Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act
simplybiological
Member
Member # 1344

 - posted      Profile for simplybiological   Email simplybiological   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since I complained on another thread about the sorts of topics I'm interested in not appearing on the site, I figured I'd post something.

The Arkansas House & Senate overrode a veto by the state governor to enact legislation to prevent abortions when a fetal heartbeat can be detected, or past 12 weeks of pregnancy. This is the latest in a series of similar pieces of legislation around the country.

Link to a short article: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/07/politics/arkansas-abortion/index.html

I'm at work and can't jump into the fray at the moment, but I'd be interested to hear what folks around here have to say, and I'll jump in later.

Posts: 1742 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It seems wrong-headed. If we're going to issue protections based on observable biological criteria, it seems to me that human brain wave patterns would be more relevant. Lots of animals have heartbeats, without having legal human rights. In some physiology classes, every student regularly has to vivisect a dog down, and eventually to inject a killing drug into its beating heart. Ergo, a beating heart is not a rational signpost of humanity.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the personhood of a fetus isn't something science can talk about too intelligently. The nature of what we're talking about is beyond the physical facts.

To be sure, science can tell us whether the thing has human DNA, and to what degree it physically resembles other things we generally call people (and who have an inherent right to life), but it can't tell us where the dividing line is. It can't tell us "this one is a person, this one is not." Personhood is a metaphysical concept.

I agree with Pete: drawing the line at a heartbeat seems arbitrary to me. But every line seems similarly arbitrary. Because of this, I believe that the thing is a person the moment is conceived.

So I don't mind a law that draws the line at the heartbeat. It's a step in the right direction. Sure, the law's arbitrary and imperfect. But if I lived in the south in the 1800's, I'd support a law that said "You can't kill any slaves who can read or write." The law would be a silly and arbitrary (and wouldn't protect the full group of people I think deserve protection), but it would save some lives.

This law looks like a good step in the right direction.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As someone who thinks this is a step in the wrong direction I'd suggest what I believe I have in a previous thread. Pass no laws requiring a woman to bring a fetus to term. Place the burden on medicine, rather than subjective morality, to see a fetus develops into a child. Forcing a woman to bring a child to term against her will is wrong. It is also wrong to kill/terminate a pregnancy once we are capable of extracting the fetus and "bringing it to term" without the unwilling mother.

[ March 07, 2013, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
D.W.: In the general case, we have two individuals whose lives are now inescapably linked. In order to sever the connection between them, either one needs to be killed, or the other needs to undergo the considerable pain, inconvenience, and potential disfigurement of pregnancy and child birth. Once the fetus is a person (which certainly occurs at some point between conception and birth) this is the nature of reality for an unwanted pregnancy.

Of these two results: One is killed, or the other undergoes pregnancy and childbirth, which is more severe? I think we can agree that being killed is worse than undergoing a pregnancy.

Which of the two individuals is responsible for this situation? The child is entirely innocent. It took no actions; it simply arose as a matter of cause and effect.

The woman (and the man) took actions that they knew could lead to conception. Even if they took some amount of precautions (birth control, condoms), it is clear that these methods are not 100%; occasionally accidents happen.

An unwanted pregnancy is a really sad situation. There is no easy way to resolve it. Currently we only have two alternatives to the situation, and neither is positive: either one person suffers pain and potential disfigurement or the other dies.

Given this argument, and your implicit acknowledgment that the life of the child is to be protected, what is your justification for saying "Forcing a woman to bring a child to term against her will is wrong."? The alternative is wrong, and appears to me to be a higher degree of wrong.

The nature of law is that we often have to weigh two undesirable situations and take the action that is less bad (or places responsibility for the situation on the person who caused it.).

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bud Martin
Member
Member # 6796

 - posted      Profile for Bud Martin   Email Bud Martin       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How about funding a scientific method to create an artificial uterus? You could transfer developing embryos into an artificial womb, when the mother is unwilling or unable to carry the fetus full term.

I know there are a lot of ethical considerations and religious overtones, but if saving lives was so important after conception, then pro-life groups might consider it as a life saving alternative to abortion.

Scott Card's book "Ender's Game" brings this topic into the storyline and talks about some of the horror's that might be perpetrated by people using such a method in conjunction with cloning. I wonder if those topics are going to be discussed in the movie coming out in November.

Posts: 367 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bud: If we can do that with little or no risk to the child's life, then yea, I'd absolutely support it.

Knowing very little about the state of the technology, it looks like something that's going to be incredibly hard to do. You have two bodies linked together for virtually everything. They share blood, food, and emotions. I find it hard to imagine a machine that is capable of emulating a mother's womb.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Of these two results: One is killed, or the other undergoes pregnancy and childbirth, which is more severe? I think we can agree that being killed is worse than undergoing a pregnancy.
”Severe” is subjective based upon personal morality. If the woman would not voluntarily undergo pregnancy then I would not pass a law requiring her to do so even knowing this means the death of the fetus. To me “personhood” is irrelevant.

quote:
Which of the two individuals is responsible for this situation? The child is entirely innocent. It took no actions; it simply arose as a matter of cause and effect.
And whether “the child” is ever able to “live” outside of its mother’s womb is also a matter of cause and effect.

quote:
Given this argument, and your implicit acknowledgment that the life of the child is to be protected, what is your justification for saying "Forcing a woman to bring a child to term against her will is wrong."? The alternative is wrong, and appears to me to be a higher degree of wrong.
The difference is I prioritize the wrongs the other way around.

Bud has hit on my position. I think any law safeguarding a fetus should be postponed until such a time that it is technically possible to separate termination of pregnancy and the death of a fetus.

[ March 07, 2013, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bud Martin
Member
Member # 6796

 - posted      Profile for Bud Martin   Email Bud Martin       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with that totally DW. There hasn't been any money put into research on this and I think it's high time we did investigate this option, even with the inherent dangers of the potential abuse that could happen. I don't believe this is playing God, since the Fetus is already created and we are just providing life support till the embryo can mature and survive outside of the womb.

Joshua,

We won't know if its possible unless we seriously investigate this and if the pro-life people could get on board supporting a scientific investigation into an artificial womb (for the purpose of saving lives), then we might get enough research money put into this to make it safe and practical, who knows.

[ March 07, 2013, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: Bud Martin ]

Posts: 367 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
D.W: I do understand your position, and thank you for outlining it a bit further. I'm asking you to provide the justification for what you believe. I laid out the justifications for my beliefs above. Can you show me why you feel prioritizing the woman's life is the right choice? If you're able, please address my arguments as often as you can. I don't think we'll come to agree with each other in the end, but I am sincerely interested in understanding your position and the reasons why you believe what you do.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In the general case, we have two individuals whose lives are now inescapably linked. In order to sever the connection between them, either one needs to be killed, or the other needs to undergo the considerable pain, inconvenience, and potential disfigurement of pregnancy and child birth. Once the fetus is a person (which certainly occurs at some point between conception and birth) this is the nature of reality for an unwanted pregnancy.
I disagree with you that the zygote/embryo/fetus is an individual. Every single one of its life functions is carried out via its mother. Without the mother, the z/e/f would die. A newborn infant can't survive without assistance, but the differences between how the z/e/f can't survive, vs how the infant can't survive are rather titanic.

Because I don't think the z/e/f is an individual, I don't think it can rise to the level of being a person, prior to birth.

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bud, I worry a great deal about what this research would lead to. It is only slightly less distressing than my alternative. That alternative would be universal birth control with the need to take a counteragent in the event you WANT to get pregnant. The possibility for abuse on that end is far more “severe” in my opinion.

I’ll give it a shot JoshuaD but because I have a conflicting view I can’t even see what you take for granted as being arguments supporting your position. I see your judgments and opinions but the why of your beliefs is harder to see.

“Which of the two individuals is responsible for this situation? The child is entirely innocent. It took no actions; it simply arose as a matter of cause and effect.”
Not cause and effect, action and potential outcome. It may be a common and predictable outcome but sex is quite frequently enjoyed by people who do not intend to conceive. I do not believe this is behavior is wrong or that it should be hindered. The physical and emotional enjoyment of sex are not (and should not be) a reward reserved only to those who intend to procreate. Aborting the pregnancy IS a means of taking responsibility for the situation. I will agree it is less favorable than preventative measures.

“Currently we only have two alternatives to the situation, and neither is positive: either one person suffers pain and potential disfigurement or the other dies.”
This is the part that’s hard for me to articulate my opinion. I don’t see the “persons” in question as equals. I see this as the woman having no obligation to support the fetus which MAY grow into what I would consider a person. Having sex did not make her obligated to take the fetus to term IMO. The termination of that pregnancy means that this fetus will never develop into what I consider a person. The same can be said for the use of birth control.

The difference is you went from reducing the possibility of a person resulting from sex to now having to take an action to prevent a person from resulting from sex. I will not deny the second has a far greater emotional impact than the first. The thought that I’m “ending a life” would never occur to me when I put on a condom. It does however serve the same function as an abortion.

So when does the fetus/child/person’s right to live outweigh the desires of the mother? The moment that fetus/child/person can live without the mother. What I personally believe should be acceptable to endure in order to provide this potential person every opportunity to thrive is irrelevant. That choice should be a personal one with no outside influences upon the mother other than to offer MORE options. Never to restrict those options.

“The nature of law is that we often have to weigh two undesirable situations and take the action that is less bad (or places responsibility for the situation on the person who caused it.).”
“less bad” is an opinion. I will concede that law often defines what society considers “bad” but I have the opposite opinion as you. Which is why this topic and how we legislate it still being debated.

[ March 07, 2013, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
JoshuaD: In the general case, we have two individuals whose lives are now inescapably linked. In order to sever the connection between them, either one needs to be killed, or the other needs to undergo the considerable pain, inconvenience, and potential disfigurement of pregnancy and child birth. Once the fetus is a person (which certainly occurs at some point between conception and birth) this is the nature of reality for an unwanted pregnancy.
PSRT: I disagree with you that the zygote/embryo/fetus is an individual. Every single one of its life functions is carried out via its mother. Without the mother, the z/e/f would die. A newborn infant can't survive without assistance, but the differences between how the z/e/f can't survive, vs how the infant can't survive are rather titanic.

Because I don't think the z/e/f is an individual, I don't think it can rise to the level of being a person, prior to birth.

Fair enough. At what point does it become a person by your analysis? Do you agree that abortions should be illegal once the fetus is a person?

It seems like you might be saying that you would be OK with abortions at any point prior to birth. I don't want to assume, so I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify.

There are two pillars of my argument:

1) Once it is a person, in the general case (consensual sex, etc.), we should not allow a mother to abort her child. This is for the reasons I outlined above (the mother is responsible for the situation and arising and the negative repercussions are less severe for the mother than the unborn child)

2) Because I can't find any clear line where it becomes a person, I have been forced to conclude that it is a person as of the moment of conception. That is the only clear line in the process that I can see.

Therefore, I conclude that all abortions (in the general case) should be illegal.

Which one are you disagreeing with?


---


I'm willing to carve out some early exceptions for rape, because the metric of thinking changes in (1). I kinda want to avoid the exceptional cases until we can see eye to eye on the general case. It's the most important one by a large margin, and it would be impossible to agree on the exceptions if we don't agree on the general case.

[ March 07, 2013, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Fair enough. At what point does it become a person by your analysis? Do you agree that abortions should be illegal once the fetus is a person?
TO me, a fetus is never a person. It never reaches the status of individual being, so it can't be a person. After birth, its a person.

This does not mean I think that abortions shouldn't be regulated. I think animal cruelty laws and such are good laws to enforce, even though I don't think animals are persons, either.

quote:
Because I can't find any clear line where it becomes a person, I have been forced to conclude that it is a person as of the moment of conception. That is the only clear line in the process that I can see.
I disagree with you here. I think there is a very clear line at birth. I think this line connects much more directly to what the concept of a person describes than the line that we can draw at conception.

I also think that drawing a line for personhood at conception forces us to regulate any woman of childbearing age into virtual slavery, as we can never know for certain that a woman of childbearing age is not pregnant, and there are a variety of actions that the woman can take that would constitute manslaughter if she has in fact concieved, and the result of conception is a person.

So I think you have misplaced your clear line for two reasons of different sorts.

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know it wasn't directed at me but...
quote:
At what point does it become a person by your analysis?
Sometime between 1 and 3 years old.
quote:
Do you agree that abortions should be illegal once the fetus is a person?
Yes, but calling them a fetus at that point seems strange.

quote:
It seems like you might be saying that you would be OK with abortions at any point prior to birth. I don't want to assume, so I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify.
At a point where inducing labor could have a high probability of keeping the fetus/child alive I would not allow the abortion unless the labor posed a high probability of risk to the mother. Otherwise, yes at any point.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
D.W.: Not cause and effect, action and potential outcome.
I don't see the difference in this distinction.

If I have a gun fully loaded with bullets, point it at you, pull the trigger, and you die, I am responsible for your murder.

If I have a gun that has only one bullet in it, I spin the chamber, pull the trigger, and you die, I am similarly responsible for your murder.

The fact that the cause-and-effect of an action has a component of probability doesn't lessen our responsibly for the results of that action.


quote:
D.W. It may be a common and predictable outcome but sex is quite frequently enjoyed by people who do not intend to conceive. I do not believe this is behavior is wrong or that it should be hindered.
I agree. I similarly think people should be able to drink, or go skiing, or engage in a large number of activities that have a component of risk.

When that risk becomes a reality, however, I don't see why we should make another person (the fetus) bear the responsibility for taking the risky behavior. The person who took the risk is the person who should bear the responsibility for their actions.

quote:
D.W. Aborting the pregnancy IS a means of taking responsibility for the situation. I will agree it is less favorable than preventative measures.
This is begging the question. You're just restating what you believe. I understand what you believe, but this can't support your position; it is your position. An idea cannot support itself.

quote:
D.W.: This is the part that’s hard for me to articulate my opinion. I don’t see the “persons” in question as equals. I see this as the woman having no obligation to support the fetus which MAY grow into what I would consider a person. Having sex did not make her obligated to take the fetus to term IMO. The termination of that pregnancy means that this fetus will never develop into what I consider a person. The same can be said for the use of birth control.

I understand having difficulty articulating your position, and I am glad to wait as long as you need to read what you have to say.

You're not giving me reasons for what you believe here. You're just repeating what you believe. Can you give me reasons why you believe the fetus is less of a person than the mother? I can see a lot of reasons one might employ (none that I happen to find compelling). I'm not sure which you are using.

quote:
D.W.: The thought that I’m “ending a life” would never occur to me when I put on a condom. It does however serve the same function as an abortion.
I don't see that it does. Using a condom prevents life from arising. It stops the chain reaction from ever starting. An abortion interferes with the chain reaction once it has started. A separated sperm and and egg will never develop into an adult. If left alone (and kept separate), they will continue to simply be a sperm and an egg.

An embryo, left to run its natural course, will grow into a adult.

This distinction seems very important to me.

quote:
D.W.: “less bad” is an opinion. I will concede that law often defines what society considers “bad” but I have the opposite opinion as you. Which is why this topic and how we legislate it still being debated.
Everything we talk boils down to being an "opinion" (by your usage, something I believe to be true but can't factually "prove"). Even our beliefs abut science are "opinions" of this nature. I believe my statement is generally true. I believe there are moral realities and that my statements are a reflection of the moral reality. I can't prove that any more than I can prove that gravity exists. I can just give you compelling reasons to agree with me.

I actually don't believe you when you say you disagree with me though. If you had the choice: either someone would murder you or you would have to undergo a pregnancy, which would you choose? I think almost everyone will choose to undergo a pregnancy rather than be killed.

[ March 07, 2013, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
JoshuaDAt what point does it become a person by your analysis?
D.W.: Sometime between 1 and 3 years old.
So you don't think it's murder to kill a 6 month old child? I don't think you actually believe this to be true.

[ March 07, 2013, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
PSRT: I disagree with you here. I think there is a very clear line at birth. I think this line connects much more directly to what the concept of a person describes than the line that we can draw at conception.
So the moment before childbirth, killing a fetus is more like killing a puppy than killing me? Could you explain a bit why you think this is the case?

quote:
PSRT: I also think that drawing a line for personhood at conception forces us to regulate any woman of childbearing age into virtual slavery, as we can never know for certain that a woman of childbearing age is not pregnant, and there are a variety of actions that the woman can take that would constitute manslaughter if she has in fact concieved, and the result of conception is a person.
I don't agree with the reasoning that brings you to this conclusion. It's not a conclusion I come to when analyzing the situation.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So the moment before childbirth, killing a fetus is more like killing a puppy than killing me? Could you explain a bit why you think this is the case?
Its not like killing a puppy either, because a puppy is an individual being, although not what I would consider a person. I think that the fetus is a life the moment before childbirth, and that it is a human life, but its not a being that interacts directly with any environment outside its mother, upon whom it is entirely dependant for its functions of life.


quote:
I don't agree with the reasoning that brings you to this conclusion. It's not a conclusion I come to when analyzing the situation.
Can you explain to me how, if a fetus is a person, engaging in activities such as, for example, exuberant chest bumping during a football game, is not manslaughter if the mother miscarries?
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because manslaughter is a legal term that we get to define. If the mother doesn't know she's pregnant and she takes an action which causes a miscarriage, we don't need to call that manslaughter or punish it like we punish manslaughter. I would agree with you that doing so would create an undue burden on all woman who are potentially pregnant, so I would work to make our laws intelligent.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Its not like killing a puppy either, because a puppy is an individual being, although not what I would consider a person. I think that the fetus is a life the moment before childbirth, and that it is a human life, but its not a being that interacts directly with any environment outside its mother, upon whom it is entirely dependant for its functions of life.
Why is this a relevant distinction? A man on life support and in a coma is similarly positioned, but putting a sharp knife into his head is absolutely murder.

I don't understand your position clearly. Would you allow an 8-month abortion? If so, why? If not, what justification do you have for making it illegal if you don't recognize the personhood of the fetus?

[ March 07, 2013, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't see the difference in this distinction.

If I have a gun fully loaded with bullets, point it at you, pull the trigger, and you die, I am responsible for your murder.

If I have a gun that has only one bullet in it, I spin the chamber, pull the trigger, and you die, I am similarly responsible for your murder.

The fact that the cause-and-effect of an action has a component of probability doesn't lessen our responsibly for the results of that action.

I don’t see sex as Russian roulette is the difference. Here’s an equally silly comparison.
You have an electric sex toy that plugs into the wall. The wiring in your house is old and known to blow fuses now and then. Your grandmother lives with you and is on a breathing machine. You use the sex toy anyway taking a chance the fuse may blow. You know that even in the event the fuse blows you can still get to the breaker box before the battery on grandma’s machine runs out. Doesn’t change the fact you should probably go without your sex toy or at least get a battery operated one. Oh and fix the wiring in your house if you can afford it. Think of grandma! But well, maybe don’t think of her. At least not right now.

quote:
You're not giving me reasons for what you believe here.
I don’t see that you did either. What made me come to the conclusion that sovereignty over one’s own body trumps the right for a fetus to at some point in the future have that same sovereignty? I got no clue. Maybe I’m less selfless? Maybe I just have a “first come first serve” mentality? Maybe I’m trying to subconsciously justify repercussion free sex? Try to reframe your question and maybe I can answer it. This question is too broad and I’m not self-enlightened enough to give what I would consider an accurate response to it.
quote:
I don't see that it does. Using a condom prevents life from arising. It stops the chain reaction from ever starting.
How did you come to the conclusion that the chain reaction started there?
quote:
An embryo, left to run its natural course, will grow into a adult.

This distinction seems very important to me.

Agreed. Just, to me, not important enough to short circuit the free will of the woman/mother.
quote:
If you had the choice: either someone would murder you or you would have to undergo a pregnancy, which would you choose?
That’s not the choice. That you see it this way does explain why you believe your position to be correct though.
The doctors say a relative of yours you had never heard of is in a coma. It is highly likely they will recover to some extent in a few months. However to save their life we will need you to undergo surgery so that your heart beats for them and your lungs breath for them. They can’t eat so your blood will nourish them. You will be physically tied to them for the duration. If you don’t do this, the person will surely die. If you do this they will recover very slowly and have brain damage that should be repairable over several years. Do you agree? Should you be forced to agree? Is having sex with someone reason enough to revoke your right to make the decision?

Maybe that's not enough personal responsibility. Maybe the patient is someone you ran into while out dancing and they fell and hit their head? I don't know these comparisons get silly fast.

quote:
So you don't think it's murder to kill a 6 month old child? I don't think you actually believe this to be true.
Of course not. Just because I don't believe an infant is a person doesn't mean I believe it's ok to kill them. I was illustrating that personhood is a silly criteria.

[ March 07, 2013, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Because manslaughter is a legal term that we get to define. If the mother doesn't know she's pregnant and she takes an action which causes a miscarriage, we don't need to call that manslaughter or punish it like we punish manslaughter. I would agree with you that doing so would create an undue burden on all woman who are potentially pregnant, so I would work to make our laws intelligent.
Two different questions:

a) Would a woman who exuberantly chest bumps during a football game, and causes a miscarriage for a pregnancy she knows about, would you consider that manslaughter?

b) How do you consider your position internally consistent if the life of the fetus is not worthy of protection of manslaughter laws, yet still be considered a person? This seems to me like a very deep logical inconsistency

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Heck, if a woman -- not knowing she is pregnant -- drinks to excess and kills her fetus, is she guilty of manslaughter? As you said a few posts earlier, specifically regarding who should take the responsibility for the action, the person who chooses to engage in the risky behavior is ultimately to blame: so every time a woman engages in behavior that might kill an unborn fetus, she is potentially a killer. Protecting clumps of cells from the moment of conception reduces every woman to a birthing machine.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
<adds little ditto marks under Tom's post, posting mostly to say:>

Hi, simplybio! Nice to see you.

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You're not giving me reasons for what you believe here.
Got a slightly better answer now that I've given it some more thought. I want to make sure there are not further restrictions or bans on abortion, not because of my own beliefs but because I'm not positive that my belief should trump the decisions and beliefs of every woman who may ever face that choice. So I don't believe I have the right to deprive them of that choice.

I am suspicious if not scornful by nature of anyone who is not only sure their view is correct but seek to impose it on others. This topic is interesting because who is victim of the imposition by others is at question.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Heck, if a woman -- not knowing she is pregnant -- drinks to excess and kills her fetus, is she guilty of manslaughter? As you said a few posts earlier, specifically regarding who should take the responsibility for the action, the person who chooses to engage in the risky behavior is ultimately to blame: so every time a woman engages in behavior that might kill an unborn fetus, she is potentially a killer. Protecting clumps of cells from the moment of conception reduces every woman to a birthing machine.

That's not even getting into the thick of it. About 75% of conceptions result in miscarraige. Exactly what level of scrutiny would we need to apply to suss out fault for every such abortion to see if we should assign fault to the woman who miscarried? (Heck, just the process of detecting every miscarriage would be insanely invasive if we insist that protection must begin at conception.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yea, I don't see why you guys are drawing ludicrous conclusions from my position and then trying to discredit the position as ludicrous because of your conclusions.

Someone might draw those conclusions. I wouldn't, and I don't think anyone should.

Throughout my entire explanation of my belief above, I am doing a weighing of the rights of the mother and the child. I am not drawing any black and white conclusions.

Similarly, we must weigh the general freedom and privacy of woman when discussing these other unrelated matters you've brought up.

In the general case that would mean that we don't get to assume a woman is pregnant and treat her differently (even though doing so would protect some number of unborn children). That would be a violation of a ton of things, which you all can see. So we don't do that.

Similarly, if a woman has a miscarriage, then she should be treated exactly like we treat her today: lots of compassion and support. I don't see any reason to conclude that she performed a crime unless there is a pretty strong compelling reason to do so.

We have to weigh our rights and our freedoms and try to create laws that are minimally intrusive while giving us all as much protection from one another as we can.

It's a weighing and balancing act. I have explained clearly above how I did that weighing and balancing for the general case of abortion. I think my position is clear and easy to understand (even if you don't agree with it).

You don't need to come to these overbearing conclusions that you are talking about if you believe what I believe. To the contrary, the same method I used to come to my conclusions above will reject the incredibly intrusive conclusions you've put forward here.

[ March 07, 2013, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yea, I don't see why you guys are drawing ludicrous conclusions from my position and then trying to discredit the position as ludicrous because of your conclusions.
Were you not doing the same when you replied to my comments regarding personhood not beginning until the transition between infant and toddler or PSRT’s animal cruelty comment? Is someone with a contrary view to your own so alien that you had to get us to clarify we weren’t also ok with infanticide or saw a human child’s life as no more morally relevant than the life of a puppy?

quote:
You don't need to come to these overbearing conclusions that you are talking about if you believe what I believe. To the contrary, the same method I used to come to my conclusions above will reject the incredibly intrusive conclusions you've put forward here.
The question is not what conclusions are reached. It’s how to draft and enforce laws that reach only as far as society accepts as necessary (if a consensus can be reached), and no further.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"About 75% of conceptions result in miscarraige"

I have no idea what figures you're operating from, but the term "conception" is anathema to any informative discussion of science, and highly misleading. Modern Pro-lifers often grossly misuse the word "conception" to signify FERTILIZATION, even though that's clearly NOT what the word "conception" meant historically. Since there's no scientific conception of what conception means, please use another term.

To be more precise, only 33% of FERTILIZATIONS result in any sort of implantation. It would be grossly innacurate to describe unimplanted fertilized eggs as "miscarriages" since they were never "carried" in the first place. There's no abortion or miscarriage until the woman becomes pregnant, and there's no pregnancy until implantation.

Pete, who thinks that human brain waves are the best indicator of human status, and wishes that the abortion debate involved more brain activity on all sides of the political fence.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
An embryo, left to run its natural course, will grow into a adult.
This is absolutely untrue. An embyro, left to itself (assuming basic nourisment is provided somehow) will not grow into an adult. It will continue being a partailly differentiated mass of cells that will eventually be unable to continue living because the active process of building into a viable being was interrupted. (It's like balancing a wooden board on four wooden poles. It looks a bit like a table, but uless you put nails into it, it wwll only resemble a table until someone bumps into it, at which point it becomes clear taht it was actually still just a precariously stacked pile of lumber.)

That's why we have a rough age of viability to begin with- that's the eariest point that enough contruction of the fetus is complete that the mother's womb is not longer absolutely required to process the devloping fetus toward a self-sustaining state.

quote:
1) Once it is a person, in the general case (consensual sex, etc.), we should not allow a mother to abort her child. This is for the reasons I outlined above (the mother is responsible for the situation and arising and the negative repercussions are less severe for the mother than the unborn child)
So long as the mother is a person, we should not deny her soverignty over her own body, any more than we'd deny any other person soverignty over theirs in the case that, for example, their marrow, kindey, or heck, even blood might be the only way to save someone else's life. In fact, we even allow that kind of soverignty to continue after the person with the needed organs is dead.


quote:
D.W.
quote:
Aborting the pregnancy IS a means of taking responsibility for the situation. I will agree it is less favorable than preventative measures.
This is begging the question. You're just restating what you believe. I understand what you believe, but this can't support your position; it is your position. An idea cannot support itself.
No- DW's statement there is a direct defintion of taking responsibility. It's a consious, active choice to personally deal with a situation in a certain way and not foisting that responsibility off on others or letting it slide through denial indecision. You can certainly argue that choosing to deal with the situation in that way is not reasonable or should be restricted based on the reasons that you give; the issue lies in the permissibility of choing that actoun, not whether the action is a form of taking responsibility. (It's important to be careful on this point, because, in dismissing the definition of responsibility here rather than sticking to permissability, you can actively open yourself up to attacks that you're effectively arguing a pregnancy-as-punishment position)

quote:
2) Because I can't find any clear line where it becomes a person, I have been forced to conclude that it is a person as of the moment of conception. That is the only clear line in the process that I can see.
Except taht conception istelf isn't a clear line, given the are 3:1 odds of spontaneous abortion even after conception, and that a fertilized egg cannot grow into a person on its own- it's only the bluprints and raw materials that the mother's body uses to build with. Without active input, that fertilized cell would just grow into a large lump of fertilized cells and never even remotely resemble a human. Independent viability is the first point where the question really becomes meaningful, but even then the woman's preexisting right to self dertermination over her own body should take precedence and any procedure used in excercise of that control should correspondingly prioritize her health and safety.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
quote:
Fair enough. At what point does it become a person by your analysis? Do you agree that abortions should be illegal once the fetus is a person?
TO me, a fetus is never a person. It never reaches the status of individual being, so it can't be a person. After birth, its a person.
I don't think that Afterbirth is a person, and as for individual beings, shall we wait until the typical 27 year old America kid moves out of his mom's garage before we call it a person?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Using legal personhood is murderously arbitrary, since it's a tradition and convenience description that means nothing more or less than entities which we cannot kill for the sake of mere convenience. It's a results-driven category. Some of the remarks above seem to me to demonstrate that we're determining what is a person by what would inconvenience or infringe on the rights of existing persons.

I would rather reserve a right to abort regardless of whether a fetus is a person, than play the morally nihilistic game of using semantics to pretend that somehow the "birth" process (which varies depending on whether the kid is born or cut out via caeserean) magically imbues the fetus with human qualities and rights. I'd rather simply say that state sovereignty stops at the bounds of the uterus. That the jurisdiction of the law does not extend to what a woman does or asks her doctor to do with her own body. But that's because I'm a real pro-choicer rather than one that slaps "choice" on a legal concept that's rooted in dehumanizing those who we find inconvenient.

[ March 07, 2013, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bud Martin
Member
Member # 6796

 - posted      Profile for Bud Martin   Email Bud Martin       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

quote:
" I don't think that Afterbirth is a person, and as for individual beings, shall we wait until the typical 27 year old America kid moves out of his mom's garage before we call it a person?"
That was a good one Pete...ROFL! I felt guilty for laughing at it though I don't know why? For some reason it brings to mind the scene in the movie "Dune", where a Reverend Mother makes Paul Atreides stick his hand into a box and threatens him with death if he removes his hand. Then his hand feels like its beings burnt by acid, yet he keeps his hand in the box. The Reverend Mother then tells him to remove his hand and calls him "Human".

So what about using pain for a test of humanity - would a fetus be human if it feels pain or happiness and could you test that?

Posts: 367 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
simplybiological
Member
Member # 1344

 - posted      Profile for simplybiological   Email simplybiological   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Josh, you mention risk a lot... A woman is inherently taking a risk by having sex. Let's say a woman mitigates that risk - she is on the pill, she and her partner use condoms, etc - and she still becomes pregnant. Is she still responsible, because she took a risk?

That is to say, is there a level of risk-mitigation that you would accept that would make a pregnancy *not* a woman's responsibility, and therefore qualify her to abort?

Second question: You've been careful to avoid the edge cases of rape/incest/etc here, and I do appreciate a debate that avoids relying on these exceptions to prove the rule. However, since you did refer to abortion as "killing," I wonder - do you think that a violent, but non-murderous act (rape) justifies a "murder" (abortion) in that case? It seems like if you weigh the rights, as you've mentioned you do, abortion would still not be justified in this case.

I'm also wondering how we're quantifying the "rights of the mother" at this point- it seems like arguments made thus far are weighing only the physical impact, and only for the term of the pregnancy. The impact is far greater- here's a short list:
- Long-term physical damage and/or physical change that occurs due to pregnancy and childbirth
- The emotional consequences of being forced to carry and birth a child against your will
- The financial impact to women who lose their jobs due to pregnancy (it's illegal, but it happens- especially in hourly wage jobs) and/or have to take time off work for medical reasons (bed rest, etc).
- The cost of pre-natal medical care and childbirth.
- Social stigma (along with accordant emotional and financial stress that may cause)
- etc, etc.

Let's say a woman becomes financially destitute and emotionally and physically traumatized (which, yes, is a little hyperbolic, but stay with me) due to being required by law to carry her child to term. At what point has her quality of life, and indeed her right to pursue happiness, been impacted to a degree that it overcomes the rights that you are handing to a fetus? Ever?

You stated (paraphrasing here) that people were taking your argument past its logical bounds when they asked about prosecuting a pregnant woman for endangering a fetus if she carries out behavior she knows to be risky. However, I think that's an argument you have to have if you found your argument in the notion that a woman's responsibility for caring for a fetus for the next ten months begins when she has sex. If you remove a woman's legal ability to have sovereignty over her body, she will pursue illegal means - history has more than proven this. Women will have abortions whether they are legal or not. The question now is, will you prosecute those women?


quote:
Hi, simplybio! Nice to see you.
Hey sunshine- I was hoping you were still around.

[ March 07, 2013, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: simplybiological ]

Posts: 1742 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yea, I don't see why you guys are drawing ludicrous conclusions from my position and then trying to discredit the position as ludicrous because of your conclusions.

Yeah, I don't see why you think my conclusion is ludicrous.If the fetus is a person, and it dies as a result of the actions of another person, the only way this is not, at a minimum, manslaughter, is if we decide that the fetus is not entitled to the same protections of the law as other persons... thus making it not a person.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
quote:
Yea, I don't see why you guys are drawing ludicrous conclusions from my position and then trying to discredit the position as ludicrous because of your conclusions.

Yeah, I don't see why you think my conclusion is ludicrous.If the fetus is a person, and it dies as a result of the actions of another person, the only way this is not, at a minimum, manslaughter, is if we decide that the fetus is not entitled to the same protections of the law as other persons... thus making it not a person.
To further enforce the point that this isn't an absurd scenario some states, such as Utah, have aleardy passed criminal miscarriage laws based exactly on the opinion that life begins at conception. (On a quick look, I can't find much information on what the current state of court challenges against it are, though there's some slight suggestion that they've already had to fix the wording on it)

This isn't an absurd stretch, it's a real consequence of that position. And even if you make exemptions for natural miscarriages,the very nature of legal protections means tahtsome degree of investigation needs to be conducted to veryify that finding, and it is flat out impossible to make such a determination without some degree of invasiveness at a time when shuch a probe would be most trying to the woman that suffered the loss.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lloyd Perna
Member
Member # 1315

 - posted      Profile for Lloyd Perna   Email Lloyd Perna   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
quote:
Yea, I don't see why you guys are drawing ludicrous conclusions from my position and then trying to discredit the position as ludicrous because of your conclusions.

Yeah, I don't see why you think my conclusion is ludicrous.If the fetus is a person, and it dies as a result of the actions of another person, the only way this is not, at a minimum, manslaughter, is if we decide that the fetus is not entitled to the same protections of the law as other persons... thus making it not a person.
Let's say I go into a store and leave the trunk of my car open meanwhile, some guy gets in there and closes it with himself inside. Then I come out of the store and drive off and get rear ended at a stop sign causing the man in my trunk to die. am I responsible?
Posts: 120 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That will teach you to practice unsafe shopping! Clever but the analogy shouldn't involve getting rear ended but rather wreckless driving resulting in an accident. Then it's a good question.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lloyd Perna
Member
Member # 1315

 - posted      Profile for Lloyd Perna   Email Lloyd Perna   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just getting in the car is risky. I was trying to draw the analogy to the person who took reasonable precautions.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1