North Dakota Legislature: A fertilized egg has rights of a human

[adk]

I've never started a thread in here before, but this one sort of came out of left field.

A measure approved by the North Dakota House gives a fertilized human egg the legal rights of a human being, a step that would essentially ban abortion in the state.

The bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended abortion rights nationwide, supporters of the legislation said.

Source (http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/index.cfm?id=106977&section=News)


Your Thoughts?

[chrmjenkins]

Interesting. It has to make it through their senate before it ever becomes an issue, though. Either way, I do think this is a state's issue, so we'll see what happens.

[SLC Flyfishing]

I've never started a thread in here before, but this one sort of came out of left field.



Source (http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/index.cfm?id=106977&section=News)


Your Thoughts?

Change it to fertilized and implanted egg and that's essentially how I feel.

SLC

[NT1440]

Ugh!

[jonbravo77]

Interesting. It has to make it through their senate before it ever becomes an issue, though. Either way, I do think this is a state's issue, so we'll see what happens.

It's weird issue, On one hand it is a state's issue since there is no constitutional amendment saying other wise, but on the other hand since the U.S. Supreme court decided on Roe v. Wade it is also a federal issue. But that's all I am going to add to this thread. Don't feel like being lashed out at. :cool:

[leekohler]

Wacky- and that's all I'm going to say about it.

[marbles]

This will set precedent & abortion will finally be illegal

[leekohler]

This will set precedent & abortion will finally be illegal

No- it won't. Keep dreaming.

[marbles]

No- it won't. Keep dreaming.

No dream, just hope.

[nanofrog]

:rolleyes:

[jonbravo77]

No dream, just hope.

So, (and not to be accusatory) you are of the opinion that government has the right to dictate what a person does with their own body? Just wanting to clarify..

[yojitani]

This probably wouldn't happen in a state with an urban population.

Shame, anyway.

[EricNau]

This is nothing more than a ploy to have SCOTUS reexamine Roe v. Wade.

It's not going to work.

[marbles]

So, (and not to be accusatory) you are of the opinion that government has the right to dictate what a person does with their own body? Just wanting to clarify..
I know, it's a tuff one, but at the end of the day a human is a human no matter what stage of evolution or development they are at . To a certain extent I think it would be wise to have the 'state ' dictate , like an intermediary of sorts I suppose , protecting the life of the unborn.

[jonbravo77]

I know, it's a tuff one, but at the end of the day a human is a human no matter what stage of evolution or development they are at . To a certain extent I think it would be wise to have the 'state ' dictate , like an intermediary of sorts I suppose , protecting the life of the unborn.

But you didn't answer my simple question. Is it right that government should be able to dictate what a human being does with their own body?

[iObama]

I think it's great. I firmly believe life begins at conception, and I would regardless of my "religious preferences" abortion has always been a horribly grotesque matter to me.

[leekohler]

I think it's great. I firmly believe life begins at conception, and I would regardless of my "religious preferences" abortion has always been a horribly grotesque matter to me.

See Jon's post above.

[chrmjenkins]

But you didn't answer my simple question. Is it right that government should be able to dictate what a human being does with their own body?

Stop with the trapping questions. The point is that because they believe the fertilized egg is a human from day one, it's rights trump the mother's ability to abort it. Since people are going to differ on when it's a human, their interpretation of your question is going to be completely different.

[NT1440]

Stop with the trapping questions. The point is that because they believe the fertilized egg is a human from day one, it's rights trump the mother's ability to abort it. Since people are going to differ on when it's a human, their interpretation of your question is going to be completely different.

How is it a trap?

Its a legitamite question. Im sure someone with an opposing viewpoint would ask "SO your alright with the killing of human babies?". Is it still a trap then?


I beleive in the mothers choice. Her body, her choice. Religion and government should stay the hell away from it.

[chrmjenkins]

How is it a trap?

Its a legitamite question. Im sure someone with an opposing viewpoint would ask "SO your alright with the killing of human babies?". Is it still a trap then?


I beleive in the mothers choice. Her body, her choice. Religion and government should stay the hell away from it.

Yes, that's a trap too. Just like the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" You force the other person to agree with your terms by even answering the question. That's not fair, and it doesn't encourage good discussion.

[CalBoy]

Your Thoughts?

North Dakota has actually tried this twice before in recent times (once in 2004 and I think this past election as well).

Planned Parenthood has actually been very agile in that state, sending these constitutional changes to the ballot box and then having them defeated.

It obviously is an attempt to set up a test case against Roe v Wade, but these efforts are futile for the current period in time.
This is nothing more than a ploy to have SCOTUS reexamine Roe v. Wade.

It's not going to work.

Indeed. Kennedy is not going to vote for such an absurd blanket ban, and there's no guarantee that Roberts would either (since we honestly don't know where he stands on the issue).

The 8th Circuit Court would probably nullify it well before it ever gets to SCOTUS, and Scalia and Thomas won't grant Cert to a case they know is doomed to fail.

An all around poor strategy.
Yes, that's a trap too. Just like the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" You force the other person to agree with your terms by even answering the question. That's not fair, and it doesn't encourage good discussion.

How would you prefer the question to be phrased?

You can't deny that a ban on abortion does indeed restrict personal freedom. There's no way to run from that reality. It does so as much as a speed limit restricts freedoms or a ban on burglary does. The differences between them involve scope and purpose.

[thebassoonist]

Are they going to criminalize IUDs and progestin-only birth control?

[Apple Ink]

Are they going to criminalize IUDs and progestin-only birth control?

Then why the heck leave out vasectomy/tubectomical procedures, spermicides and even condoms....

This frankly seems like another crap... an inspiration probably drawn from the Vatican... "Abortions and condoms increase promiscuity...." I cant decide whether to cry or laugh on this one..

[chrmjenkins]

How would you prefer the question to be phrased?

You can't deny that a ban on abortion does indeed restrict personal freedom. There's no way to run from that reality. It does so as much as a speed limit restricts freedoms or a ban on burglary does. The differences between them involve scope and purpose.

Right, but since the topic at hand is very specific, the purpose of asking a general question is to try and get the person to think in a more abstract way and not apply their personal opinion to a given situation. Take your examples, if we were talking about if it were right to steal, and I asked the question whether or not it was right for the government to limit personal freedoms, people would balk at the supposition that it could be legitimized. This is a special case where one's rights infringe upon another's. The situation is the same for those who believe the fetus is a human from day one. The mother's rights end where the child's right to life is concerned.

Don't beat around the bush and just ask the actual question, do you believe abortion is right or wrong?

[thebassoonist]

Then why the heck leave out vasectomy/tubectomical procedures, spermicides and even condoms....

This frankly seems like another crap... an inspiration probably drawn from the Vatican... "Abortions and condoms increase promiscuity...." I cant decide whether to cry or laugh on this one..

True. But vasectomies and tubectomies (sp? or even a word?), spermicides, and condoms PREVENT the sperm from reaching the egg, whereas progestin-only and IUDs sometimes prevent ovulation, but almost certainly prevent implantation -- therefore, couples using IUDs and progestin-only birth control are murderers.

[chrmjenkins]

Then why the heck leave out vasectomy/tubectomical procedures, spermicides and even condoms....

This frankly seems like another crap... an inspiration probably drawn from the Vatican... "Abortions and condoms increase promiscuity...." I cant decide whether to cry or laugh on this one..

The examples he cited are special cases because they prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall.

As for the latter quote (or I'm assuming paraphrase), do you deny the basic truth of such a statement? I would be willing to wager if no methods of contraception existed, people would be more wary of engaging in intercourse. You don't have to agree with the intentions of the statement to see the truth in it.

[.Andy]

Does this means they're going to check the menses of every woman who is sexually active to see if they're conceived and aborted naturally? And do post mortems? And fill in death certificates? And hold cremations/burials?

edit: And are women that conceive when their uterus is the non-receptive phase of their cycle murders?

[thebassoonist]

Does this means they're going to check the menses of every woman who is sexually active to see if they're conceived and aborted naturally? And do post mortems? And fill in death certificates? And hold cremations/burials? That's going to be a lot of work.

Is this North Dakota's way of creating jobs?

[Apple Ink]

True. But vasectomies and tubectomies (sp? or even a word?), spermicides, and condoms PREVENT the sperm from reaching the egg, whereas progestin-only and IUDs sometimes prevent ovulation, but almost certainly prevent implantation -- therefore, couples using IUDs and progestin-only birth control are murderers.

Well frankly even IUDs work mainly by acting as spermicidal and ovicidal rather than actually killing off a fertilized zygote....
And even progesterone only pills (PoP) works by preventing ovulation (meaning egg release or formation) rather than killing off the zygote..

But nonetheless.. point proven!

[jonbravo77]

Right, but since the topic at hand is very specific, the purpose of asking a general question is to try and get the person to think in a more abstract way and not apply their personal opinion to a given situation. Take your examples, if we were talking about if it were right to steal, and I asked the question whether or not it was right for the government to limit personal freedoms, people would balk at the supposition that it could be legitimized. This is a special case where one's rights infringe upon another's. The situation is the same for those who believe the fetus is a human from day one. The mother's rights end where the child's right to life is concerned.

Don't beat around the bush and just ask the actual question, do you believe abortion is right or wrong?

Unfortunately, unless the answer is wrong you will not accept anything else. You want to try and simplify a complicated discussion. I find your comment of "the mother's rights end where the child's right to life is concerned" that is very short sided if you ask me. How can you sit there and say that just because there is a fetus involved that the mother has no rights anymore? So again, I ask, do you think it is right for government to dictate what a human does with their own body?

[MacNut]

So, (and not to be accusatory) you are of the opinion that government has the right to dictate what a person does with their own body? Just wanting to clarify..Ok so what about suicide? doesn't the government step in? Last I checked a person cannot legally kill or attempt to kill themselves.

[jonbravo77]

Ok so what about suicide? doesn't the government step in? Last I checked a person cannot legally kill or attempt to kill themselves.

In my opinion, if that is the road you choose to take, that is your choice... And I am not going to go into the emotional implications of the people around the person who committed suicide. I am answering the question asked....

[Counterfit]

I've never started a thread in here before, but this one sort of came out of right field.

Fixed that for you. ;)

I agree with others, this wouldn't even come close to making the SCOTUS look at Roe v. Wade again.

[thebassoonist]

Well frankly even IUDs work mainly by acting as spermicidal and ovicidal rather than actually killing off a fertilized zygote....
And even progesterone only pills (PoP) works by preventing ovulation (meaning egg release or formation) rather than killing off the zygote..

But nonetheless.. point proven!

Right, I don't have the right terminology, but part of the effectiveness is, even if a woman ovulates and the egg does get fertilized, it won't implant.

-----------

From: http://www.fhi.org/en/rh/pubs/factsheets/pocorrect.htm

How Progestin-only Pills Work

Progestin-only oral contraceptives have very low doses of progestin, lower than combined pills. POPs prevent pregnancy in two main ways:

* They prevent ovulation in about half the cycles.
* They cause a thickening of the cervical mucus, which prevents sperm from reaching the egg.

POPs also produce changes in the endometrium so that it becomes less receptive to implantation in the unlikely case that ovulation occurs, and POPs slow the movement of the egg through the fallopian tube.

And

From: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/iud-4245.htm

How Does an IUD Work?

Both the ParaGard and the Mirena IUDs affect the way sperm move, preventing them from joining with an egg. If sperm cannot join with an egg, pregnancy cannot happen. Both types also alter the lining of the uterus. Some people say that this keeps a fertilized egg from attaching to the lining of the uterus. But there is no proof that this actually happens.

The progestin in the Mirena IUD helps prevent pregnancy. Progestin works by keeping a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs — ovulation. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm. Progestin also prevents pregnancy by thickening a woman's cervical mucus. The mucus blocks sperm and keeps it from joining with an egg.

---------

Whether or not there is proof of it probably won't stop North Dakota legislators.

[CalBoy]

Right, but since the topic at hand is very specific, the purpose of asking a general question is to try and get the person to think in a more abstract way and not apply their personal opinion to a given situation.

That's going to be near impossible, especially given our context here.

Take your examples, if we were talking about if it were right to steal,

Burglary isn't stealing, which is why I chose it as an example crime. Burglary is trespass with the intent to commit a crime once on the premises. Potentially, no harm can be done at all.

You should demonstrate why society needs a law against such a thing, because it is going to be useful in establishing your view of the law and society as they interact with the individual.

and I asked the question whether or not it was right for the government to limit personal freedoms, people would balk at the supposition that it could be legitimized.
I really don't want to be dragged into another abortion thread (I'm really abortioned out right now), but I think you can see the conceptual difference between a law that intends to actively protect our safety, and one that dictates rules for a woman's womb.


This is a special case where one's rights infringe upon another's.

Why are you so ready to confer rights on something that is otherwise indistinguishable biological material? Because it has the potential to be human?

The situation is the same for those who believe the fetus is a human from day one.

I note that you yourself use the word "believe."

I might add that that is the correct word to use, because medical science does not agree. What's more, the law is not meant to be based on beliefs, but rather realities. Beliefs are for our private lives, wherein you can not have as many abortions as you want.

The mother's rights end where the child's right to life is concerned.

It isn't a child yet.

You'll have to say that the mother's rights end where the fetus's right to life is concerned for factual accuracy.

Don't beat around the bush and just ask the actual question, do you believe abortion is right or wrong?

It's not so cut and dry. Usually when people insist on it being fully right or fully wrong, they don't have a good basis for why, which is the most important part of ethics, and I might add, the law.

[.Andy]

Ok so what about suicide? doesn't the government step in? Last I checked a person cannot legally kill or attempt to kill themselves.
Is this true?

[jonbravo77]

Cal, you are really good at this forum stuff. I need you to mentor me.... :D

[chrmjenkins]

Unfortunately, unless the answer is wrong you will not accept anything else. You want to try and simplify a complicated discussion.

You're not simplifying a complicated discussion by abstracting the central question of the discussion.

I find your comment of "the mother's rights end where the child's right to life is concerned" that is very short sided if you ask me. How can you sit there and say that just because there is a fetus involved that the mother has no rights anymore?

That's exactly the point of difference which is why you have to be careful what assumptions you build in your question. It's different if you consider that fetus a human life from day one. If you afford that fetus all the rights a human has, then the only exception the law would allow for the mother terminating the pregnancy is if it directly endangered her own health.

Of course, rape and incest are special cases which afford their very own debates.

So again, I ask, do you think it is right for government to dictate what a human does with their own body?

So, to answer your question, I repeat the answer for the more specific question as a qualifier, then answer the more general question. Is that what you want?

Given that assume a fetus is a human life and enjoys all the rights there provided, the mother only has the ability to terminate that pregnancy if it endangers her own life. However, in general, the government should not dictate what a human does with his or her own body.

If you consider a fetus a human life, the question would be the same as me asking "If I hit a joint, it turns my arm into a rocket launcher that kills my neighbor. It's my own body, should the government tell what I can do with it?" In both cases, a person is ending the life of another human being in a process that is not necessitated by a condition of protecting his or her own life.

That's going to be near impossible, especially given our context here.

Too much time is wasted in ferreting out one another's pretenses. Just get to the point :D


Burglary isn't stealing, which is why I chose it as an example crime. Burglary is trespass with the intent to commit a crime once on the premises. Potentially, no harm can be done at all.

You should demonstrate why society needs a law against such a thing, because it is going to be useful in establishing your view of the law and society as they interact with the individual.

My apologies, I took liberty with your example and equated unlike things. In any case, this issue deals directly with individuals, so it's no problem to be clear about that in this case.


I really don't want to be dragged into another abortion thread (I'm really abortioned out right now), but I think you can see the conceptual difference between a law that intends to actively protect our safety, and one that dictates rules for a woman's womb.

Right, but the questions become very different based on whether or not you consider that fetus a human. If you do, it has a safety that would need protection and goes beyond simply dictating the biological processes of organ systems.



Why are you so ready to confer rights on something that is otherwise indistinguishable biological material? Because it has the potential to be human?

It has all the genetic material of a human, and a reasonable assumption it will develop into a mature one if the process is not interrupted. Indeed, many consider it to be a human at some stage while it is still in the womb, which is the process in question. For some people, that's enough, and the question of morphology or the complexity of development of particular organ systems is immaterial.



I might add that that is the correct word to use, because medical science does not agree. What's more, the law is not meant to be based on beliefs, but rather realities. Beliefs are for our private lives, wherein you can not have as many abortions as you want.

It isn't a child yet.

You'll have to say that the mother's rights end where the fetus's right to life is concerned for factual accuracy.


Right, but the fact that science recognizes different stages of embryonic development, and one has been assigned as the dividing line for human life as recognized by the law, does not dictate anything other than what scientific opinion is. People are free to agree or disagree with this dividing line. This line is a belief, because the question "What is it to be human?" is not solely a scientific one; it's also a philosophical one. Laws are not solely dictated by science. The collective answers to many philosophical questions form the foundations of our Bill of Rights. You can't dictate that science is the only arbiter and say it's not really up to us. That's a cop out of addressing the ethics and morals involved.

[CalBoy]

Is this true?

For the most part in the US, yes.

It's really quite moronic. The last thing it should be is a crime; it should be linked to free psychological counseling and treatment, but that would be too "socialistic" for us. :rolleyes:

[jonbravo77]

Is this true?

Not really. Here is the answer

United States
In the United States, suicide has never been punished as a crime nor penalized by property forfeiture or ignominious burial.[citation needed] Historically, various states listed the act as a felony, but all were reluctant to enforce it. By 1963, six states still considered attempted suicide a crime (North and South Dakota, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, and Oklahoma that repealed its law in 1976). By the early 1990s only two US states still listed suicide as a crime, and these have since removed that classification. In some U.S. states, suicide is still considered an unwritten "common law crime," that is, a crime based on the law of old England as stated in Blackstone's Commentaries. (So held the Virginia Supreme Court in Wackwitz v. Roy in 1992.) As a common law crime, suicide can bar recovery for the family of the suicidal person in a lawsuit unless the suicidal person can be proven to have been "of unsound mind." That is, the suicide must be proven to have been an involuntary, not voluntary, act of the victim in order for the family to be awarded money damages by the court. This can occur when the family of the deceased sues the caregiver (perhaps a jail or hospital) for negligence in failing to provide appropriate care.[4] Some legal scholars look at the issue as one of personal liberty. According to Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU, "The idea of government making determinations about how you end your life, forcing you...could be considered cruel and unusual punishment in certain circumstances, and Justice Stevens in a very interesting opinion in a right-to-die [case] raised the analogy."[5]
In many jurisdictions medical facilities are empowered or required to commit anyone whom they believe to be suicidal for evaluation and treatment. See Code 5150 for example.
[edit]

Entire page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_views_of_suicide)

[Apple Ink]

Ok so what about suicide? doesn't the government step in? Last I checked a person cannot legally kill or attempt to kill themselves.

Euthanasia is another example of that...

But putting the prior completely out of bounds here.. the Govt should regulate the 'right to life' of anything and everything which/who can actually appraise the law... I dont see the Govt banning hunting [absolutely any animal]... or for that matter the cows and ducks and other life form that we eat....
Now before someone very stupidly comments that I'm comparing a human foetus to a cow... no. I'm comparing a non-sensing conscious-less thing to a cow.. on which front, at least a cow has senses still we serve them on platters as a delicacy!

[CalBoy]

Cal, you are really good at this forum stuff. I need you to mentor me.... :D

It's all philosophy classes. ;)

Seriously some of the best classes I ever took.

[Apple Ink]

Right, I don't have the right terminology, but part of the effectiveness is, even if a woman ovulates and the egg does get fertilized, it won't implant.

-----------

From: http://www.fhi.org/en/rh/pubs/factsheets/pocorrect.htm

---------


Whether or not there is proof of it probably won't stop North Dakota legislators.


For the rest kindly read his/her previous post... I find it distasteful to increase the length of a thread just by repetition of something pointless and Off topic..

LOL... I can at least agree with your last comment!

And as for as the rebuttal goes... the things you've marked in bold are those which you yourself suggest as the 'rest' as in.. 49% of this, 48% of that and the rest <insert your favored point here>

[CalBoy]

My apologies, I took liberty with your example and equated unlike things. In any case, this issue deals directly with individuals, so it's no problem to be clear about that in this case.

You still didn't answer my question though. If not all types of burglary necessarily cause harm, why are they illegal? There is an answer, but I think you know it won't correlate to justification for a banning on abortion, so you won't answer.

Right, but the questions become very different based on whether or not you consider that fetus a human. If you do, it has a safety that would need protection and goes beyond simply dictating the biological processes of organ systems.

If you do consider it a human, you are woefully ignorant of science and especially ignorant of biology in particular.

To afford a fetus more protections than we afford a sentient cow is an honest disgrace.


It has all the genetic material of a human, and a reasonable assumption it will develop into a mature one if the process is not interrupted.

Indeed many things have similar characteristics in the modern world. How come we don't want to protect those things?

Right, but the fact that science recognizes different stages of embryonic development, and one has been assigned as the dividing line for human life as recognized by the law, does not dictate anything other than what scientific opinion knowledge is.

Science doesn't have opinions; it is unbiased and only concerns itself with giving us the tools to make our decisions.

People are free to agree or disagree with this dividing line.

Not when it comes to the definition of a human. That is not up for debate, because it is an exclusively scientific question.

This line is a belief, because the question "What is it to be human?" is not solely a scientific one; it's also a philosophical one.

In the end, you need a set group of characteristics to define what is human and what is not human. That will tell you whether or not something is a human or not, and that process is scientific in nature.

The philosophy of "what is it to be human" involves humanity and the conditions through which we persevere as sentient beings.

Laws are not solely dictated by science.

No, no law is written or demanded by science, but science plays an important role in determining the importance, and necessity for a particular law. This has always been the case, even before the modern scientific method was established.

That's a cop out of addressing the ethics and morals involved.

I see no cop out. Science tells us the status of a thing, and we determine what the appropriate course of action is. That is ethics. Science provides for us the tools to separate belief from reality, which we need if we are to have a legitimate law.

[chrmjenkins]

You still didn't answer my question though. If not all types of burglary necessarily cause harm, why are they illegal? There is an answer, but I think you know it won't correlate to justification for a banning on abortion, so you won't answer.

I already told you I used liberty in converting burglary to stealing for the purposes of my argument (specifically as it relates to personal rights). There's no need to answer as it relates to burglary because that was never my intention.


If you do consider it a human, you are woefully ignorant of science and especially ignorant of biology in particular.

To afford a fetus more protections than we afford a sentient cow is an honest disgrace.

And you express intolerance of difference of opinion. For some, sentience is not a requisite of considering one a human being. Can you permit that that opinion is possible, and as such, would have vastly different consequences as it relates to this subject? Indeed, it does become more of a philosophic rather than scientific judgment, but there's certainly nothing inherently in error with pursuing that line of thought for a particular issue, is there?



Indeed many things have similar characteristics in the modern world. How come we don't want to protect those things?

Only humans have human DNA. For some, there is something intrinsically valuable in being a human.


Science doesn't have opinions; it is unbiased and only concerns itself with giving us the tools to make our decisions.

Of course it does. Theories are competing opinions based on interpretations of incomplete data for a particular phenomenon. You can play semantic games, but it still has the characteristics of an opinion, regardless of whether or not my particular use of the word was appropriate in the context you quoted.


Not when it comes to the definition of a human. That is not up for debate, because it is an exclusively scientific question.

There is a scientific definition, and there are philosophical ones. It's not an exclusively scientific question, and I can't understand why you think it can be relegated as such.


In the end, you need a set group of characteristics to define what is human and what is not human. That will tell you whether or not something is a human or not, and that process is scientific in nature.

The philosophy of "what is it to be human" involves humanity and the conditions through which we persevere as sentient beings.

Sure, you can split hairs over specific uses of the words, but when it comes down to it, the ones who decides the laws use their discretion to use their knowledge from all facets of life to determine legislation. That includes scientifically acquired knowledge as well as particular philosophical, religious etc. belief sets.


No, no law is written or demanded by science, but science plays an important role in determining the importance, and necessity for a particular law. This has always been the case, even before the modern scientific method was established.


I see no cop out. Science tells us the status of a thing, and we determine what the appropriate course of action is. That is ethics. Science provides for us the tools to separate belief from reality, which we need if we are to have a legitimate law.

The cop out is using solely the scientific nature of the question to render the judgment. Some people believe that there is more than a scientific aspect to it. Since we collectively decide these things as a society, it is our duty to collect all view points and make a value judgment.

[Ugg]

This won't pass muster. But, I think it's very possible that a US state with a very small population like North Dakota, Alaska or perhaps even Wyoming could very well end up deciding this issue.

The tyranny of a minority is to be feared.

[chrmjenkins]

This won't pass muster. But, I think it's very possible that a US state with a very small population like North Dakota, Alaska or perhaps even Wyoming could very well end up deciding this issue.

The tyranny of a minority is to be feared.

Deciding this issue? The only thing I would expect them to gain is the freedom to decide for themselves. I certainly don't see SCOTUS overturning Roe. V. Wade outright.

[EricNau]

Is this true?
"Death with Dignity" is explicitly legal in the states of Oregon and Washington, allowing doctors to prescribe self-administered lethal medications to terminally ill patients. Such forms of assisted suicide are forbidden in all other 48 states.

[CalBoy]

I already told you I used liberty in converting burglary to stealing for the purposes of my argument

You can't use that liberty because it changes the game. Stealing involves material depravation, which burglary does not involve.

There's no need to answer as it relates to burglary because that was never my intention.

It was mine, however. That's why I asked the question.

For some, sentience is not a requisite of considering one a human being.

It isn't the sole requisite for me either, but it does play a huge role in determining the protections we afford something.

Wholesale murder, for example, is perfectly acceptable if the thing we kill is an invisible bacteria. However, as we move up in organism complexity, our rules change. This is where the whole "fetus=human life" problem occurs. From a strictly biological standpoint, that fetus isn't very complex at all for a very long time. Ample time for a woman to make the decisions we wouldn't think twice about if she were eating yogurt, baking a yeast-leavened bread, or using soap.


Can you permit that that opinion is possible, and as such, would have vastly different consequences as it relates to this subject?

Can I permit an opinion on a definition? No. That defeats the purpose of a definition.

Indeed, it does become more of a philosophic rather than scientific judgment,

No, it doesn't. Philosophy involves the making of rational choices given a set of circumstances. There's nothing philosophical about the status of organic material. You want there to be, because that's a much more arguable line of thought than having to admit that factually a fetus is not yet human.


Only humans have human DNA.

Yes, but there are many parts of ourselves that have fetus potential with modern science. Who's crying over their destruction? It seems someone only gives a damn when it comes to a womb.


For some, there is something intrinsically valuable in being a human.

That's very egotistical isn't it? What makes us any more special than other life? Do different natural laws govern us? Do we have special DNA?

I don't think there's any ethical stance to be found in there; either all life biologically similar to a fetus deserves protection, or none of it does. There's your philosophical question, now run with it.

Theories are competing opinions based on interpretations of incomplete data for a particular phenomenon.

You cannot for a moment compare a theory to an opinion. Theories are heavily tested and earn their way to the status of "theory." The amount of peer review and harsh criticism a theory endures is enormous.

To suggest that a theory is somehow on the same level as an opinion is dishonest.

There is a scientific definition, and there are philosophical ones. It's not an exclusively scientific question, and I can't understand why you think it can be relegated as such.

I already explained it to you quite clearly. Science presents us the facts, philosophy presents us with the path to decision making.

Perhaps an outside example would be useful here. Imagine that there is a storm coming, and a small island population will die as a result. The island leaders have discovered this through analysis of the island's geography and soil status (science). The leaders realize that their options can involve attempting to flee the island or ride out the storm. Their decision making process is the philosophy involved.

Similarly, science has nicely told us what constitutes human life, and what doesn't. Now it's up to us to decide how much we want to defend both groups, which is philosophical.

The cop out is using solely the scientific nature of the question to render the judgment. Some people believe that there is more than a scientific aspect to it. Since we collectively decide these things as a society, it is our duty to collect all view points and make a value judgment.

I'm not using science to render my judgement. My judgement is based on a belief that we should avoid harming sentient life, since it can feel pain. A fetus can't feel pain in any sense for many weeks into gestation (Andy, can you provide a more accurate account as to when?). Otherwise, I see no sense in restricting the movement/creation/destruction of life that is non sentient; if I did hold such a philosophical belief, my entire lifestyle would have to change immensely.

[chrmjenkins]

You can't use that liberty because it changes the game. Stealing involves material depravation, which burglary does not involve.


It was mine, however. That's why I asked the question.

To be quite honest, my example was not attached to your request for an answer based on your particular list. Burglary made me think of stealing as an example, and I attributed it to you since it sparked my original idea to use the term. Of course, I'll acknowledge I have no intention of answering to burglary specifically because it has no analogous relevance.




Wholesale murder, for example, is perfectly acceptable if the thing we kill is an invisible bacteria. However, as we move up in organism complexity, our rules change. This is where the whole "fetus=human life" problem occurs. From a strictly biological standpoint, that fetus isn't very complex at all for a very long time. Ample time for a woman to make the decisions we wouldn't think twice about if she were eating yogurt, baking a yeast-leavened bread, or using soap.

I completely agree, which is why I acknowledge the distinguishing evaluation is a philosophical one, not a scientific one, which leads into your next points.



Can I permit an opinion on a definition? No. That defeats the purpose of a definition.

Yeah, but we are solely referring to scientific definition here.


No, it doesn't. Philosophy involves the making of rational choices given a set of circumstances. There's nothing philosophical about the status of organic material. You want there to be, because that's a much more arguable line of thought than having to admit that factually a fetus is not yet human.

No, I don't want there to be because I recognize that the philosophical interpretation exists outside of the scientific one, which I just explained. The scientific one is perfectly logical as it relates to biology as a whole.



Yes, but there are many parts of ourselves that have fetus potential with modern science. Who's crying over their destruction? It seems someone only gives a damn when it comes to a womb.

There are plenty of people who raise issue with stem cell research as it holds this same potential. It also relates to the process of creation of said fetus.



That's very egotistical isn't it? What makes us any more special than other life? Do different natural laws govern us? Do we have special DNA?

Again, that's going to depend on your philosophical and religious belief set. That's why that's the playing field where the contention arises, not the scientific one.


I don't think there's any ethical stance to be found in there; either all life biologically similar to a fetus deserves protection, or none of it does. There's your philosophical question, now run with it.

Sure, it's a cut and dry issue if you don't believe human beings are inherently special in some spiritual sense.


You cannot for a moment compare a theory to an opinion. Theories are heavily tested and earn their way to the status of "theory." The amount of peer review and harsh criticism a theory endures is enormous.

To suggest that a theory is somehow on the same level as an opinion is dishonest.

Of course, theories involve some quantifiable amount of testing to gain their status. However, opinion is a broad word, and can encompass anything from an arbitrary guess to a thoroughly debated thesis, making scientific theories a subset of opinions. I understand you're not caring for the word because it's not too specific, but a thoery is still a type of an opinion. It's a scientific opinion based on collected scientific knowledge. It is an opinion because it is possible that it could be incorrect.


I already explained it to you quite clearly. Science presents us the facts, philosophy presents us with the path to decision making.

Perhaps an outside example would be useful here. Imagine that there is a storm coming, and a small island population will die as a result. The island leaders have discovered this through analysis of the island's geography and soil status (science). The leaders realize that their options can involve attempting to flee the island or ride out the storm. Their decision making process is the philosophy involved.

Similarly, science has nicely told us what constitutes human life, and what doesn't. Now it's up to us to decide how much we want to defend both groups, which is philosophical.


I'm not using science to render my judgement. My judgement is based on a belief that we should avoid harming sentient life, since it can feel pain. A fetus can't feel pain in any sense for many weeks into gestation (Andy, can you provide a more accurate account as to when?). Otherwise, I see no sense in restricting the movement/creation/destruction of life that is non sentient; if I did hold such a philosophical belief, my entire lifestyle would have to change immensely.

You didn't need to re-explain it, I'm following you. What I am saying is that some people's philosophies surrounding humans would make science's non-bias towards human life invalid for them. They believe human life is inherently more valuable, which is something science can't grasp because it's inherently supernatural in nature. Make no mistake, I'm not trying to make a naturalistic argument for non-abortion here.

[EricNau]

As always, people are free to hold any belief they choose, however, such beliefs without verification should not have any bearing on legislation.

[chrmjenkins]

As always, people are free to hold any belief they choose, however, such beliefs without verification should not have any bearing on legislation.

Sure, let me know where that perfect world is, mk ;)

Regardless, I think that most people would hold science alone cannot answer our questions for us. Given that, we are forced to render our own value judgments on situations. We're never going to all agree, so we have to make compromises. Your process of verification will often be if the vast majority of people hold the belief.

[EricNau]

Your process of verification will often be if the vast majority of people hold the belief.
That's not verification, that's merely justification.

We are not, and never have been a country ruled by the majority; our Founding Fathers were very specific and conscientious on forming a republic, by which the rights of every person were protected from the majority opinion.

[CalBoy]

I have no intention of answering to burglary specifically because it has no analogous relevance.

It does have relevance to this topic, but I'll leave it for others to pick up if you don't want to. It's especially important when we consider the law in relation to individuals.

I completely agree, which is why I acknowledge the distinguishing evaluation is a philosophical one, not a scientific one, which leads into your next points.

So I take it that you aren't going to try to challenge the point that a fetus is not a human being? That part is moot for us, as science has already decided this?

There are plenty of people who raise issue with stem cell research as it holds this same potential. It also relates to the process of creation of said fetus.

Note how no one is upset when a cancer is killed or when a woman voluntarily has her tubes tied. This too leads to the destruction of biological material equal to a fetus.

Again, that's going to depend on your philosophical and religious belief set. That's why that's the playing field where the contention arises, not the scientific one.

Actually, most people have fairly consistent views about how to treat life. The problem most people have with abortion (and quite frankly, it correlates quite well with high church attendance) is that they claim that the fetus is a human life. Science doesn't support this view, and that's where we have the problem.

Sure, it's a cut and dry issue if you don't believe human beings are inherently special in some spiritual sense.

If anything, humanity has shown itself to be special in the "short yellow school bus" sense than anything else.

Otherwise, I don't think there's anything special about us; I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise.



It is an opinion because it is possible that it could be incorrect.

No, that makes it a theory. Opinions can't be correct or incorrect. They can be poorly justified, but an opinion is by nature a subjective thing. A theory will eventually be proven or disproven.

What I am saying is that some people's philosophies surrounding humans would make science's non-bias towards human life invalid for them. They believe human life is inherently more valuable, which is something science can't grasp because it's inherently supernatural in nature. Make no mistake, I'm not trying to make a naturalistic argument for non-abortion here.

So you believe we're special, and that's your reason for being against abortion?

Can a zebra get an abortion then? How about a whale? A chimp?

[motulist]

It's really simple. If the fetus could survive outside the mother's womb without the intervention of extraordinary medical procedures, then that fetus is an independent human being. If a fetus could not survive outside of the mother's womb, then it is still part of her body, and she can do whatever she wants to her own body.

[EricNau]

No, that makes it a theory. Opinions can't be correct or incorrect. They can be poorly justified, but an opinion is by nature a subjective thing. A theory will eventually be proven or disproven.
Denotatively you are correct, of course. However, that's not to say opinions should be immune to scrutiny. An opinion presented in opposition to evidence is essentially wrong.

e.g. "It is my opinion that mammals don't need air nor oxygen to breath." ...I don't care if it's an opinion, that statement is false.

Too often opinions are used to disguise testable claims without any supporting evidence. In other words, an opinion isn't always just an opinion.

[iCantwait]

ok, shut up all you pro lifers and pro choice.
just keep to the facts that are the issue and not your own opinion

[.Andy]

I'm not using science to render my judgement. My judgement is based on a belief that we should avoid harming sentient life, since it can feel pain. A fetus can't feel pain in any sense for many weeks into gestation (Andy, can you provide a more accurate account as to when?).
Sorry calboy a little late on this one. I don't really think there is a definitive answer on this as a large portion of pain is of course subjective. We know the organic source of the pain stimulus lies within the nervous system (e.g. the spinothalamic tracts in the spinal cord and the brain) so the best estimates would be at least a month in.

With embryo experimentation the first neural tissue arises (the primitive streak) at around two weeks so that's where the current cut off resides (in some countries). However this is very early and is more erring on the side of caution as the neural tissue is relatively unorganised. There's not much way that any "sentience" that can be occurring in the sense that we identify with. It's not until well after 24-26 days that the neural tube is closed that we have anything resembling our adult nervous system in morphology.

Again in my understanding there's no real way to assess when an early embryo can first officially "think" and therefore experience pain. The best we can do is estimate by when the organic portions of the system are laid down. Perhaps there's a macrumors developmental neurologist that can correct me though :).

[Apple Ink]

Denotatively you are correct, of course. However, that's not to say opinions should be immune to scrutiny. An opinion presented in opposition to evidence is essentially wrong.

e.g. "It is my opinion that mammals don't need air nor oxygen to breath." ...I don't care if it's an opinion, that statement is false.

Too often opinions are used to disguise testable claims without any supporting evidence. In other words, an opinion isn't always just an opinion.

An opinion is a universally quantified statement... meaning it is an individual entity which might be true for one person, might be valuable for another, might be worthless for the third...... you can only "agree" to an opinion expressing that you are of the same opinion but you can never say "that opinion is a lie"

You can only judge the person who is giving the opinion by that opinion and not the subject on which the opinion is based....

As for your provided example.... the only person who will agree to that opinion is the dumb person who gives that opinion.... but ultimately the opinion is still sound because it is his belief..... the person can change his opinion later on....
But we can at least judge the fact that the person is an illiterate bloke sitting with his mom.... the opinions as mentioned
But opinions can neither be correct or wrong.... they are just people's viewpoint.... A better example is:
A: Macs are the best in the World
B: Dells are the best in the World

Both are opinions and however stupid B might sound.... they both are neither correct nor wrong since these are their respective opinions.....
It just tells us how they perceive the computer industry and tells us about their tastes and favorites..... it hardly tells us about the Industry.

[Apple Ink]

Sorry calboy a little late on this one. I don't really think there is a definitive answer on this as a large portion of pain is of course subjective. We know the organic source of the pain stimulus lies within the nervous system (e.g. the spinothalamic tracts in the spinal cord and the brain) so the best estimates would be at least a month in.

With embryo experimentation the first neural tissue arises (the primitive streak) at around two weeks so that's where the current cut off resides (in some countries). However this is very early and is more erring on the side of caution as the neural tissue is relatively unorganised. There's not much way that any "sentience" that can be occurring in the sense that we identify with. It's not until well after 24-26 days that the neural tube is closed that we have anything resembling our adult nervous system in morphology.

Again in my understanding there's no real way to assess when an early embryo can first officially "think" and therefore experience pain. The best we can do is estimate by when the organic portions of the system are laid down. Perhaps there's a macrumors developmental neurologist that can correct me though :).

The obvious answer to this might sound as 'until the time that the foetus develops the nervous system.... meaning after the formation of the notochord which marks the begining of the formation of the neural groove and tube... translating somewhere around the 25th day....'

But this is hardly the picture.... pain is a two step process which requires a sense, like a mouse in a computer system, and a processing organ, like the CPU/Processor. The sense is usually a stimulus which in turn releases prostaglandins causing swelling... the prostaglandins attack the synaptic clefts and the brain is informed causing pain.....

So in the above case.... we have a neurally developed foetus lacking major sensing tissues.. so the foetus will NOT experience pain. Pain also requires hormonal imbalance and a variable heartbeat to be 'implied' properly...'

In all, theories suggest that pain develops around 26 to 30 weeks!

[freeny]

So now mothers who drink, smoke and do other risky pregnancy things will be sued and imprisoned?

This should finally get all those stupid teen moms off the street.

[chrmjenkins]

It does have relevance to this topic, but I'll leave it for others to pick up if you don't want to. It's especially important when we consider the law in relation to individuals.

Sure, but the question we are coming back to is whether or not the fetus is an individual, which has already been addressed.


So I take it that you aren't going to try to challenge the point that a fetus is not a human being? That part is moot for us, as science has already decided this?

No, I'm not going to try and challenge the scientific judgment on the matter. It is moot for us. Science is concerned with defined methods of classification, and for this matter, it's the appropriate way to define the term.


Note how no one is upset when a cancer is killed or when a woman voluntarily has her tubes tied. This too leads to the destruction of biological material equal to a fetus.

If you are looking at it purely scientifically, but we've already assessed that there are philosophies which would specifically distinguish the human fetus as a result of the meeting of two gametes as distinct from your particular examples. Furthermore, your examples are not consistent. While a cancer cell would have the full set of chromosomes and is acting as an independent agent of the host, its purpose is not to become a separate organism. For the latter, only half of the genetic material is present in each egg.



Actually, most people have fairly consistent views about how to treat life. The problem most people have with abortion (and quite frankly, it correlates quite well with high church attendance) is that they claim that the fetus is a human life. Science doesn't support this view, and that's where we have the problem.

Well, finally agreeing are we? As science has progressed, its definitions of life have taken on specific biological processes as distinguishing life from non-life which popular opinion may not.


If anything, humanity has shown itself to be special in the "short yellow school bus" sense than anything else.

Otherwise, I don't think there's anything special about us; I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise.

And that's where we've agreed that the disagreement occurs.


No, that makes it a theory. Opinions can't be correct or incorrect. They can be poorly justified, but an opinion is by nature a subjective thing. A theory will eventually be proven or disproven.

Let's examine the definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion

In particular, I'll focus on the third one, as medical opinion relates to the professional judgment of someone.

the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.

In this sense, the word is used where veracity of the claim can be absolutely determined.

Now we'll go on to theory, using the first definition as it can be related to the definition we just used.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

In this case, the proposition is a diagnosis based on a group of symptoms (class of phenomena). In either case, it's understood the originator of the idea is operating on incomplete data. My assertion that theories are a subset of opinions is valid, I believe. Based on connotations, I will not use it further as I think the point has been well made its a hindrance to understanding.


So you believe we're special, and that's your reason for being against abortion?

Can a zebra get an abortion then? How about a whale? A chimp?

That would be the implication of saying human beings are inherently different than other organisms on this planet as directly relating to some philosophical or supernatural explanation.

Denotatively you are correct, of course. However, that's not to say opinions should be immune to scrutiny. An opinion presented in opposition to evidence is essentially wrong.

e.g. "It is my opinion that mammals don't need air nor oxygen to breath." ...I don't care if it's an opinion, that statement is false.

Too often opinions are used to disguise testable claims without any supporting evidence. In other words, an opinion isn't always just an opinion.

Particularly, the last part, which is why I said I won't use that anymore as it leads to confusion.

The obvious answer to this might sound as 'until the time that the foetus develops the nervous system.... meaning after the formation of the notochord which marks the begining of the formation of the neural groove and tube... translating somewhere around the 25th day....'

But this is hardly the picture.... pain is a two step process which requires a sense, like a mouse in a computer system, and a processing organ, like the CPU/Processor. The sense is usually a stimulus which in turn releases prostaglandins causing swelling... the prostaglandins attack the synaptic clefts and the brain is informed causing pain.....

So in the above case.... we have a neurally developed foetus lacking major sensing tissues.. so the foetus will NOT experience pain. Pain also requires hormonal imbalance and a variable heartbeat to be 'implied' properly...'

In all, theories suggest that pain develops around 26 to 30 weeks!

And here's the disagreement I've been talking about. How clear is that scientific line? Is it the ability to undergo the physical processes that register pain, or is it being at the point of development where the perception of said pain will, without a doubt, occur?

[atszyman]

It's really simple. If the fetus could survive outside the mother's womb without the intervention of extraordinary medical procedures, then that fetus is an independent human being. If a fetus could not survive outside of the mother's womb, then it is still part of her body, and she can do whatever she wants to her own body.

This to me is the simplest answer and has the best chance at actually reaching the goal of elimination of Abortion. If/When an artificial womb is developed and an embryo can be extracted safely, there would be no need for any abortions.

Let me ask this question. If the government can force a woman to use her womb to support a non-viable life, why can't they force me to give a kidney to someone on dialysis to save their life?

[nick9191]

Is it me or is America going backwards?

First prop 8 and now this :(

I disagree with abortions, but if it's your body, your choice.

[chrmjenkins]

It's really simple. If the fetus could survive outside the mother's womb without the intervention of extraordinary medical procedures, then that fetus is an independent human being. If a fetus could not survive outside of the mother's womb, then it is still part of her body, and she can do whatever she wants to her own body.

Qualify 'extraordinary medical procedure'. Even after a child is born, it cannot survive without the mother. It is hopelessly dependent on her for every need its own body cannot regulate. I don't think this can be the basis for a rigorous definition. The definition of life we have been discussing is the most objective way science or logic has to determine life.

This to me is the simplest answer and has the best chance at actually reaching the goal of elimination of Abortion. If/When an artificial womb is developed and an embryo can be extracted safely, there would be no need for any abortions.

Let me ask this question. If the government can force a woman to use her womb to support a non-viable life, why can't they force me to give a kidney to someone on dialysis to save their life?

I'm slightly confused here. In your first paragraph, you're talking about eliminating abortion, but in your second, you're talking about its pitfalls. I'm confused :confused:

As for your second paragraph, there are several wording choices that need to be revised. I am of the understanding that life implies viability, and even in some cases, non-life, as defined by science, falls within viability. By viability, do you mean a pregnancy that is sure to end in the death of the fetus regardless, or are you referring to the child's ability to survive outside of the womb? If so, see above for how the child is still dependent on the mother in either case.

Your example is completely different. If the fetus were to be determined a life, in the eyes of government, it would be the protection of a life at no physical harm to another. In your example, it would be the protection of life with a measurable physical harm to you.

[floyde]

And here's the disagreement I've been talking about. How clear is that scientific line? Is it the ability to undergo the physical processes that register pain, or is it being at the point of development where the perception of said pain will, without a doubt, occur?

It is orders of magnitude clearer than the supernatural line, that's for sure. It also more democratic, since it provides a common ground for all people regardless of their creed. If we are to define these matters in terms of the supernatural, then first we'd have to choose a particular set of beliefs to base them upon. That means that we'd have to discriminate against every other set of beliefs.

I'd also like to see some evidence that suggests that human beings are more special than the rest of the species.

[atszyman]

I'm slightly confused here. In your first paragraph, you're talking about eliminating abortion, but in your second, you're talking about its pitfalls. I'm confused :confused:

As science improves the point of viability outside of the womb moves forward however it's a line in the sand that I find reasonable. If something were to happen to the mother prior to this point there is no amount of care that can save the fetus. After this point, with the right care the child can be cared for by any number of people. Someday we might have the technology to remove a fertilized egg and have it grow into a baby outside of the womb. At that point if the extraction is safe, abortions can be eliminated. Until that point the government is forcing a woman to use her body to support the fetus which can cause issues with he own health, work and life.

As for your second paragraph, there are several wording choices that need to be revised. I am of the understanding that life implies viability, and even in some cases, non-life, as defined by science, falls within viability. By viability, do you mean a pregnancy that is sure to end in the death of the fetus regardless, or are you referring to the child's ability to survive outside of the womb? If so, see above for how the child is still dependent on the mother in either case.

Children are dependent on their parents after birth, true, but that care can also be provided by other individuals. Prior to viability outside the womb, no amount of care, other than forcing the mother to carry the fetus to the point of viability outside the womb, will allow the fetus to survive.

Your example is completely different. If the fetus were to be determined a life, in the eyes of government, it would be the protection of a life at no physical harm to another. In your example, it would be the protection of life with a measurable physical harm to you.

Most people can live just fine on a single kidney, and the removal procedure is not all that harmful. If it could save the life of another person who cannot go on without a kidney why can the government not force people to donate their kidneys? Aren't you asking that the government force women to use their wombs to support a life non-viable without external support to be similar?

If you deem the kidney example as too invasive, how about giving blood? Should the government force everyone to donate blood so that lives that need transfusions can be saved? Or would that be letting the government have too much control over your body? Why is it that people are willing to accept government dictation over what a woman does with her body when forced blood donation would be heralded as an overbearing nanny-state?

[chrmjenkins]

It is orders of magnitude clearer than the supernatural line, that's for sure. It also more democratic, since it provides a common ground for all people regardless of their creed. If we are to define these matters in terms of the supernatural, then first we'd have to choose a particular set of beliefs to base them upon. That means that we'd have to discriminate against every other set of beliefs.

I'd also like to see some evidence that suggests that human beings are more special than the rest of the species.

Sure, but now you're talking about actual matters of legislation, which I don't propose changing. What I've been advocating is that there is a definite reason for someone to hold the opinion that an abortion is wrong regardless of the developmental stage of the fetus.



Me (repetitively): Some people believe there is a supernatural explanation for the reasons humans are different than other life forms.
Everyone else (again, repetitively): Yeah, I'd like some evidence that humans are superior.

What more do you want? Supernatural = no physical evidence in this case. It's a purely philosophical argument.

As science improves the point of viability outside of the womb moves forward however it's a line in the sand that I find reasonable. If something were to happen to the mother prior to this point there is no amount of care that can save the fetus. After this point, with the right care the child can be cared for by any number of people. Someday we might have the technology to remove a fertilized egg and have it grow into a baby outside of the womb. At that point if the extraction is safe, abortions can be eliminated. Until that point the government is forcing a woman to use her body to support the fetus which can cause issues with he own health, work and life.

So, are you of the opinion abortions should be eliminated when that technology becomes available? In other words, the fetus is worth preserving unless the mother desires it not be?

The government would be forcing her to live with the consequences of a choice which resulted in a human life, in this case. We are required to do a lot of things that CAN affect our health work and life, but that doesn't stop the government from requiring school vaccinations, jury duty, etc. You can't disallow something simply because risk exists. Risk always exists, it's the level of risk that makes the difference. For most pregnancies, the mother is at a low risk through the duration.



Children are dependent on their parents after birth, true, but that care can also be provided by other individuals. Prior to viability outside the womb, no amount of care, other than forcing the mother to carry the fetus to the point of viability outside the womb, will allow the fetus to survive.


Ok, but as others have stated, does the fetus' level of sentience factor into the equation?


Most people can live just fine on a single kidney, and the removal procedure is not all that harmful. If it could save the life of another person who cannot go on without a kidney why can the government not force people to donate their kidneys? Aren't you asking that the government force women to use their wombs to support a life non-viable without external support to be similar?

A person has governance over their own body. In the case of a fetus, it would be of the view that person is also a person with rights, making it an exception. Besides, pregnancy and birth are natural processes. Kidney transplants are not natural, are invasive, and pose potential long term health risk to the donor. A normal pregnancy will have no lasting effects of this type on the mother (save some stretch marks).


If you deem the kidney example as too invasive, how about giving blood? Should the government force everyone to donate blood so that lives that need transfusions can be saved? Or would that be letting the government have too much control over your body? Why is it that people are willing to accept government dictation over what a woman does with her body when forced blood donation would be heralded as an overbearing nanny-state?

Again, the difference is if whether or not that fetus is a life. If it is, it's no longer just her body, it's someone else's too. The analogy does not apply.

[Ugg]

As science improves the point of viability outside of the womb moves forward however it's a line in the sand that I find reasonable. If something were to happen to the mother prior to this point there is no amount of care that can save the fetus. After this point, with the right care the child can be cared for by any number of people. Someday we might have the technology to remove a fertilized egg and have it grow into a baby outside of the womb. At that point if the extraction is safe, abortions can be eliminated. Until that point the government is forcing a woman to use her body to support the fetus which can cause issues with he own health, work and life.


I am really bothered by the use of the word viability. It seems as though quality of life has simply taken a backseat in this discussion. There are plenty of studies out there that show that premature infants face a multitude of problems.

Should we really be pursuing "viability" at any cost? The Suleman case is an excellent example. Supposedly three of her 6 children have disabilities. How many of the octuplets are going to be permanently stunted simply because the doctors and the mother, pursued viability above all else.

Simply because we can, doesn't mean we should.

[floyde]

Me (repetitively): Some people believe there is a supernatural explanation for the reasons humans are different than other life forms.
Everyone else (again, repetitively): Yeah, I'd like some evidence that humans are superior.

What more do you want? Supernatural = no physical evidence in this case. It's a purely philosophical argument.

That's why I think we need a common ground, such as science, to define these matters. Not everyone will have the same supernatural explanation, but we all have recourse to reason.

[atszyman]

I am really bothered by the use of the word viability. It seems as though quality of life has simply taken a backseat in this discussion. There are plenty of studies out there that show that premature infants face a multitude of problems.

Should we really be pursuing "viability" at any cost? The Suleman case is an excellent example. Supposedly three of her 6 children have disabilities. How many of the octuplets are going to be permanently stunted simply because the doctors and the mother, pursued viability above all else.

Simply because we can, doesn't mean we should.

Science is going to move the line of viability forward no matter what, babies are born prematurely every day and sooner or later the line of survivability, or the quality of life for those born prematurely will improve, most likely both. I can see a day, most likely not in my lifetime, where a fertilized egg can be brought to a full term baby without ever having need of a womb. At some point, science will be able to do this without any more risk of birth defects than a natural pregnancy, why not eliminate abortion then? No woman would have to carry a baby they didn't want and the anti-choice crowd gets their wish of no more abortions. Of course I also believe we'll see a strong correlation between the anti-choice and the anti-social programs crowds so that while we'd have all these babies, there will be almost no money/programs to care for them once they are "born."

[Ugg]

Science is going to move the line of viability forward no matter what, babies are born prematurely every day and sooner or later the line of survivability, or the quality of life for those born prematurely will improve, most likely both. I can see a day, most likely not in my lifetime, where a fertilized egg can be brought to a full term baby without ever having need of a womb. At some point, science will be able to do this without any more risk of birth defects than a natural pregnancy, why not eliminate abortion then? No woman would have to carry a baby they didn't want and the anti-choice crowd gets their wish of no more abortions. Of course I also believe we'll see a strong correlation between the anti-choice and the anti-social programs crowds so that while we'd have all these babies, there will be almost no money/programs to care for them once they are "born."

I don't buy it. Being inside of a mother's body will never be replicated in a lab. Sure, a viable being might be the result but whether it will be uniquely human is highly improbable.

The interplay of emotions, hormones, food, experiences, etc, is invaluable and such a complex array of actions simply can't be replicated outside the human body. Unless of course you simply want to create an army of little pseudo human beings...

[atszyman]

I don't buy it. Being inside of a mother's body will never be replicated in a lab. Sure, a viable being might be the result but whether it will be uniquely human is highly improbable.

The interplay of emotions, hormones, food, experiences, etc, is invaluable and such a complex array of actions simply can't be replicated outside the human body. Unless of course you simply want to create an army of little pseudo human beings...

You may be right but the line for viability outside the womb and the quality of life for the baby is constantly shifting as medical science progresses.

While not ideal, I see viability outside the womb, as a reasonable line. If it's OK to force a woman to use her womb to carry a fetus that has zero hope of survival outside the womb, why can't the government force other people to undergo non-risky medical procedures to save other patients' lives?

[Iscariot]

It's a purely philosophical argument.

Isn't that just a more ambiguous way of saying it's a purely religious/spiritual argument?

[chrmjenkins]

While not ideal, I see viability outside the womb, as a reasonable line. If it's OK to force a woman to use her womb to carry a fetus that has zero hope of survival outside the womb, why can't the government force other people to undergo non-risky medical procedures to save other patients' lives?

No one is going to agree to those terms. If they are arguing for the woman carrying the baby, they are saying it is a human life and therefore has rights. No one is going to agree with the scientific definition as the sole arbiter in the case and then say abortions shouldn't take place. If the fetus is a human life, then it effectively breaks all analogies you would draw to the situation.

Isn't that just a more ambiguous way of saying it's a purely religious/spiritual argument?

Seeing as how religion and spirituality fall under that classification, it's one of the distinct possibilities. While I argue for a supernatural cause, I can't exclude the possibility that a philosophy exists that allows for such a conclusion as well.

[atszyman]

No one is going to agree to those terms. If they are arguing for the woman carrying the baby, they are saying it is a human life and therefore has rights. No one is going to agree with the scientific definition as the sole arbiter in the case and then say abortions shouldn't take place. If the fetus is a human life, then it effectively breaks all analogies you would draw to the situation.

If you think the fetus is a human life, basically on life support, then why is it OK for the government to force a woman to use her body as life support and not OK for the government to force other adults to give blood or other bodily components that will not impede their ability to live their lives in order to save the life of another adult who would die without it?

[chrmjenkins]

If you think the fetus is a human life, basically on life support, then why is it OK for the government to force a woman to use her body as life support and not OK for the government to force other adults to give blood or other bodily components that will not impede their ability to live their lives in order to save the life of another adult who would die without it?

There is a distinct difference between protection and preservation. In the case of the mother, it's protection. It would be protection from an act that causes harm. There is also a causal chain. In most causes, there would be a consensual act made by the mother that result in the child. Therefore, there is a perceived responsibility for care, just as there is outside the womb. In the others, it's preservation. Those who would be giving organs/blood have no link in the causal chain that leads to the afflicted's condition. Therefore, there's no perceived responsibility for that person. For preservation, we could make the argument we should take rich people's money because it can be used to feed those dying of hunger. Obviously, the rich can live normally without that extra money.

[atszyman]

There is a distinct difference between protection and preservation. In the case of the mother, it's protection. It would be protection from an act that causes harm. There is also a causal chain. In most causes, there would be a consensual act made by the mother that result in the child. Therefore, there is a perceived responsibility for care, just as there is outside the womb. In the others, it's preservation. Those who would be giving organs/blood have no link in the causal chain that leads to the afflicted's condition. Therefore, there's no perceived responsibility for that person. For preservation, we could make the argument we should take rich people's money because it can be used to feed those dying of hunger. Obviously, the rich can live normally without that extra money.

In both cases you're saving a "life" by forcing someone to do something they did not want to do with their bodies.

As for the causal relationship. Should we force drivers who cause accidents to donate blood and organs to the victims of the accidents? There is a direct causal link there.

[Macaddicttt]

In both cases you're saving a "life" by forcing someone to do something they did not want to do with their bodies.

As for the causal relationship. Should we force drivers who cause accidents to donate blood and organs to the victims of the accidents? There is a direct causal link there.

There's a huge difference here. If a fertilized egg is human, than it is the mother's child. Parents are legally obligated to provide for and protect their child.

[chrmjenkins]

In both cases you're saving a "life" by forcing someone to do something they did not want to do with their bodies.

As for the causal relationship. Should we force drivers who cause accidents to donate blood and organs to the victims of the accidents? There is a direct causal link there.

Yes, but you have to recognize the difference between protection and preservation. It's perfectly acceptable to ask me to not use peanut butter if people around me are violently allergic and may as a result of exposure. I'm not allowed to put things in my body that I would like, but the prohibition is for the safety of others.

For your analogy, in most cases, they couldn't donate, or it would unnecessarily complicate the process. It doesn't make sense. However, the person who caused the accident is still liable for any harm, anguish, and medical bills they incur. It's not as if the law gives them a get out of jail card, and the current solution makes sense.

[atszyman]

There's a huge difference here. If a fertilized egg is human, than it is the mother's child. Parents are legally obligated to provide for and protect their child.

Can a parent be forced to donate blood and/or organs to their child?

*I am a parent, and would gladly give up both kidneys, and any other vital organ to save my children but I would do so voluntarily. Should the government be able to force me to do this?

Yes, but you have to recognize the difference between protection and preservation. It's perfectly acceptable to ask me to not use peanut butter if people around me are violently allergic and may as a result of exposure. I'm not allowed to put things in my body that I would like, but the prohibition is for the safety of others.

It seems that your distinction between protection and preservation is that first breath. Why should someone be compelled to use their body to support a fetus, when they cannot be forced to donate organs or blood to a baby?

[chrmjenkins]

Can a parent be forced to donate blood and/or organs to their child?

*I am a parent, and would gladly give up both kidneys, and any other vital organ to save my children but I would do so voluntarily. Should the government be able to force me to do this?



It seems that your distinction between protection and preservation is that first breath. Why should someone be compelled to use their body to support a fetus, when they cannot be forced to donate organs or blood to a baby?

While no legal compulsion exists, it goes without saying its a moral imperative, and in the case that the parent didn't do something that does not lead to their own death or permanent disability, I would hope they can be charged with at least negligence. Hopefully the state could interfere on behalf of the child before that point is reached.

[Macaddicttt]

Can a parent be forced to donate blood and/or organs to their child?

Can a parent actively do something that would directly result in his child's death. Can a parent actively remove the only possible source of his child's nutrients?

Obviously the analogy isn't perfect. In the real world, were a child's parents not willing to provide food and protection to their child, the state would step in and put them under foster care. But until we've perfected that oh-so-tricky maneuver of removing a fetus from a womb without killing it, the mother is the only option.

Really you can't apply the exact same rules for fetuses as for other minors. There is no situation, however, where anyone would be allowed by the government to actively kill another legally-defined human being.

I think a more apt analogy is an endangered species being protected. I don't know the laws well, but I'm pretty sure that if endangered or protected animals make their home on your property, you are legally bound to not disturb them, forcing you to use your property for the good of an animal.

So we could maybe be talking about extending imminent domain to individuals' bodies, which would spawn an interesting discussion about whether our bodies are our possessions or exactly who we are. But then again, there already sort of is imminent domain for people, called the draft.

[atszyman]

Can a parent actively do something that would directly result in his child's death. Can a parent actively remove the only possible source of his child's nutrients?

Obviously the analogy isn't perfect. In the real world, were a child's parents not willing to provide food and protection to their child, the state would step in and put them under foster care. But until we've perfected that oh-so-tricky maneuver of removing a fetus from a womb without killing it, the mother is the only option.

I don't like abortion, but I don't see how the government can step in and force a woman to use her body to support a mass of cells that might become a human if all goes well for 40 weeks. It's not like pregnancy is a walk in the park, it has health risks, it can impair someone's ability to do their job, and quite uncomfortable near the end.

I agree that once we can extract a fertilized egg/fetus and bring it to term that abortion can go away, but until then I see it as the mother's choice. While I might not agree with the choices made by some women, I don't think I have the authority to force them to do what I'd do.

Of course the high correlation between the anti-choice with the get the government away from regulating my life (unless you're gay), no social programs, and the abstinence only crowds often blows my mind. They don't want government intervention in our lives, but then want the government to force jurisdiction over a woman's uterus, don't want to educate people on sex, and don't want any programs that could make it easier for young parents struggling to get by. The latter two would have more of an impact on reducing the number of abortions than any ban ever would.

[Macaddicttt]

Of course the high correlation between the anti-choice with the get the government away from regulating my life (unless you're gay), no social programs, and the abstinence only crowds often blows my mind. They don't want government intervention in our lives, but then want the government to force jurisdiction over a woman's uterus, don't want to educate people on sex, and don't want any programs that could make it easier for young parents struggling to get by. The latter two would have more of an impact on reducing the number of abortions than any ban ever would.

I agree. I, however, would not ever associate myself with those you refer to here. I am heavily against abortion, but also heavily in favor of a government along the lines of a social democracy. I have never understood the right/left divide in the US.

[chrmjenkins]

Of course the high correlation between the anti-choice with the get the government away from regulating my life (unless you're gay), no social programs, and the abstinence only crowds often blows my mind. They don't want government intervention in our lives, but then want the government to force jurisdiction over a woman's uterus, don't want to educate people on sex, and don't want any programs that could make it easier for young parents struggling to get by. The latter two would have more of an impact on reducing the number of abortions than any ban ever would.

Agreed, abstinence only is a failure and dooms us to only have more teen pregnancies and transmitted diseases. As it relates to the law, I agree that a ban on abortion would not work in this society. If you happen to hold a religious belief that abortion is wrong, as I do, you can't expect an entire society, secular by definition, to hold to your moral laws. I can never remember the passage, but in the Bible it refers to forcing non-believers to observe God's law as useless without the actual knowledge of God. Banning abortions would not cause them to stop (although they would certainly decrease), but it would invent another illegal trade, and endanger the health of those who would seek to get them. From a societal benefit point of view, it would only be a hindrance. It's up to individuals to maintain moral expectations through culture, not the law. The law only need not inhibit the exchange and holding of those beliefs.

[EricNau]

An opinion is a universally quantified statement... meaning it is an individual entity which might be true for one person, might be valuable for another, might be worthless for the third...... you can only "agree" to an opinion expressing that you are of the same opinion but you can never say "that opinion is a lie"

You can only judge the person who is giving the opinion by that opinion and not the subject on which the opinion is based....

As for your provided example.... the only person who will agree to that opinion is the dumb person who gives that opinion.... but ultimately the opinion is still sound because it is his belief..... the person can change his opinion later on....
But we can at least judge the fact that the person is an illiterate bloke sitting with his mom.... the opinions as mentioned
But opinions can neither be correct or wrong.... they are just people's viewpoint.... A better example is:
A: Macs are the best in the World
B: Dells are the best in the World

Both are opinions and however stupid B might sound.... they both are neither correct nor wrong since these are their respective opinions.....
It just tells us how they perceive the computer industry and tells us about their tastes and favorites..... it hardly tells us about the Industry.
You're absolutely correct, of course; however, I maintain that opinions are still open to criticism when they make claims that can be tested or supported with empirical evidence.

Just because one can claim it's an opinion, doesn't make it valid. Simply put, not all opinions are equal in the eyes of science.

[CalBoy]

Denotatively you are correct, of course. However, that's not to say opinions should be immune to scrutiny. An opinion presented in opposition to evidence is essentially wrong.

e.g. "It is my opinion that mammals don't need air nor oxygen to breath." ...I don't care if it's an opinion, that statement is false.

Too often opinions are used to disguise testable claims without any supporting evidence. In other words, an opinion isn't always just an opinion.

Of course, but I had a great deal of trouble when he attempted to equate an opinion with a theory, and that's why we're moving on now. :)

Perhaps there's a macrumors developmental neurologist that can correct me though :).

That was fascinating nonetheless Andy. :)

I wish there was some reliable way of knowing that the fetus can feel pain. Then again, I'm probably not alone in that desire. :o
Sure, but the question we are coming back to is whether or not the fetus is an individual, which has already been addressed.

Not entirely. It's really a multi-stage process when it comes to the law. Even if you are able to convince me (and I'm pretty sure you won't, but you know what I mean) that an abortion is unethical, it doesn't mean I'm willing to legislate against it. My burglary question deals with that stage of our discussion.


While a cancer cell would have the full set of chromosomes and is acting as an independent agent of the host, its purpose is not to become a separate organism.

We don't actually know what the purpose of a cancer is. We do know that cancers seek resources, multiply, and are comprised exclusively of human genetic material. A fetus also fits all three categories quite nicely. What its end goal is is really unimportant, or else...

For the latter, only half of the genetic material is present in each egg.

this would present us with ethical problems. If tubes being tied isn't a problem (since the eggs represent one of the key ingredients to the end goal), then a fetus being aborted shouldn't be a problem either. After all, the purpose of the egg is to become a fetus.

Well, finally agreeing are we? As science has progressed, its definitions of life have taken on specific biological processes as distinguishing life from non-life which popular opinion may not.

Yes, and that's probably my biggest problem with Pro-Life in American politics. It's a double whammy; science and women are attacked simultaneously.

To be frank, popular opinion is worth nothing. Most Americans probably can't even describe what mitosis and meiosis are, so their opinions about the definition of life are really meaningless and shouldn't be used as the basis for legislation or ethical discussions.

That would be the implication of saying human beings are inherently different than other organisms on this planet as directly relating to some philosophical or supernatural explanation.

You're the one who made the claim of spirituality. Can a zebra or a chimp have an abortion? It's not such a complicated question.

[chrmjenkins]

Not entirely. It's really a multi-stage process when it comes to the law. Even if you are able to convince me (and I'm pretty sure you won't, but you know what I mean) that an abortion is unethical, it doesn't mean I'm willing to legislate against it. My burglary question deals with that stage of our discussion.

Believe me, I have no hope of convincing many of the people on this board of my opinions. I'm content with the fact that many of you provide very rigorous debate without letting anything slip through the cracks. When I analyze the opposition's arguments, I came to understand my own positions better. As I stated earlier, I am not willing to legislate against it either. As a secular society, I don't see a benefit of making it law.



We don't actually know what the purpose of a cancer is. We do know that cancers seek resources, multiply, and are comprised exclusively of human genetic material. A fetus also fits all three categories quite nicely. What its end goal is is really unimportant, or else...

It doesn't really matter if cancer has a purpose. It has an effect-- debilitating the most vibrant of people, ripping the fabric of families apart.

By the way, humans themselves fit those three criteria :p


this would present us with ethical problems. If tubes being tied isn't a problem (since the eggs represent one of the key ingredients to the end goal), then a fetus being aborted shouldn't be a problem either. After all, the purpose of the egg is to become a fetus.

That's why the emphasis is on the fertilized egg as human life. It would be quite the ordeal to lament the passing of every little swimmer that didn't find an egg.


Yes, and that's probably my biggest problem with Pro-Life in American politics. It's a double whammy; science and women are attacked simultaneously.

I don't think so. People are fighting for what they believe is the correct view of what a human is. There's no reason to attack science because it can't will its own interpretation as law. It's not an attack on women because they don't see it as the active pursuance of denying rights, but guaranteeing them. You can only judge their intentions by seeing it from their point of view. It's not like they get up in the morning and say to themselves, "Alright, time to dispute the veracity of science and deny rights to women!"



To be frank, popular opinion is worth nothing. Most Americans probably can't even describe what mitosis and meiosis are, so their opinions about the definition of life are really meaningless and shouldn't be used as the basis for legislation or ethical discussions.

A 5 year old, in most cases, can't multiply or write in sentences. They still understand what love is. Some people believe that you don't need any formal education to understand the basic truths of life. Those value judgments are part of our cultural, and they will persist to exist despite what science tells us. Believe me, as an engineer, I'm a big fan of science, but as a human, and even before I came to believe in God, I believed our intelligence and self-awareness bestowed us with a moral burden to rise above our animal natures, and specifically resist them in pursuance of a purity of being. I know that's not uncommon, and I certainly know that while I love science, it won't always dictate my opinions on everything. However, being a rational man, I realize that society's benefit is best treated as a scientific entity, whose problems are solved with logic. This is the reason I don't support a blanket ban on abortion. However, I also realize that at the personal level, most of what science has to say doesn't do anything but make you seem insensitive and overly-analytical. At that stage, it's about feelings and understanding emotions, and I treat those instances as such.

[CalBoy]

Believe me, I have no hope of convincing many of the people on this board of my opinions. I'm content with the fact that many of you provide very rigorous debate without letting anything slip through the cracks. When I analyze the opposition's arguments, I came to understand my own positions better. As I stated earlier, I am not willing to legislate against it either. As a secular society, I don't see a benefit of making it law.

Then perhaps we are closer than I first imagined. :)


It doesn't really matter if cancer has a purpose. It has an effect-- debilitating the most vibrant of people, ripping the fabric of families apart.

What about a benign tumor? Doctors sometimes remove them because they have potential risks that haven't been fully actualized yet.

And I think it's pertinent to point out that an unwanted child can do many of the same things as a cancer. Nevermind the impact on the child itself.

By the way, humans themselves fit those three criteria :p

I'm pretty sure we're too late term for the Earth to abort us now. ;):p

That's why the emphasis is on the fertilized egg as human life. It would be quite the ordeal to lament the passing of every little swimmer that didn't find an egg.

Sperm are functionally different from an egg though. Perhaps we should lament the loss of a single egg if we are concerned with saving all possible life.


I don't think so. People are fighting for what they believe is the correct view of what a human is.

With the way American society is, I'm sure that no matter what a biologist, physician, anthropologist, etc, says, people will always want to believe something else. We can't help ignorance anymore than through proper education. As long as you're not willing to enshrine these beliefs into law, I have no bone to pick with your beliefs. The minute you try to use them as justification for legislation, we're going to have a throw down.

It's not an attack on women because they don't see it as the active pursuance of denying rights, but guaranteeing them.

Did you just attempt to say what women perceive? Neither one of us can make that call. It is, however, important for me to point out that one of the most important legal minds of the past two decades, and a woman, justified the right to an abortion because it had done great things to help level the playing field for women in their professional and private endeavors.

I'm referring, of course, to Justice O'Conner in her plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood v Casey.

A 5 year old, in most cases, can't multiply or write in sentences. They still understand what love is.

:confused::confused::confused:

That analogy doesn't fit at all. I'm talking about a direct correlation between ignorance of science and a belief in false definitions of "baby," "human," and "human being."

I wouldn't want that 5 year old doing my taxes, just like I wouldn't want an average American defining human life.

[chrmjenkins]

Did you just attempt to say what women perceive? Neither one of us can make that call. It is, however, important for me to point out that one of the most important legal minds of the past two decades, and a woman, justified the right to an abortion because it had done great things to help level the playing field for women in their professional and private endeavors.

I'm referring, of course, to Justice O'Conner in her plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood v Casey.

Hey, the same thing can be accomplished by not conceiving ;)

But, in this case, let them have cake.


:confused::confused::confused:

That analogy doesn't fit at all. I'm talking about a direct correlation between ignorance of science and a belief in false definitions of "baby," "human," and "human being."

I wouldn't want that 5 year old doing my taxes, just like I wouldn't want an average American defining human life.

The analogy not fitting is kind of the point. A lot of Americans could care less what science says about a particular issue they feel is not one for science to answer. They carry a personal definition that they define early on in life. I'm not saying that's how you write legislation, but a lot of people feel that way, and they are certainly guaranteed that right. In essence, if people would rather keep an issue abstract or a mystery, that's their prerogative. If enough people feel this way, it becomes popular opinion. I've found that instances where this has happened, a pre-defined philosophy need not necessarily precede it, but will follow it. That's how we get a lot of quirky social norms. As long as we're not afraid to examine whether or not they are intellectually dangerous, we're doing no one harm. As it relates to actual laws of the land, obviously it would undergo a different kind of scrutiny, which is why this particular belief would most likely not find its way into law. Of course, laws can't answer all of our questions for us, which is why society maintains a set of norms and morals on top of this. Personally, I don't think anyone would find a disinclination towards abortion as objectionable, but would only maintain it should remain available and anonymous.

[motulist]

I honestly think you're all overcomplicating the situation in order to support some unrelated issues.

The time at which a normal non-sick fetus could survive outside the womb without receiving care much beyond what a biblical-era society could've offered, that is the point when a fetus is an independent person. This is not a line that moves as technology progresses. So things like heat, special nutrition diet, basic oral, topical, or inhaled medicines, even simple injectable aids like intravenous fluids would be included. Whatever point in development that that is, for example for now lets just say that point is at 6 months, that is the point when you can say that a fetus has become an independent person. Once the fetus has attained that level of development, then it is an independent person that has gained independent rights. But before the point when a fetus could survive on its own without receiving beyond-basic medical care, then that fetus is still part of the mothers body, and the mother can decide what she does to her body.

[Apple Ink]

I honestly think you're all overcomplicating the situation in order to support some unrelated issues.

The time at which a normal non-sick fetus could survive outside the womb without receiving care much beyond what a biblical-era society could've offered, that is the point when a fetus is an independent person. This is not a line that moves as technology progresses. So things like heat, special nutrition diet, basic oral, topical, or inhaled medicines, even simple injectable aids like intravenous fluids would be included. Whatever point in development that that is, for example for now lets just say that point is at 6 months, that is the point when you can say that a fetus has become an independent person. Once the fetus has attained that level of development, then it is an independent person that has gained independent rights. But before the point when a fetus could survive on its own without receiving beyond-basic medical care, then that fetus is still part of the mothers body, and the mother can decide what she does to her body.

Seems to me that you summed up the whole thread in a para.... good one!

I second this...

[iJohnHenry]

Right.

To do otherwise is to hold the poor woman hostage.

[Lesser Evets]

I live in ND. I agree with this legislation.

Agreed, abstinence only is a failure and dooms us to only have more teen pregnancies and transmitted diseases.

Yeah. Because it never worked before 1960. 9.9 How about learning your history.

[chrmjenkins]

I live in ND. I agree with this legislation.



Yeah. Because it never worked before 1960. 9.9 How about learning your history.

You know what happened around 1960? Female birth control. Along with enticing women to explore their sexuality, it gives them less reason to worry about getting pregnant. Less inhibitions = less likely to avoid. It's not realistic anymore. Add on top of that the mobility young people have now (everyone has a car), a culture of increasing openly sexuality, and the fact that many kids come from two bread-winner homes (less oversight), it's only a logical conclusion.

[Lesser Evets]

... it's only a logical conclusion.

WRONG.

That's the only moronic conclusion.

People only avoid behavior en masse when there is reason not to do something. Punishment, consequences, etc. Sure, you never get a perfect behavior pattern in people, but if you side with people taking responsibility for their actions, instead of negating the importance of those actions, you find a minimal of laws and a maximum of prudent behavior.

The line draws on one side at "people are just animals and they can't help themselves" which means we should all just all poop in the yard and tear down everything around us : anarchy. The other side says, "people are responsible for their actions, and can control themselves--actions and consequences."

One is sensible.
One is ridiculous and ignorant.

I don't think it's hard to figure out which is which.

[chrmjenkins]

WRONG.

That's the only moronic conclusion.

People only avoid behavior en masse when there is reason not to do something. Punishment, consequences, etc. Sure, you never get a perfect behavior pattern in people, but if you side with people taking responsibility for their actions, instead of negating the importance of those actions, you find a minimal of laws and a maximum of prudent behavior.


Yeah, that's why AIDs is so scarce in Africa, oh wait...


Besides, what you're talking about is having a higher moral standard, which I've already advocated for. You argue for responsibility, but you don't seem to suggest so by the use of laws, as a social norm would eliminate the need, which I've also stated. This is precisely why I have no idea you're criticizing me. If you can't look at those three phenomena and conclude it would lead to a rise in promiscuity and abortion, I'm not sure I can help you.

[mactastic]

Wacky- and that's all I'm going to say about it.
Two posts later...
No- it won't. Keep dreaming.
I knew you couldn't keep that particular promise!

The funny thing will be if this somehow passes, and suddenly all IVF clinics in ND are shut down. I bet the citizens of ND will be none to happy with these folks then.

If you're going to argue that a fertilized egg has the same rights as a human, you can't simply throw away all those fertilized eggs.

Plus I would assume that you can then claim a fetus as a dependent on your taxes?

[CalBoy]

Yeah. Because it never worked before 1960. 9.9 How about learning your history.

How about you learn your history.

Birth rates were quite high prior to the dissemination of birth control methods (whether condoms, pills, or barriers). What's more, women were married at younger ages in years past, so they were sexually active as teenagers because they had already been lawfully wed.

What's more, there's no accurate way of measuring how much non-marital sexual activity took place, because abortions were likely done in secret.

To suggest that abstinence education has ever worked is woefully misguided.

The line draws on one side at "people are just animals and they can't help themselves" which means we should all just all poop in the yard and tear down everything around us : anarchy. The other side says, "people are responsible for their actions, and can control themselves--actions and consequences."

One is sensible.
One is ridiculous and ignorant.

I don't think it's hard to figure out which is which.

This is a false bifurcation.

Safe-sex (even when performed by teenagers), is not tantamount to anarchy. What's more, there's no good reason to restrict sex as long as it's safe and handled maturely. Sure there are dangerous aspects of sex like disease and unwanted pregnancy, but lots of other activities carry those risks. Would you fight obesity by encouraging starvation? Would you reduce global warming by banning energy use? No, you find ways to make the dangerous activity safer by educating the user.

Abstinence education is a failure for that very reason.

[chrmjenkins]

Safe-sex (even when performed by teenagers), is not tantamount to anarchy. What's more, there's no good reason to restrict sex as long as it's safe and handled maturely. Sure there are dangerous aspects of sex like disease and unwanted pregnancy, but lots of other activities carry those risks. Would you fight obesity by encouraging starvation? Would you reduce global warming by banning energy use? No, you find ways to make the dangerous activity safer by educating the user.



These examples aren't fair, you can't compare needs with wants/desires. In general, in a completely elective act such as this, the consequences are determined as personal responsibility as opposed to societal responsibility. Still, a comprehensive prevention and treatment program is best to manage the risks given the acts will most certainly occur.

[CalBoy]

These examples aren't fair, you can't compare needs with wants/desires.

Physiologically speaking, sex is very important. On our hierarchy of needs, it ranks as 4th (after water, food, and shelter).

In general, in a completely elective act such as this, the consequences are determined as personal responsibility as opposed to societal responsibility.

It's not so elective. Teenagers really have less control than we like to think (and often blame them for). Even so, the personal responsibility factor is about the same as it for not over eating.

The global warming analogy probably wasn't the best, but I was trying to highlight the way to minimize and solve a problem as opposed to going drastically in the opposite direction.

Still, a comprehensive prevention and treatment program is best to manage the risks given the acts will most certainly occur.

Exactly. Teach your kids to eat fruits and veggies and to get exercise, and how to use a condom. If you make the banana the fruit of choice, they can both be rolled into one class session!:D

[floyde]

If you make the banana the fruit of choice, they can both be rolled into one class session!:D

lolsome :D

[imac/cheese]

...If you're going to argue that a fertilized egg has the same rights as a human, you can't simply throw away all those fertilized eggs.

Plus I would assume that you can then claim a fetus as a dependent on your taxes?

You could just keep the fertilized eggs in the freezer and claim them all on your taxes.

[Don't panic]

I know, it's a tuff one, but at the end of the day a human is a human no matter what stage of evolution or development they are at . To a certain extent I think it would be wise to have the 'state ' dictate , like an intermediary of sorts I suppose , protecting the life of the unborn.

except that a fertilized egg is not in any possible way a human, so your statement is self-contradictory.

[Don't panic]

You could just keep the fertilized eggs in the freezer and claim them all on your taxes.

but only on state taxes

[Apple Ink]

I know, it's a tuff one, but at the end of the day a human is a human no matter what stage of evolution or development they are at . To a certain extent I think it would be wise to have the 'state ' dictate , like an intermediary of sorts I suppose , protecting the life of the unborn.

Please define the terms 'humanity' and 'inhuman' for me.....

[mactastic]

You could just keep the fertilized eggs in the freezer and claim them all on your taxes.
Perfect. I was trying to come up with a way to be able to collect the child tax credit, but not have to pay for daycare. I'll be paying zero tax in no time! :p