Some things to chew on, and get off my chest

[Ilfirin]

Odd. You're telling me that if everyone agreed that a fetus was no different than an infant (in terms of rights/life status), we shouldn't have laws to protect it?

No no no.. I'm saying that many people would still say we shouldn't have laws outlawing abortions. If everyone's in agreement that the baby is alive right at conception, I'm sure most everyone would be for laws limiting it. But there's always going to be a significant opposition to anything being completely outlawed in this country.. right or wrong.

As for myself, if I were in this hypothetical world/situation, I'd say there should be laws protecting the mini-baby. But whether they are the exact same laws as for an infant is a completely seperate matter (since you also have to consider the cases where the baby living means the mother dieing and such).

....so for a yes/no response I'm going to have to stick with what I wrote in the [edit] section of my previous response: Yes for limiting, No for outlawing. You choose which best fits your question.

Again, I find this response odd. This is a fantasy world where people DON'T feel bad for a kid, because they don't believe he's alive. EVERYONE thinks it's a "tumor", etc.

Then it's all moot, since this world is obviously void of women and hence no baby making can be done!

But if the people in this world were actually that logical then I change 3) to yes.

 

[Paul]

As I said before Joe, I've found that simple yes/no answers are not good when talking to you, because then you take that simple answer and twist it around to mean something completely different.

You know Natoma......"fuck you."

 

[nelg]

48 hours of observation only.

Ok. My question is, how was his birth and his survival decided upon by our level of technology today? Cleanliness of the environment, pre-natal care, post-natal care, etc. Any drugs you took home with you? Etc etc etc.

No drugs. No medical interventions. While he did benefit from a clean environment and modern medical monitoring devices they did not in anyway affect his outcome.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

No no no.. I'm saying that many people would still say we shouldn't have laws outlawing abortions.

Well, I can see that. (I mean what about cases where the pregnancy itself jeopardizes the life of the mother.) This is why my question did not habe only "outright outlaw", but also "severe limitation" (in other words, "damn good reason for").

If everyone's in agreement that the baby is alive right at conception, I'm sure most everyone would be for laws limiting it.

OK, then I'll take that as a "Yes" to the question. Yes that there should be laws "limiting or possibly outlawing" abortion....Noting that you don't think that the latter would occur. (And I agree).

Then it's all moot, since this world is obviously void of women and hence no baby making can be done!

But if the people in this world were actually that logical then I change 3) to yes.

Yes...that's why it's an "ideal fantasy world."


OK Moving on....

So now we have a case where I think we'd agree that most people would answer "Yes" to my questions 1,2, and 3, Or pointedly:

1) A "life" should have rights and protections afforded by the Gov't.
2) If we could all agree that Life begins at conception, we should have laws at least limiting abortions....there would have to be extenuating circumstances to kill the life. Not a simple "just because I want to" would suffice.
3) If we could all agree that there is no life before birth, there would be no reason to have laws limiting abortion.

Just one final check: would you agree to the above points, and do you think most people would.

 

[Ilfirin]

Sure.

 

[Natoma]

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Sure.

OK.

Do we also agree laws are commonly not "black and white", that many are borne out of comprimse, that there's nothing wrong with this concept, and it is in fact the basis of our legislative process? (Speaking in U.S. terms, of course.)

Take anti-trust laws, for example. We recognize the "right" for corporations to exert free trade...but at the same time recognize the right for the public to be treated "fairly" by businesses. These can at times be at odds with one another. There are anti-trust laws in place which are a comprimise between these two interests when these conflicts occur.

 

[Ilfirin]

Yep.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

OK,

So with Abortion, we also have two competing "interests."

1) "Rights of the parents to choose."

2) "Rights of the unborn to live."

The ONLY way it could be justified to allow "any and all" abortions pre-birth, and be opposed to any and all anti-abortion law, is if everyone would agree that the unborn in fact, has no rights. That is, the fantasy world in question 3...which we all agree is indeed fantasy.

So I see nothing wrong with elected legislators getting togeter, reaching some comprimse / consensus to define at what point between conception and birth, the fetus is granted rights. It's not going to be what I think it should be (conception), and it's not going to be what "right to choose" advocates think it should be (birth). But it will be a consensus / comprimise "somewhere in the middle".

At that point, you can further legislate what exactly that comprimise is.

 

[Ilfirin]

Right, but the line can't just be drawn at random, and I've already stated where I think the line should be drawn:

As for what constitutes a living, human-being, I would say that any human that absolutely requires another human to be alive for them to continue living, should not yet (legally) be considered an independent, living being.

That is, there is a stage in pregnancy beyond which the mother could die, and the child still live (though it would have to be delivered via surgery).

After this point I'd consider an abortion to be murder.

Of course, the problem with this is that that exact time is different for every pregnancy and the only sure-fired way to know is to perform a surgical removal of the baby everytime and try to keep it alive. If it lives, put it up for adoption, if it doesn't, it's a legal abortion.

This is, of course, assuming that the surgery won't kill the mother and that the pregnancy is far enough along for it to not be a clear-cut case for abortion, but not so far along that it's a clear-cut case for a regular birth.

.. And in such cases you could say that the benefit of the doubt be given to the baby being alive and hence do a normal birth, and I'd probably agree.

But I'm rambling.. what were you getting to?

 

[Tagrineth]

I just have to say about abortion, that before the child is born, it's effectively a parasite in the mother.

Go read up on the effects of pregnancy on a woman.

I'm pro-choice. However! If, somehow, someone could demonstrate a point of self-awareness or true consciousness in the child... THEN I would certainly denounce an abortion as murder.

 

[Natoma]

I just have to say about abortion, that before the child is born, it's effectively a parasite in the mother.

Go read up on the effects of pregnancy on a woman.

I'm pro-choice. However! If, somehow, someone could demonstrate a point of self-awareness or true consciousness in the child... THEN I would certainly denounce an abortion as murder.

Agreed.

I'm saying until the question of what "human" is, is answered, that yes, the rights do in fact default to the woman. If the question is answered to the contrary that a being is in fact human at a particular point, then the right of life should supercede the right of choice. But the point is that we are not at that point yet. It hasn't been answered. I am not prepared to try and define what rights a woman can and can not have when the amorphous rights of a "being" have not yet been defined, and that is what is in contention at this point, i.e. the rights of a palpable human being vs a not so palpable being that could be or not be classified as "human." Under the current circumstance, the womans right does supercede the amorphous rights of a "being."

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Right, but the line can't just be drawn at random, and I've already stated where I think the line should be drawn:

I didn't say it would be drawn at random. It would come from debate, legislative process, comprimise, concensus. Just like every other law. This is why I specificially wanted to not include personal discussions on what is and what is not life. It's irrelevant to my point.

Where you, yourself, would draw the line is as irrelevant as where you would personally draw the line between "complete gov't regulation" of business, and "100% capitalism, buyer beware." Because no one person can draw a single line that would fit every case, does not mean it's wrong to draw a line.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I'm pro-choice.

I'm pro "comprimise between choice and life."

However! If, somehow, someone could demonstrate a point of self-awareness or true consciousness in the child... THEN I would certainly denounce an abortion as murder.

Has someone demonstrated this in a 1 minute old?

 

[John Reynolds]

I don't want to get into this discussion, but. . . .

I've always been pro-choice. I simply feel that it's not the government or anyone else's position to tell a woman what to do with her body, even if it's acting incredibly irresponsible and getting herself pregnant every year and having early abortions. Now that Megan's here, it's hard for me to feel the same way. Emotions cloud the intellect (or my lack thereof). I remember when Melissa and I saw the Hulk this summer, she was probably 30 weeks along, and Melissa said during explosions or other loud noises in the movie she could feel Megan jumping, as if she were frightened.

When Megan was born, delivered via C-section, the nurse was cleaning her up a little, checking to make sure her breathing passage was clear (more important with C-sections because fluids aren't squeezed out compared to when a baby gets pushed through the birth canal). I was nervously talking to the nurse, asking if everything looked OK with the baby. Megan turned her head toward me. I didn't notice this at first, but the nurse pointed it out and said that she knew my voice. I used to put my mouth against Melissa's stomach and sing throughout the last few months of her pregnancy.

I never wanted to be a parent. I had a bad childhood and have always had a lot of irrational fears and concerns that I'm somehow genetically preprogrammed to be like my father even though I know I'm nothing like him. But when I watched my wife turn 30 and saw the look in her eyes as friends, neighbors, and co-workers had children, and knowing how much it would mean to her, I very nervously gave in and agreed that we should try to have a baby.

And now that Megan is here, life without her is simply unimaginable. She is the greatest joy and blessing I've ever had in this life. So, probably needless to say, when I think how I used to intellectualize that a fetus is only the potential to life and not life itself, I have a very, very hard time reconciling that with a baby that already knows her father's voice the moment she's born, that can react to unexpectedly loud sounds. These things seem too human for me to rationalize away and still consider a fetus just parasitic growth toward a 'real' life.

Sorry for the weepy (or whatever you'd call it) post.

 

[Ilfirin]

Where you, yourself, would draw the line is as irrelevant as where you would personally draw the line between "complete gov't regulation" of business, and "100% capitalism, buyer beware." Because no one person can draw a single line that would fit every case, does not mean it's wrong to draw a line.

Personally, I'd never get in a situation where the line drawing would affect me. I'm only in this conversation for the 'fun' factor (yes, sometimes debates are fun to me), as I'm a strong believer in the "mind your own damn business" school of thought where if something doesn't involve you, don't try and tell other people what to do.

I was speaking purely from biological standpoint.. you might be able to argue for the line (past which you can no longer have an abortion) to be drawn earlier, but once the baby is completely able to survive on its own without the mother, it's definitely no longer "just a parasite" of the mother since (IIRC from biology) the definition of a parasite includes an organism that can not live without a host.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I'm a strong believer in the "mind your own damn business" school of thought where if something doesn't involve you, don't try and tell other people what to do.

What is your position on Abortion laws? (I don't think you've actually stated it. )

I was speaking purely from biological standpoint.. you might be able to argue for the line (past which you can no longer have an abortion) to be drawn earlier, but once the baby is completely able to survive on its own without the mother, it's definitely no longer "just a parasite" of the mother since (IIRC from biology) the definition of a parasite includes an organism that can not live without a host.

I agree with that, but not everyone else will, or others will tell you "that's irrelevant."

I don't care if one's definition of life is based on some biological reason, religous reason, or any other reason. What's important is for a concensus to be arrived at for when a fetus is granted rights as a human individual.

 

[Legion]

Those people were also already defined as human beings.

and could have their humanity stripped of them in the fashion unborn children have. Historically the same has been done with people suffering from insanity and other mental disabilities.

It isn't my argument alone. This is something that has been argued by late-term abortion foes as well, given the situation in light of Roe vs Wade.

As i insinuated they hadn't the scientific expertise or the know how to properly make the decision they did. We know such today to be true.

Sound familiar to anything I've been saying? The judges who ruled in Roe vs Wade may personally have had something against Abortion and disagreed with it vehemently. But given the current circumstances, the rights of the woman do supercede the rights of the unborn. Note the use of the word "compelling point" wrt stages in a woman's pregnancy.

Point? I would argue this is the same arbitrary stance you have been holding to, yes. Based on the limited understanding of the time of Roe v Wade they were able to get away with what they did however irrational and unfounded their position was. Today we have realized much that was once believed not 20 years ago is false. We have come to realize neurological development occurs and much earlier periods of development then we first expected so on and so forth. had they been provided the information we have now concerning human development i doubt they would have made the same conclusion.

The phrase "compelling point" is near meaningless. As science has progressed it has been more and more difficult to defend once held axioms concerning abortions.

 

[Legion]

Your killing millions of sperm that had the potential to create life and grow into a viable human being.

This is absolutely stupid and you damn well know it.

Look I know this is a semantical argument, but I'm trying to show why the line of debate is flawed. Where do you begin is my question. How far back do you go. Whether you or Joe think that's irrelevant, that is precisely the question that is being raised.

Unfortunately you aren't achieving anytihng but making your reasoning look extreme and ridiculous. A sperm alone is not a potential life. There is't any equating the two. Your analogy is flawed.

How far back do you begin? How late do you stop? What are the terms in which we can degard the value of human life to a subjective level which we then can base on biological/psychological/spiritual development to completely and arbitrarily define what it means to be "human"?

Many people see absolutely no issue with taking a morning after pill. But they certainly have an issue with a 9th month abortion. What about killing a baby 5 minutes after it's born? The point is that the line that is blurred between "humanity" and "entity" has no clear delimiter.

I see this as nonsensical. I see arbitrary definitions of what it is to be human can certainly be applied accross the board, and when it suits us, we can write off the value of human life. What seperates us from the mentally disabled or handicapped? Is there a point inwhich we can view autistic, infermed, or insane patients and inhuman? If so why do we bitch so much about elderly and infermed rights to kill themselves?

In the case of abortion rights, until we can get that clear delimiter, then the right is given to the human being rather than the entity/human being.

That is all I'm saying.

THis is a deliberately vague argument. You will never have a clear delimeter. The very nature of this being that we will never have a clear definition of what it is to be human.

 

[Ilfirin]

I'm a strong believer in the "mind your own damn business" school of thought where if something doesn't involve you, don't try and tell other people what to do.

What is your position on Abortion laws? (I don't think you've actually stated it. )

Well, going with what I just said, it'd have to affect me directly for me to have a position on it