Some things to chew on, and get off my chest

[nelg]

48 hours of observation only.

 

[Legion]

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, but doesn't NICU stand for Neo-natal Intensive Care Unit? That sounds to me like he needed our level of technology in order to survive his premature birth. Would he have lived 50 years ago without the technology of the day?

What relevance does our technology have in this conversation? 500+ year ago wouod probably would have seen people suffering and dying from diseases we can cure today...

 

[Legion]

We're all biologically dependent on one another. You didn't grow that food you eat every day did you? Did you go and get that water you drink on your own? Your point is not what's being discussed at all.

My point is biologically dependancy is irrelevant to the discussion of what defines human.

 

[Natoma]

The discussion joe and i were having dealt with where one determines "human life."

Because the life form hasn't been established as a human being, and the problem with establishing it as a human being is, where do you begin. You can go all the way back to the separate sperm and ova depending on your point of view. In this case, does the right of a living, breathing, palpable human being get superceded by the rights of an amorphous idea of humanity? If you argue that in a court of law, they will side with the clearly definable human being, not because it's the "right thing to do" but because there is no other recourse. How can you give rights to something no one is even sure is "human" or "alive" yet? And this is getting into the deeper psychological question of what makes us "us," which is a whole other can of worms.

The basic problem as has been said round robin fashion is, where do you define "human being." Until that question is answered in a better fashion than "a being that is no longer in the womb," women's rights supercede those of the unborn/non-human/whatever you wish to call them.

Right now our lawmakers define viability at the 6-7 month period. In 20 years, that could be the 3-4 month period. In 40 years, it could be viable from the moment of conception. The point of discussing the level of technology was, where exactly does that put abortion rights. Do they keep getting rolled back until they no longer exist, because the definition of human life, with our technological advances, goes all the way to the fertilized egg?

 

[Legion]

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, but doesn't NICU stand for Neo-natal Intensive Care Unit? That sounds to me like he needed our level of technology in order to survive his premature birth. Would he have lived 50 years ago without the technology of the day?

Did his child require treatment or is this just a common procedure?

 

[Natoma]

We're all biologically dependent on one another. You didn't grow that food you eat every day did you? Did you go and get that water you drink on your own? Your point is not what's being discussed at all.

My point is biologically dependancy is irrelevant to the discussion of what defines human.

Heh. Abortion and Anti-Abortion activists would disagree with you there.

 

[Natoma]

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.

 

[Legion]

Asinine only has one S.

And I suspect that if any anti-Gay-Marriage laws appear (including the Constitutional Amendment), I get the distinct impression it'll be reaching the Supreme Court rather quickly.

thank you for consulting dictionary.com for me

I didn't need to look it up, hun.

Not any more at least....little girl.

I never did, ya big meanie ^^ I'm hyperlexic.

You have a significant difficulty in understanding spoken language?

 

[Legion]

48 hours of observation only.

during any of this time did you child require technology to survive?

 

[Legion]

We're all biologically dependent on one another. You didn't grow that food you eat every day did you? Did you go and get that water you drink on your own? Your point is not what's being discussed at all.

My point is biologically dependancy is irrelevant to the discussion of what defines human.

Heh. Abortion and Anti-Abortion activists would disagree with you there.

actually no, many pro-choice activists i have met (back in the days of NOW.org's forums) argued biological independancy was the defining point which seperated human from inhuman. Absolutely fallacious reasoning.

 

[Natoma]

But Legion, why is it that anti-abortion activists have long said that they don't want abortions to occur in the 3rd trimester, if they must occur at all? The only reason I can think of is that they believe there is a viability factor at work in the 3rd trimester that separates it from the 1st and 2nd.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Natoma,

First of all, please don't respond to this post. It's obvious you are just "not getting" my point. So, I will now do two things.

1) I will respond to your post, just in case you think I'm trying to dodge some question. Consider any questions I ask in this post rhetorical.

2) I will make a separate post AFTER this one, with a pointed question. Respond to that and hopefully a few "Q&A" posts later, you will understand my point.

As I said Joe, you're arguing just to argue. Anyway, I said that technology changes the hurdle of where life begins, where a being can be biologically autonomous.

Give me a break. I'm arguing just to argue? I'm arguing to try and make a point, which you are repeatedly missing.

Who says that technology changes the hurdle of where life begins? I don't. This is your own personal opinion apparently. YOU have equated "life beginning" with "biologically autonomous." Again, not only is the definition of "biologically autonomous" anything but gray, but you have no right to assert that "life begins" is synonymous with "biologically autonomous" in the first place.

Joe most development, according to the fetal development websites I've read, is actually complete around the 5 months period, halfway through the 2nd trimester.

Yup.

That after that point, the baby is basically just "getting bigger" as you say. How far back do you push the envelope?

I was giving a month or so "cushion", lest there be any DOUBT that by 6-7 months, the child is developed, and only growing. In other words, there wouldn't be any debate, that at 6-7 months, "growth" is all that's occuring.

The technology we have today makes it almost impossible for a baby to survive pre-third trimester, and even in the third trimester, the chances are only "ok" until the 8th or 9th month.

Where do you get your data?

http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/reporter/?ID=635

"If you write off a baby because you think it doesn't have a good chance of survival, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy," Boehm said. "Today, most physicians believe that by 25 weeks' gestation [That's 5.5 months], a baby has a good chance of surviving and surviving without major long-term morbidity, so they are more likely to be aggressive at trying to improve those chances."

But in any case, it's irrelevant to this discussion, Natoma, which is why you keep missing the point. It's not about when you or I personally belive the baby is "alive" and why. It's about reconginzing the "reasonableness" of everyone's point of view.

What you just said is precisely the problem with anti-abortion laws. Where do you draw the line.

That's the same problem with every law, Natoma. Why should abortion be any different?

20 years from now, late 1st/early 2nd trimester may be the delimiter of viability, rather than the early 3rd trimester it is today. As I said earlier, do you keep rolling back abortion rights until they don't exist?

As I keep trying to explain to you: the delimiter of viability is irrelevant to this discussion!. It would ONLY be relevant if that is in fact, how the legislators decide to draw the line.

But even if that WERE the case....what would be the problem with what you propose? We have all kinds of laws that have built in "metrics". Tax laws have inflation built into them, etc. If a law were crafted as you propose, that had a clause of "the point of life will vary and be adjusted annulay, depending on the results of the "Blah Blah Blah" Report on Infant Mortality from the Blah Blah commission"?

Potential is a shade of gray. It isn't an absolute certainty.

The genstation period is a shade of gray, not an absolute certainty.

Because the life form hasn't been established as a human being, and the problem with establishing it as a human being is, where do you begin.

I clearly drew the outer limits in my first post on the topic. Those which I'd wager 99% of the people on this planet would agree that life starts at or between those two points. At one extreme we have conception, at the other we have birth. From there, it's just a debate, comprimise, and concensus on the result.

The basic problem as has been said round robin fashion is, where do you define "human being."

I said this from the very beginning.

Your problem is that you are taking one extreme answer to that question (birth), and afforing NO RIGHTS to the unborn child until it reaches that point.

Until that question is answered in a better fashion than "a being that is no longer in the womb," women's rights supercede those of the unborn/non-human/whatever you wish to call them.

You have DEFAULTED to giving no rights to the unborn child, when there is clear debate on whether it is a "life" or not. It could be equally argued that we should by default GRANT rights, in these cases.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Here's my pointed question, Natoma:

SIMPLE YES OR NO ONLY PLEASE:

1) If we consider a "being" to be a "living, human-being", it should be afforded the rights / protection of the government.

I repeat: SIMPLE YES OR NO. I will then ask another question....

 

[Natoma]

But Joe, why is it that anti-abortion activists have long said that they don't want abortions to occur in the 3rd trimester, if they must occur at all? The only reason I can think of is that they believe there is a viability factor at work in the 3rd trimester that separates it from the 1st and 2nd.

You keep saying I'm missing the point, but when I look at the arguments against Abortion, my question above is precisely what is left at the end. There has to be a viability question for anti-abortion activists to make the cases that they do.

Are you saying that you personally have a different viewpoint than what has been proffered by anti-abortionists?

 

[Natoma]

Here's my pointed question, Natoma:

SIMPLE YES OR NO ONLY PLEASE:

1) If we consider a "being" to be a "living, human-being", it should be afforded the rights / protection of the government.

I repeat: SIMPLE YES OR NO. I will then ask another question....

We've gone over this point multiple times already Joe.

Right now our lawmakers define viability at the 6-7 month period. In 20 years, that could be the 3-4 month period. In 40 years, it could be viable from the moment of conception. The point of discussing the level of technology was, where exactly does that put abortion rights. Do they keep getting rolled back until they no longer exist, because the definition of human life, with our technological advances, goes all the way to the fertilized egg?

Until that question is answered in a better fashion than "a being that is no longer in the womb," women's rights supercede those of the unborn/non-human/whatever you wish to call them.

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."

And you say I don't get the point.

 

[Legion]

But Legion, why is it that anti-abortion activists have long said that they don't want abortions to occur in the 3rd trimester, if they must occur at all? The only reason I can think of is that they believe there is a viability factor at work in the 3rd trimester that separates it from the 1st and 2nd.

simply put they are not all in agreement. Especially amongst the ranks of radical feminism.

I would say there is a factor here which implies an undeniable (or rather indefensible from a scientific standpoint) capacity for the entity to survive on its own. The 1/2 trimesters arguments have classically rested on scientific ignorance and misinformation propagated via feminism.

 

[Natoma]

And the point, Legion, is that that "undeniable" ability of the entity, as you put it, to survive on its own, i.e. outside the mother's womb, increases with our level of technology. There will come a point in time when we can have reproduction inside a test tube womb, in which the current arguments will fall away and eventually abortion rights will be pushed further and further back until they no longer exist. I look forward to the day when we no longer have to have abortions, but in the here and now, that is not the case because it hasn't been clearly defined. And until it's clearly defined, i.e. when "human life" begins, the right of the woman supercedes the right of the unborn.

 

[Legion]

one thing i must get off my chest is how abortion has opened my eyes to the realties of psychology within the human mind. Oh, how what i have learned has come alive in these discussion.

What do these compromises tell us? Its not really murder as long as we agree it isn't. Pure rationalization.

 

[Natoma]

Is it murder if I jack off? Is it murder if a woman takes a morning after pill? I mean, c'mon now.

 

[Natoma]

Hmm.. Maybe it is.