Quote:

If we fail to plan for our own mortality how is that anyone else's responsibility?

I never said it was. In fact, I said the opposite. See below:

Quote:

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.

Based on your statement re: OBGYNs, please explain. Is your position:

a) that inalienable rights are endowed based on the consensus of the prevailing scientific community, or

b) that they are only respected based on the consensus of the prevailing scientific community

c) other

Not trying to box you in, I'm trying to grasp the broader implications.

Quote:

This is not a question of when rights begin but when are they recognized.

But securing the rights of self-determination IS the purpose of our founding. I think it defeats the purpose if government get to determine when those rights are recognized.

"Inalienable rights" are a legal fiction. We still live in the jungle and those with the means will seek to control others, regardless of one's claimed "rights". To have rights recognized and supported, there must be battles fought and won. Only then can one dictate which "rights" are going to be recognized. The legal battle is currently in favor or pro-choice and the pro-lifers have a tough battle ahead of them if they want that changed.

Riceday: Do you have the right to point at a person's amputated arm and declare it life? Does anybody have the right to?

Why can you point at mass of tissue inside a woman, that cannot live on it's own any more than the amputated arm, and declare it life?

And before you throw out the "well, it has the potential to become life." Consider this: Will you be able to declare the amputated arm "life" if you could take cells from it, clone them, and grow a new person?

Asimov, you said earlier, it is life, just in your words, a parasite.

Biologically, a fetus is not an appendage. It is a separate, distinct lifeform, albeit dependent on the mother. I am not disputing that it is dependent on the mother.

If your argument is that motherhood constitutes slavery if women are not allowed to kill their fetuses, just say so. That is a separate argument from whether a fetus is an appendage.

Quote:

please explain. Is your position:

My position is none of the above. You stated that my opinion that the right to life be recognized and therefore abortion becomes murder as being vague and susceptible to manipulation. The remedy to that is to have an average age, by a consensus of experts, that if removed a fetus/baby is likely to survive. There, it's a fixed point that is no longer able to be manipulated. Doctors, others in the scientific community, governments, anyone else, or even documents for that matter, do not convey rights upon others. Is my position clear?

This is not a biological debate, it's not a theological debate, or a medical debate etc, it's a political one.

Q: At which point do we recognize and protect a person's right to life as a society?

My Answer: At the point that being is biologically independent of another.

Should we index it to the life expectancy tables? Or is it going to be like the standard mileage rate - dependent on the prevailing cost of what is considered "reasonable" medical care?

That date was very different 10-20 years ago and will be very different 10-20 years from now.

Last comment on this subject (again.)

Riceday: What cobra said. When it can survive outside the mother, then yes, it is life. Up until that point it is, BY DEFINITION, a portion of the mother. Nnot only is it inside her body and grown by her body but also TOTALLY, 100% DEPENDANT upon her body.

Quote:

If your argument is that motherhood constitutes slavery if women are not allowed to kill their fetuses, just say so. That is a separate argument from whether a fetus is an appendage.

I love it when the accusations fly. Would it surprise you to know I'm ANTI-abortion?

Why do I draw the line where I do? Because it HAS TO BE DRAWN SOMEWHERE. The only logical point I can see to draw it is when it is capable of being an independent life.

My apologies if you felt I was attacking. I never said you were pro-abortion. Not trying to insinuate you were. Some people do take the position that forcing expectant mothers to endure pregnancy (by outlawing abortion) is slavery. That's why a lot of people draw the line at "independent life."

If I said the logical point is conception, I would hear howls that it would be involuntary servitude and the mother's freedom would be infringed by such, not to mention her privacy, or that she could be prosecuted for murder. I do not see how that is any different if you draw the line at "independence/viability" except that you moved the line further up.

My point in this is if you think you have a right to draw a line at any point along the continuum of life (even as early as viability), someone else will draw that line further than you, and you may be the one at risk. You end up with a degradation of the respect for life at all its stages over time which is dangerous.

Quote:

If I said the logical point is conception

Do you have ANY idea of the number of very early term miscarriages happen? The vast majority of them go unnoticed by the mother.

I have no idea. I'm sure it is very high.


I'll be out for a bit.

My good neonatologist friend states 24 weeks with proper medical care. But that's another issue. If you wanted the baby you'd agree but if not and it isn't perfect at birth you'd disagree.

I always love it when people bring up miscariages b/c they are acts of nature. The body itself rejecting what is not right. It's not a choice.

With the high chance of a new born being in the FSA I cannot figure out why most on here are not demanding more abortions.

It's one thing to say that at age xx weeks the fetus is biologically independent and we now recognize it's right to life and thus barring any threat to the health of the mother you can not abort and demanding people abort because they can't pay for the birth and upbringing of that child.

The answer for the FSA is to end any and all benefits for extra children. Then end all benefits for the FSA...

If they can't afford to raise the child it would become a ward of the state. Ideally there would be privately funded organizations to raise and care for that child. Perfect solution? Hell no but I would hope it breaks the FSA chain where son collects welfare and food stamps because that's what dad and granddad did...

IMO abortion is a personal decision.

Quote:

The difference is the intervention in the natural process. If you didn't do anything, would life continue in a natural way?

This is an interesting question, though, regarding babies born with such serious defects as to be unsurvivable without extreme intervention for a protracted period of time.

"The only logical point I can see to draw it is when it is capable of being an independent life."

What about an older person dependent on a machine to live? Only when a doctor says their brain ceases to function is the family allowed to turn the machine off. They call what Kevorkian did murder.

IMO.. abortion should only be allowed in a fetal age under 6 weeks. Which is 2 months of pregnancy.

I mean this is an 11 week old fetus;

http://www.i-am-pregnant.com/img/week11-....

it has arms, legs, eyes, 5 fingers and toes and ears.

That time limit could be possibly increased for extreme cases of rape, medical danger to the mother, or serious medical condition of the baby.

"allowed" means someone is policing this. Good luck with that, regardless of your viewpoint.

Just like sodomy and blowjob laws, they're meaningless as they are impossible to enforce.

Better to focus on getting people to move toward fundamental values that you agree with, without using the law.

Quote:

Better to focus on getting people to move toward fundamental values that you agree with, without using the law.

Unfortunately, this may be what we are left with. The law has become a trap for anyone seeking justice. While I do not believe abortion is consistent with "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness", should any legislation be enacted to prohibit abortion under our current statist government (Rs and Ds inclusive), the one thing that sits in the back of my mind is that such laws would be used to continue the destruction of freedom, privacy, individual rights, etc. in the name of "protection".
Such a conversation on fundamental values would be better received if we weren't spending billions of taxpayer dollars on welfare, then population control, welfare, population control, welfare...

Quote:

What about an older person dependent on a machine to live?

Why do people always lump in old people into discussions about abortion? Kill one and you have to kill the other...

Once recognized, the recognition and respect of one's right to life would continue until death. The way I look at it is the federal government could pick a date of biological independence where the right to life must be recognized and only in extreme cases could abortion happen after that date. Now it's up to each individual state to step in and make tighter requirements if they choose.

So should old people be able to off themselves? Yup. It's a right to life, not a guarantee of life or a sentence of life. Your life is yours to do with as you see fit as long as you don't injure or infringe upon others. One thing that the young and old have in common is the concept of custodianship of their rights. Someone else takes care of that person and they do not have the full enjoyment of rights as normal adults have. Obviously you don't have any rights to kill your kid but do you have rights to kill your parent?

I would say no, at least not without prior consent. Obviously that decision would have to be made when the parent is of sound mind but it could be made. May this serve as constructive notice that if I'm ever comatose or otherwise in a vegetative state and my chances of surviving and having a normal life are slim and none, please put a pillow over my face and press until I stop kicking.

Now in cases where that consent wasn't given the most you could do is remove life support assistance like ventilators, etc. You couldn't remove food tubes or the like as anyone would die of starvation or dehydration but removing a ventilator or heart machine... If their heart or lungs can't function enough to support them then they should be allowed to die.

Now back to abortion. The reason I keep going back to the age that a fetus could survive on it's own is because taken to the absurd a mother could refuse to care for the baby, or be a threat to the baby, and your only option would be to separate the two. Done at too young an age and the baby dies every time.

Should we recognize the right to life in a being that cannot live on it's own, even with reasonable medical intervention?

Quote:

Should we recognize the right to life in a being that cannot live on it's own, even with reasonable medical intervention?

If it can't live on its own, how can it have a "right" to life?

Does everyone have a "right" to "reasonable medical intervention"?

That said, I'll reiterate my pov, which is that it is a personal decision.

Quote:

The way I look at it is the federal government could pick a date of biological independence where the right to life must be recognized and only in extreme cases could abortion happen after that date.

For all the distrust of the federal government on this forum, and Cobra, I havent gone back to check your posts, but I assume that includes you, how is the power to define LIFE something you are ok ceding?

Quote:

Does everyone have a "right" to "reasonable medical intervention"?

You have a right to all the medical care you can afford.

Rice, What I'm talking about IS what is in the decision Roe v Wade. Right now once the fetus can survive outside the mother abortion is murder as once the fetus is viable its right to life must be recognized. SCOTUS is part of the federal government and is responsible for constitutional issues. Making an opinion is the limit of what the federal government can say about abortions, then it's up to the states to go from there. Well the federal government could regulate going from one state to another state for an abortion.

Remember, governments don't grant rights. Paper doesn't either. Rights are inherent. The only question is whether your rights are respected or not.

Looks like Virginia is pushing hard for the "personhood" type of law that was recently rejected in Mississippi.

If life begins at the moment of conception, then birth control pills are out, as are IUDs and other forms which may or may not work by preventing the implantation if the fertilized egg. In vitro would also result in "life" failing to attach and being expelled. Ban that too.

Many of my friends had early miscarriages. They better prove that they didn't do anything to 'cause' that, or be charged with murder.

My take on abortion is we need to find out why women are chosing it and seek to reduce the number of abortions by better access to birth control (and instructions on how to use it!) Birth control "failure" also needs to be addressed, as does the fact that it takes 2 to tango.

We have people out there who are against birth control, against abortion, and against pre-k, food stamps, WIC, etc. If all women were to stop having sex, men would be SOL. Also, I recall reading that a surprisingly high % of abortions are performed on married women. I remember reading about a woman who did NOT want to abortion, but her husband insisted b/c they already had a few kids and he didn't think they could pay for college for another one. Does NOT make sense to me.

Quote:

Many of my friends had early miscarriages. They better prove that they didn't do anything to 'cause' that, or be charged with murder.

In the event of a "personhood" law, I'd say women need to be ready to lawyer up. Women being jailed for miscarriages happens all over the world.

http://laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=36....

http://feminismandreligion.com/2011/10/0....

Quote:

MCPR, an 18-year old woman, sought help at a hospital for a miscarriage. She was reported to the local authorities by her medical provider and arrested for abortion and aggravated homicide in October for an illegal abortion; she faced up to 30 years in prison.

If you think it can only happen in Third World countries, think again.

http://talksmanymoons.wordpress.com/tag/....

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/....

Quote:

Does that sound like a legal stretch? Consider this recent case:

Just last month in Iowa, for example, a pregnant woman who fell down the stairs at home confided to emergency workers that she was not sure she really wanted to have her child. Though the woman did not immediately miscarry from the fall, she was arrested anyway under a state law that makes it a criminal act to harm a fetus. She was released after two days in jail, and the charges were dropped.

This one is especially impressive.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun....

Quote:

Amanda Kimbrough is one of the women who have been ensnared as a result of the law being applied in a wholly different way. During her pregnancy her fetus was diagnosed with possible Down's syndrome and doctors suggested she consider a termination, which Kimbrough declined as she is not in favour of abortion.

The baby was delivered by caesarean section prematurely in April 2008 and died 19 minutes after birth.

Six months later Kimbrough was arrested at home and charged with "chemical endangerment" of her unborn child on the grounds that she had taken drugs during the pregnancy – a claim she has denied.

"That shocked me, it really did," Kimbrough said. "I had lost a child, that was enough."

She now awaits an appeal ruling from the higher courts in Alabama, which if she loses will see her begin a 10-year sentence behind bars. "I'm just living one day at a time, looking after my three other kids," she said. "They say I'm a criminal, how do I answer that? I'm a good mother."

Maybe it's yet another sign that the US is on the road to becoming a Third World country. I'm really glad I had my hysterectomy last year. I'm also glad that my stepdaughters are Canadians.

Quote:

The founders set that bar at birth. There is strong history that supports setting the bar at "quickening" but no plurality, say much less consensus, prior to that time. Nonetheless the founders placed the bar where they did, safely away from the line when it comes to the legal prohibition against action

So what? What does that mean? There's a lot more history to be thought about regarding the framers. But I'll leave the question open.