I'm shocked that no one has mentioned the issue of privacy in early abortions.

Does the state have the right to know if a woman is pregnant?
Does the state have the right to violate the confidentiality of doctor and patient?



There seems to be a serious lack of education on the board on this subject. Causing an abortion on your own is neither easy or safe. Unwanted pregnancies occur for many reasons other than having unprotected sex in mid-cycle. There are numerous reasons for birth control failure and issue with a pregnancy may not be apparent until after conception.


Does the state have the right to force a woman to risk her life to potentially give life to another?



The U.S. has the highest maternal death rate of any industrialized nation
Only three developed countries - Albania, Russian and Moldova - had a worse maternal mortality rate than America's 1 in 2,100

Is a 3 year old "viable" if left on his own?

Dunno Riceday, can it breathe and is the heart beating?

Is a member of the FSA "viable" if left on their own?

The government is incapable of defining "personhood." The government can choose to either respect human dignity or not. If the government is given access to define or amend "personhood," it will be redefined or amended as convenience dictates.

As to Gen's points:
1. No more so than a mother would be tried on attempted murder for forgetting to buckle her kid in the carseat.
2. Right to life does not = right to citizenship. It's silly to say you can't control immigration without killing babies.
3. So inbred kids deserve to die?******and incest do not change the personhood/humanity of the conceived no matter how tragic the conception.

There are those who would advocate allowing post term abortions up to 2 years old as before that point, those "groups of cells" do not exhibit signs of personhood - reasoning skills, communication, memory, etc.

Why would a society that does not respect life respect freedom?

Then change the Constitution Rice. Stop trying to back door it.

The inalienable rights recognized in the Declaration are natural and inherent to all mankind regardless of citizenship.

The Constitution conveys citizenship at birth. This has no bearing on inherent human dignity and the right to life. Those are natural rights.

At birth.

Riceday, you are correct.
Screw the Constitution.
I hold my rights regardless.

My mythical conjoined twin could not live without my liver and spleen.
Does he still hold 'personhood' in this new scheme?

If we are talking viability, then for a normal fetus we are talking about ten weeks before birth. We can't in good conscience ignore the science on that merely because we are ready for a pat answer. You smoke a kid in utero who is past 30 weeks, you've killed a human who has been viable for two full months. The reality is that many have no problem with that as evidenced by any random history book.

You can't use viability as a determinant. Half the folks on this forum wouldn't be viable past their last dose of meds in the cabinet.

My professor told part of my class that disabled children shouldn't be born because they cost too much. He then posited that they should bring in a disabled kid to show how limiting the diagnosis makes their lives. My*****ed-off buddy told him to call me in and arrange a time to bring in my child. Interestingly, I never received the call.

I can honestly say my fully disabled (and dependent) adult child lives life more fully and gratefully than a large number of the 'normal' patients in my clinics. My child would die if left to their own devices merely due to intellectual barriers much less physical. Meanwhile my patients are happily killing themselves merely due to sloth and avarice. If life is a gift, my 'nonviable' child has been more diligent in its use than my 'viable' patients.

Like I said, screw the Constitution. It isn't my religion. I don't care what it says about the rights I have despite its existence. Using the Constitution's definition of personhood for anything other than citizenship is a cop-out.

Pretend you're in the frontier. Pretend you have current medical knowledge. Then make a determination based on what you now know, not what you wish you didn't know. At that point and honest good-faith effort has been attempted. Kill them all and let God sort them out isn't good enough, IMO.

I wonder if these new regulations pertain to any clinic. Doesn't appear to be the case.

http://cjonline.com/news/2011-05-16/brow....

Quote:

Kansas will require annual, unannounced inspections of abortion clinics, impose new health and safety rules specifically for them and prevent them from using telemedicine systems to dispense pregnancy-terminating drugs under legislation signed Monday by Gov. Sam Brownback.

...

Along with mandating annual inspections, the new law directs the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to write standards for exits, lighting, bathrooms and equipment. KDHE would issue annual licenses, have the power to fine clinics and could go to court to shut them down.

The law comes with new rules for administering abortion-inducing medications, such as RU-486. Only a licensed physician will be allowed to provide the drug, in the presence of the patient. Clinics won’t be allowed to dispense such drugs to patients at far-away sites through telemedicine systems.

Personally, I look at the brain to determine when a fetus is a person. As human beings it is the brain that is who we are; all other organs ultimately serve to keep it alive. At around 6 weeks (it's been a while since I studied human biology so I might be off a week) the brain becomes a distinct, functioning organ.

Is a pregnant woman counted as two people on the census every 10 years?

Uhmm, no to that question, Cttocs.

I am pro choice.
In my opinion once you have brain wave activity your alive.

If woman/gender-? wants to abort for whatever reason, it is her/his/it's choice.

My take is that once a child can reasonably survive outside the mother then it has the right to life.

Cobra: Agree (as I've already said), with one minor change - it *IS* life after it can survive on it's own. Before it can, it's not alive, it is part of the mother, because it cannot live.

If it cannot live, even if it has the potential for life, how can it be life?

Quote:

Before it can, it's not alive, it is part of the mother, because it cannot live.

Yes, if we were plants or spores.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_rep....

Quote:

Asexual reproduction is a mode of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single parent, and inherit the genes of that parent only, it is reproduction which does not involve meiosis, ploidy reduction, or fertilization.

We on the other hand are slightly different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_repr....

Quote:

Sexual reproduction is the creation of a new organism by combining the genetic material of two organisms.

Through this process, a new, distinct lifeform has been created. Obviously it is a gradual process through which this lifeform gains autonomy, and if your argument is that this new life earns protection once it reaches a certain point in its development, fair enough. It is not accurate to say, however, that it is not a separate and distinct living organism.

Quote:

It is not accurate to say, however, that it is not a separate and distinct living organism.

I'm not. It's a parasite that cannot "live" without it's host.

This is not about a biological discussion. IMO it's about when rights are conveyed and should be recognized and protected by society. I recognize that point as the point that child has the reasonable expectation of survival outside the mother in which he would be expected to live a normal, healthy life.

Once you recognize the "thing" growing inside a woman has rights, including the right to life, then killing it becomes wrong from a societal perspective. I would say that all modern civilized societies agree that taking a life without just cause or due process is wrong. So the question isn't so much is it alive or a parasite, etc, it's "when do we recognize the inherent, unalienable rights in a child".

I say when it can survive on its own.

Fair enough, but I find that arbitrary and subjective, therefore open to gross manipulation.

If the people put it to a vote and determined that "when it can survive on its own" should be applied to any person of any age in need of critical care/feeding assistance, etc, what would be your defense?
Note, I am not trying to make the case that people in need are owed critical care by society, just that society does not have the right to actively kill them.

The strawman dragged out in every single discussion about abortion.

Every.single.time.

*yawn*

No. You just ignore reason because it is inconvenient.

If we can arbitrarily redefine what "Life" is today, or, excuse me - define when we begin respecting the right to life, who is to say that when we elect Mao he won't want to define it differently?

It is as simple as that. Who gave you the power to determine when my unalienable rights begin?

Edit: Far be it from me to believe I am the purveyor of all reason, however, I have yet to hear an answer to this "strawman".

No, no one ignores it.

Strawman.

Quote:

Fair enough, but I find that arbitrary and subjective, therefore open to gross manipulation.

No it's not. You poll a large group of OBGYNs and ask what is the youngest age, in your opinion, that a baby survive outside it's mother and be reasonably expected to not only survive but live a normal, healthy life. You average all the answers and there's your age. Not arbitrary or subjective in any way.

Quote:

If the people put it to a vote and determined that "when it can survive on its own" should be applied to any person of any age in need of critical care/feeding assistance, etc, what would be your defense?

Completely irrelevant to the discussion and I agree with Starvingartist its a strawman argument. Babies still need care and feeding, that's not in question. Take them out too soon and they simply lack the ability to stay alive with any amount of medical intervention.

Additionally to prove their not the same - the baby didn't have any say in its creation which would necessitate care and feeding. We all are going to age and die and it's likely near the end we may need assistance. If we fail to plan for our own mortality how is that anyone else's responsibility?

Quote:

Who gave you the power to determine when my unalienable rights begin?

This is not a question of when rights begin but when are they recognized. I fail to see how the decision to recognize the right to life at the point of biological independence makes a case for euthanasia.