turn the artificial womb off? Is that murder?
Yes, as there is life created, and you've ended it by destroying its environment
What about if you left it for nine months until it left the artificial womb, then killed the baby? Is that murder?
As above, 3 months, 6 months, 9, months 40 weeks,, neonatal.... timing is irrelevant.
A person can be mentally disabled, but still capable of thought, ideas, and emotions. This is entirely different to a foetus. Where we get a person with the mental faculties of a foetus, that is to say none at all... we pull the plug.
If you think foetus have no mental capacity then I sugges you begin to study some embryology. In addition is a person in a vegetive state with no brain function 'not alive' anymore?
And when abortion isn't available, we see girls born and then abandoned. The problem here is culture failing to value both genders, not access to abortion.
I think it's failing to vaue PEOPLE, not geneders.
I wasn't talking about masturbation. Your body kills groups of its cells on a regular basis through apoptosis, and nevermind shedding of skin and hair.
And people die in famines everyday ergo it's ok form e to kill somone?
Actually if you put a sperm and an egg together it would need an environment around it or something to guide the sperm to the egg. Sperm dies within minutes of ejaculation and if you put a small egg and a single sperm in a test tube I doubt conception would happen. Sperm, like the men they come from, are fething slowed and don't ask for directions. Chances are the sperm would bounce off of the edge of the glass until it died.
Sperm can live for upto 7 days. Generally 3-4. They can survive being in a washing machine. Artificial insemination generally happens in a controlled lab. You don't 'mix two tubes'. Neither are sperm 'slowed' (slow is a verb, meaning 'to hold back' by the way) they will swim into the environment of the uterus almost 'instinctively' but being single cell gametes the don't possess an intelligence.
Apoptosis is vastly different from killing a cell. One is natural thanks to telomeres on the chromosomes, the other is just killing cells.
Apoptosis doens't just happen due 'thanks to telomeres on the chromosomes'...
To demonstrate the arbitrary nature of when we consider life to have begun
It's not arbitrary. Clearly life beings at a specific time, that time is conception, ie the fusing of a sperm and egg to produce a human zygote.
Additionally whay makes it idifferent from any other cells that you might randomly scrape off is that it can develop into any required tissues in the body being pluripotent and all that.
The limit to the date is 21 weeks and will most likely stay at 21 weeks. If you want at least a 50% chance of survival you're looking at 25 weeks.
So that (rare) 18 week old who survived without permaent damage isn't human?
Also the woman who survived being aborted isn't human either as clearly we don't abort 'humans' or 'people'?
Weasel word all you want, apoptosis is still the body killing off cells which are undesirable to the body.
Yes... programmed cell death... IE the body killing off its cells. No matter how much you attempt to word it otherwise, that's still what it is.'.
Eh.... no! Certain other things can cause apoptosis other than the body wanting to rid itself of cells that are 'undesirable. They body might do the killing but it doens't always do the triggering. The cells may be desirable but the body is 'tricked' into destroying it.
Its guilty of being a thing that is necessarily dependent upon its mother for life, which certainly bear consideration when considering what rights it might have when those rights are in competition with those of the mother.
How humane.
A neonatal infant is dependant on its mother fully. It's right to food competes with her right to food. It's right to time, attention and love compete with hers. It is still 'parasitic.' Yet killing it is not ok for some reason even thought it is fully and wholly dependent on its mother/other adult for its survival.
Please read more carefully. I didn't ask for a description of the differences between the two, I asked for the point at which one thing, lacking whatever it is that grants the right to life, becomes a thing that has whatever grants the right to life. In the 22 year peiod, at what point exactly does it go from being a pile of cells and become a human with the right to life?
It doens't sebster-- we're all just piles of cells haven't you heard?
Medicine has to deal with various aspects of life and death. It used to be considered that someone was dead if they had stopped breathing. Modern medicine uses the brain death test, which of course was impossible in earlier times.
There's no reason why this sort of change in technology should not be applied at the start of life.
Because by its nature a start is definitive and an ending isn't. A play definitely starts with the first scene, but it could end after the 2nd 3rd 4th and so on. We could write extra scenes for it while its being performed. But the start has always been the start, the end we can change, the start we can't because it's already started.
Which is fine, because there's no alternative really, but we should recognise them as being as arbitrary as they are.
There is an 'alternative' - the same 'alternative' that was agreed apon before the spread of abortion - human life beigns at conception. Of course if despite being alive it's not a person, or a human, or congitave, or is a parasite then sure we can kill it. But all of these are arbitrary re-definitions to suit an agenda.
In terms of personhood, you're correct, it is almost completely arbitrary
This is the issue. To some blacks aren't people, or Jews or Irish or whatever... its totally subjective in highly in line with today's era of moral relativism. And yes Godwin all you like but the fact remains that it is a relevant reference.
It's nice to know that the odds of this law passing aren't good, that even if it does it will in all likelihood be struck down as unconstitutional on both the state and federal level, and to top it all off abortion is still legal.
If you think foetus have no mental capacity then I sugges you begin to study some embryology. In addition is a person in a vegetive state with no brain function 'not alive' anymore?
Actually, yes. That is the modern medical definition of dead -- zero brain function.
An embryo cannot have any mental capacity until the brain has formed.
corpsesarefun wrote:I think the issue is harming the foetus rather than the mother.
Usually happens dude if the baby is in the womb and you punch the mom... conservation of momentum and all...
I am aware of the effects on a foetus when punching a pregnant woman in the womb.
The issue raised in the thread however is that abortion doctors are seen to be harming fetus's by terminating them thus are targetted by the bill.
This is the same as a jump as saying people who euthanize prisoners on death row murderers. They are performed LEGALLY.
Also... if you were aware that harming the mom can harm the fetus... I don't understand your first comment...
This is argument of the bill's author. Its doesn't effect abortionists, as that is legal. Its designed for the proverbial "stopping someone from punching mom in the gut" scenario. Evidently there was a lot of that in South Dakota.
If you think foetus have no mental capacity then I sugges you begin to study some embryology. In addition is a person in a vegetive state with no brain function 'not alive' anymore?
Actually, yes. That is the modern medical definition of dead -- zero brain function.
An embryo cannot have any mental capacity until the brain has formed.
Nope - death includes but is not limited to no brain function - cessation of the hear, breathing and all other vital functions including brain activity.
your heart can stop in a heart attack - does that make you dead?
Also how do you know when an embryo forms a brain cell and they function?
Phototoxin wrote:Also how do you know when an embryo forms a brain cell and they function?
You can look at them on various scanners. One of the joys of medical physics is being able to look at stuff going on inside the body as it is happening without having to slice everything open
If you think foetus have no mental capacity then I sugges you begin to study some embryology. In addition is a person in a vegetive state with no brain function 'not alive' anymore?
Actually, yes. That is the modern medical definition of dead -- zero brain function.
An embryo cannot have any mental capacity until the brain has formed.
Nope - death includes but is not limited to no brain function - cessation of the hear, breathing and all other vital functions including brain activity.
your heart can stop in a heart attack - does that make you dead?
Also how do you know when an embryo forms a brain cell and they function?
Definition of Death
Death: 1. The end of life. The cessation of life. (These common definitions of death ultimately depend upon the definition of life, upon which there is no consensus.) 2. The permanent cessation of all vital bodily functions. (This definition depends upon the definition of "vital bodily functions.") See: Vital bodily functions. 3. The common law standard for determining death is the cessation of all vital functions, traditionally demonstrated by "an absence of spontaneous respiratory and cardiac functions." 4. The uniform determination of death. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards." This definition was approved by the American Medical Association in 1980 and by the American Bar Association in 1981.
You can see from this that a heart attack isn't death, since it is possible that the heart could be restarted.
A brain cell isn't a brain.
Embryology is the study of the development of embryos. I would refer you to a medical embryology text book for an overview of the development of the brain in the human embryo.
Really - as scanners aren't that high of a resolution usually. Additionally it tends to be from disecting foetuses that we get most of our info. But I was specifically asking how Killkrazy knew.
Phototoxin wrote:Really - as scanners aren't that high of a resolution usually. Additionally it tends to be from disecting foetuses that we get most of our info. But I was specifically asking how Killkrazy knew.
I learnt it at medical school.
You don't have to be a medical student. Anyone can buy medical textbooks, or borrow them out of the library. Obviously it helps to go to lectures and tutorials but you can learn a lot just by reading.
Phototoxin wrote:Really - as scanners aren't that high of a resolution usually. Additionally it tends to be from disecting foetuses that we get most of our info. But I was specifically asking how Killkrazy knew.
You have a poor view of how good modern scanners are. Sure, they are not crystal clear but the technology is improving very quickly. I can't guarantee it, but I'm pretty sure we have not cut up any foeteses to determine developmental milstones for quite some number of years, if not decades (certainly not in large numbers anyway).
mattyrm wrote:Aye I've no time for the male argument, sure it would suck if my missus wanted am abortion and I wanted the kid, but she puts the most effort into pregnancy, It's her body. We don't play an equal part in carrying it, so we shouldnt have an equal say in keeping it.
As seb said, suck it up and be a man!
lol
Most wives are going to let their husbands have a say in the matter anyway, it's the nature of marriage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
mattyrm wrote:No photo life does NOT begin at conception, you just happen to believe that it does... just like Sarah Palin!
Believing something doesn't make it fact.
Well, duh. Life begins prior to conception. Sperm are alive. Eggs are alive.
Sure, you need the little death for them to meet, but I think that's taking things a bit too literally.
mattyrm wrote:Aye I've no time for the male argument, sure it would suck if my missus wanted am abortion and I wanted the kid, but she puts the most effort into pregnancy, It's her body. We don't play an equal part in carrying it, so we shouldnt have an equal say in keeping it.
As seb said, suck it up and be a man!
lol
Most wives are going to let their husbands have a say in the matter anyway, it's the nature of marriage.
Phototoxin wrote:
This is the issue. To some blacks aren't people, or Jews or Irish or whatever... its totally subjective in highly in line with today's era of moral relativism. And yes Godwin all you like but the fact remains that it is a relevant reference.
But see, that's just it, personhood isn't really the issue at all. Even if you want to say that personhood starts at conception, that still isn't sufficient to rule out the legitimacy of abortion.
It should also be noted that while personhood is almost completely arbitrary, its often distinguished from simple humanity according to agency. Not colloquially of course, which is why this thread is a jumble of nonsense, and the abortion debate is so juvenile.
You have a poor view of how good modern scanners are. Sure, they are not crystal clear but the technology is improving very quickly. I can't guarantee it, but I'm pretty sure we have not cut up any foeteses to determine developmental milstones for quite some number of years, if not decades (certainly not in large numbers anyway).
That’s not what the nice clear IHC pictures in my embryology seminar said.. granted it was heart development but its still major organ development.
No photo life does NOT begin at conception, you just happen to believe that it does... just like Sarah Palin!
Believing something doesn't make it fact.
You believe it does not… which does not make it fact. Factually : on conception a cell displays all of the requirements for life and is its own organism. Indeed it indeed my medical deifiition alive. This has been the case until relatively recently where people, like yourself have attemped to 'redefine' the fetus as not being alive.
I don’t see why I believe what Sarah Palin believes. She might believe that life begins at conception because a moose on an LSD trip told her so. She might belive it because the Qu'ran says so.
But see, that's just it, personhood isn't really the issue at all. Even if you want to say that personhood starts at conception, that still isn't sufficient to rule out the legitimacy of abortion.
Well what *is* the issue? This is typical of an abortion debate as essentially many terms get to be re-defined. So the fetus is a person – but then you don’t care. But yet magically this doesn’t correlate to adult people. Killing unborn people is ok … just because? So if that is the case killing adult people should be ok just because it is. Or because you believe it is?
It's obfuscation. I don't *want* to say that 'personhood' (a non-term essentially') starts at conception. I'm telling you, factually, indisputably, that unique human life is created at conception. It is very small and immature but it is human life, and according to the laws of our societies no one has the right to end another humans life (unless it would save another persons life and even then there are issues). All abortion does is kill a small child. Anything else about trimester, brain function et cetera is simply obfuscation of the issue with an attempted veneer of legitimacy based on the child's size.
To enable abortion to be legitimate you would need to explain when is it ever permissible to kill a human. The only reason I can think of is : defense of anothers life (such as a pregnant mother with cancer who needs chemotherapy, or shooting an axe wielding maniac running at people)
(seeing person =/= human in this odd discussion I'm using human.)
You have a poor view of how good modern scanners are. Sure, they are not crystal clear but the technology is improving very quickly. I can't guarantee it, but I'm pretty sure we have not cut up any foeteses to determine developmental milstones for quite some number of years, if not decades (certainly not in large numbers anyway).
That’s not what the nice clear IHC pictures in my embryology seminar said.. granted it was heart development but its still major organ development.
I'm sorry, but can you clarify what it is you are saying here in relation to my post? Might just be me being a bit thick
Phototoxin wrote:
You believe it does not… which does not make it fact. Factually : on conception a cell displays all of the requirements for life and is its own organism. Indeed it indeed my medical deifiition alive. This has been the case until relatively recently where people, like yourself have attemped to 'redefine' the fetus as not being alive.
People like myself have attempted to redefine the foetus as not being alive?! Give me a fething break.
Absolute bloody hogwash. Do you read all this stuff off a Chick tract?
Pretty much everything you have wrote in this thread has been ridiculous, but somehow that takes the biscuit. I will refrain from posting further and getting the thread locked, go and argue with somebody who more politely tolerates the ravings of the indoctrinated.
Medically its life and distinct life. I'm sorry you have a problem with Matty, but facts are facts. The question at that point then becomes now what? When is it ok for society to wack humans?
sebster wrote:The answer is in getting people to value human diversity, and love the person, not love the list of most desirable attributes.
Absolutely and totally sensible. I just wonder if widespread acceptance of abortion, with little mindfulness that it is social harm, contributes to this goal. There is a lot of criticism from the left targeting mainstream democrats who talk about abortion as a "necessary evil." I don't know that there is a morally credible way to talk about it otherwise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Every time I see "blastula" I picture a vampire with a Plasma Cannon.
SilverMK2 wrote:When their country is sitting on top of a buttload of oil?
I suppose this explains the 100-year war between the US and Canada.
Not surprisingly, it does explain most of the wars throughout history (replace oil with some other resource). Its only starting in the late 20th century that one country invaded another without the aim of strategic conquest.
On another unrelated note, what is with the Sarah Palin bogey(wo)man-ism?
Thats why Palins name comes up mate, because she says this gak and she is roundly mocked by every educated person in the world who isnt a bible thumper from somewhere in America.
Someone with her identical beliefs can come on here and basically say much worse than she has every come out with, basically say "everyone who disagrees with me wants to shoot disabled people in the head" "lets nuke the world then lol" or "you all just want an excuse to murder people LOLZ!" and we have to sit and tolerate it.
What is the difference between her nonsense views and that of my mate here? Why can I acceptably mock the former and not the latter?
Frazz, you know shes a fething idiot, you just dont want to admit it because your quite clearly and obviously a staunch Republican mate! I mean, I can fully understand that, but honestly.. she clearly is an idiot, even regards to other politicians and you know it. I have to say that even though i have a scornful attitude towards them in general (politicians), I dont believe that most of them are stupid, but that bitch is clearly in need of a brain transplant.
Incidentally, I also take umbrage with the term pro-life. They use the term to try and discredit people that disagree with them (or non Christians generally). You know, that if you think that women should have the right to choose you are anti-life? Its all a grand nonsense perpetuated by my eternal foes.
And how the hell can you be pro life and pro gun!? Isnt that an oxymoron!?
No, I'm not leathered, but I'm not being serious obviously. I'm well aware of the meaning behind the two terms.
Unless this is some English language slip up, then that may well be, I'm a commando not a professor pf linguistics.. I just remember an officer once telling me that "friendly fire" is a paradoxical oxymoron, so what's wrong with mine if you take it at face value?
sebster wrote:The answer is in getting people to value human diversity, and love the person, not love the list of most desirable attributes.
Absolutely and totally sensible. I just wonder if widespread acceptance of abortion, with little mindfulness that it is social harm, contributes to this goal.
What about the social harm from having no abortion and no birth control?
Phototoxin wrote:
Well what *is* the issue? This is typical of an abortion debate as essentially many terms get to be re-defined. So the fetus is a person – but then you don’t care. But yet magically this doesn’t correlate to adult people. Killing unborn people is ok … just because? So if that is the case killing adult people should be ok just because it is. Or because you believe it is?
Its not a matter of redefinition in most cases, but a fundamentally distinct usage of a set of particular words. This is especially evident with personhood as its an incredibly nebulous concept to begin with; lacking any clear technical meaning outside a very specific set of contexts.
Anyway, the point is that simply saying "its a person." is only relevant if you believe that its unacceptable to kill people. Lots of people believe that, in general, that is the case but many of those same people also believe that there are certain conditions in which it is acceptable to kill a person. Given this, there's no reason to presume that possessing the status of a fetus is not acceptable grounds to justify killing.
I don't know where you're getting this "just because" nonsense though. It isn't arbitrary any more than the general prohibition of killing people is.
Phototoxin wrote:
It's obfuscation. I don't *want* to say that 'personhood' (a non-term essentially') starts at conception. I'm telling you, factually, indisputably, that unique human life is created at conception. It is very small and immature but it is human life, and according to the laws of our societies no one has the right to end another humans life (unless it would save another persons life and even then there are issues). All abortion does is kill a small child. Anything else about trimester, brain function et cetera is simply obfuscation of the issue with an attempted veneer of legitimacy based on the child's size.
No, it kills a fetus. A fetus is not a child anymore than a child is an adult. If you want to accuse others of obfuscating an issue, then you should be particularly careful to avoid doing so yourself. Similarly, it would be best to avoid generalizing matters of brain function and trimester as simple issues of size, that is plainly not the case. If it were, then the conversation would be one of something like mass, or length, and that is plainly not the case.
Phototoxin wrote:
To enable abortion to be legitimate you would need to explain when is it ever permissible to kill a human. The only reason I can think of is : defense of anothers life (such as a pregnant mother with cancer who needs chemotherapy, or shooting an axe wielding maniac running at people)
Its permissible for a mother, by direct action or the permitted action of another, to take a human life when the human is in the fetal stage. This is acceptable because the human in question is uniquely dependent upon the mother for its own life, and so the mother is given a unique authority over the life of the fetus. Were pregnancy transferable, this authority would essentially cease to exist (barring matters of economic necessity), but until that day mothers have authority over the fetus due to the particular burden it impresses upon them. This exception to the general right to life, such as it is, follows from the absence of the right to be cared for.
Thats why Palins name comes up mate, because she says this gak and she is roundly mocked by every educated person in the world who isnt a bible thumper from somewhere in America.
Someone with her identical beliefs can come on here and basically say much worse than she has every come out with, basically say "everyone who disagrees with me wants to shoot disabled people in the head" "lets nuke the world then lol" or "you all just want an excuse to murder people LOLZ!" and we have to sit and tolerate it.
What is the difference between her nonsense views and that of my mate here? Why can I acceptably mock the former and not the latter?
Frazz, you know shes a fething idiot, you just dont want to admit it because your quite clearly and obviously a staunch Republican mate! I mean, I can fully understand that, but honestly.. she clearly is an idiot, even regards to other politicians and you know it. I have to say that even though i have a scornful attitude towards them in general (politicians), I dont believe that most of them are stupid, but that bitch is clearly in need of a brain transplant.
Incidentally, I also take umbrage with the term pro-life. They use the term to try and discredit people that disagree with them (or non Christians generally). You know, that if you think that women should have the right to choose you are anti-life? Its all a grand nonsense perpetuated by my eternal foes.
And how the hell can you be pro life and pro gun!? Isnt that an oxymoron!?
Well yeah, but I was talking about the opinions of people who I actually would bother to pretend to care about, not random douchebag on the street ranting about how Obama stole his car and set his house on fire.
sebster wrote:The answer is in getting people to value human diversity, and love the person, not love the list of most desirable attributes.
Absolutely and totally sensible. I just wonder if widespread acceptance of abortion, with little mindfulness that it is social harm, contributes to this goal.
What about the social harm from having no abortion and no birth control?
"Irrelevant." I got to use it again! I see why you like it so much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:How can someone be pro death and anti gun?
I guess gun violence is not gruesome enough for some.
sebster wrote:The answer is in getting people to value human diversity, and love the person, not love the list of most desirable attributes.
Absolutely and totally sensible. I just wonder if widespread acceptance of abortion, with little mindfulness that it is social harm, contributes to this goal.
What about the social harm from having no abortion and no birth control?
"Irrelevant." I got to use it again! I see why you like it so much.
It doesn't work unless you explain why.
Regardless, you are wrong; overpopulation is definitely relevant to human society, having a large effect on all strata of society.
It is permissable for a mother to take a human life when the human is in the fetal stage whether or not abortion is legal. I have heard of women inducing wheir own miscarriages for reasons they don't have to explain to me or anyone else. I guess we could toss every pregnant woman who has a cigarette or a glass of wine, or eats anything that strays from a straight-and-narrow health diet, or crosses the street without a crosswalk... in jail for attempted murder!
Melissia wrote:It doesn't work unless you explain why.
Doesn't seem to get me very far but here we go. I was not saying we need to get rid of all abortion and birth control or even that these things need to be limited further. So your point in response was utterly irrelevant. The point I made was that an uncritical approach to abortion politics premised on "more rights = more social justice," which is a real opinion that more than a few people hold, is flawed to the point of being morally reprehensible. It does not in any way contribute to the sensible conclusion that sebster posted and, in my opinion, it works directly against that insight.
No, it kills a fetus. A fetus is not a child anymore than a child is an adult. If you want to accuse others of obfuscating an issue, then you should be particularly careful to avoid doing so yourself. Similarly, it would be best to avoid generalizing matters of brain function and trimester as simple issues of size, that is plainly not the case. If it were, then the conversation would be one of something like mass, or length, and that is plainly not the case.
Well what is the case? – you’ve still not given a clear definition. Why is 24 weeks a bad time to kill a fetus but 13 is not? Waht about 14,15,16 weeks? 2days? 8 days? 75 days? It’s illegal to kill both a 24 week old baby and a 13 week old baby but not when its in the womb - why? Enlighten me.
Its permissible for a mother, by direct action or the permitted action of another, to take a human life when the human is in the fetal stage. This is acceptable because the human in question is uniquely dependent upon the mother for its own life, and so the mother is given a unique authority over the life of the fetus.
Who gives her the ‘unique authortiy’? – she has a unique RESPONSIBILITY, but not authortity. Parents are responsible for their children, they do not have roman-era type authorthty to kill (or sell them as was also possible then then)
If an adult has motor neuron disease and has no way of communication and a person is their designated carer, the patient is uniquely dependent on their carer. By your logic the carer has a unique authority and so should be able to kill the adult.
Were pregnancy transferable, this authority would essentially cease to exist (barring matters of economic necessity), but until that day mothers have authority over the fetus due to the particular burden it impresses upon them. This exception to the general right to life, such as it is, follows from the absence of the right to be cared for.
So what you’re saying is that the mother can choose to kill her own child because she doesn’t want to care for it. Hence if i have an 8 year old child and he becomes tedious I will just shoot him, since clearly I have the right not to care for him.
. Assuming conception occured then yes, otherwise no.
