whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Science => Topic started by: IwasWrong on October 21, 2008, 11:57:23 AM

Title: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: IwasWrong on October 21, 2008, 11:57:23 AM
I'm rather new to this whole "Wow, I'm not a Christian anymore" so please don't take my thoughts here as me "militantly arguing my side."
Think of me as in "research mode."

As far as abortion and stem cell research goes: When does life deserve to be protected?

It seems to me that I would not vote to allow a baby to be killed when it is 48 hours old.
 - You probably wouldn't either

But what about 48 hours before that?  What about 12 minutes before that?

Christian, religious or not, right now it seems to me that a fertilized egg is just as human as a 48 hour old baby.

When does life begin?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Freak on October 21, 2008, 12:28:46 PM
It seems to me to be more a matter of balancing the rights of the mother with the rights of the child, and in the process respecting that other people have different opinions than us. This is where the pro-life stance fails: It wants to impose it's view on others. The pro-choice stance, on the other hand, is not, you'll notice, a pro-abortion stance. Pro-choice is about giving the person a choice. If they do not want an abortion, then they don't have to have one.

That being said, how do we decide personally, and legally, where to draw the lines?
We have to admit that things die, and we kill them. I've killed innumerable plants, countless mosquitoes, and even some small animals. Do the plants matter less than the mosquitoes or the small animals? I don't logically think so, but emotionally I do. Further, as a practical matter I can hardly avoid killing something now and then, even if it is only the bacteria in my mouth that the beer I just drank killed. Also of note is that legally, and socially to an extent, it is fine to (humanely) kill almost every other animal besides humans. I won't go to jail for killing that squirrel in my yard; Not many people will mind if I shoot a deer to eat.

So where does that leave us?
When an egg is first fertilized, it is very small. If it wasn't a human egg, no one would care (or even know) that it was 'killed'. It is also almost indistinguishable from an unfertilized egg. I think it is safe to say that a freshly fertilized egg is not deserving of legal or emotional rights.
On the other end of the spectrum, a newborn baby is practically and emotionally 100% a human person, in the same way that a small tree is no less a tree than a big tree. We as humans have clearly delineated that babies are equivalent to adults in rights, whether they be human or not. Killing a endangered protected wild bear baby is just as illegal as killing an adult - possibly even more emotionally offensive. So clearly, once out of the womb, they should not be killed.

The question we are left with is, at what point do we draw the line?
Currently, laws state that a 'person' gains rights at birth. This is the point they gain Independence, and this is the point that we can all agree that they are a human by any definition. To go before birth starts to create some very tricky problems. Even a day before birth, the child is dependant on the mother, and any action to remove dependence is extremely invasive to the mother (c-section, birth). Any line you draw before birth is going to be hotly debated, and not all will agree upon it. Clearly then, the fairest, safest place to legally draw the line is exactly where it is at (in Canada, where I live, you can have an abortion up until birth). Personally however, the line you draw is going to be arbitrary. You are killing something, but we do that every day. It has human genes, but so does the skin cell I just killed as I itched my head. It is going to depend on what you value - the beginning of the heartbeat; The start of mental activity; The first tangible kick. I don't know where you will draw the line, but I am content to let you decide that, within the clearly delineated lines that we as society have agreed on.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: velkyn on October 21, 2008, 12:47:54 PM
I'm rather new to this whole "Wow, I'm not a Christian anymore" so please don't take my thoughts here as me "militantly arguing my side."
Think of me as in "research mode."

As far as abortion and stem cell research goes: When does life deserve to be protected?

It seems to me that I would not vote to allow a baby to be killed when it is 48 hours old.
 - You probably wouldn't either

But what about 48 hours before that?  What about 12 minutes before that?

Christian, religious or not, right now it seems to me that a fertilized egg is just as human as a 48 hour old baby.

When does life begin?

as soon as you figure that out, we can all sleep better.

To me, the abortion rights issue is basically "does a potential human have more rights than a woman does? and can other humans force a woman to do something that is only based on opinion?"  To both questions I say no. 
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: IwasWrong on October 21, 2008, 12:57:32 PM
Great post freak, I appreciate it.  You too velkyn. 

I have been forgetting about the issue of a women's right.

It's very difficult for me to 100% choose when I think life begins because my child was delivered via C-section. To think that it's legal to kill something that developed that much and certainly looks human to me is deeply concerning.  When she was delivered she looked beautiful and looked exactly like I would picture if it was a natural full term birth.

But I'm not trying to play an emotional card.  I'm just trying to see what you guys think is "the line".

On the other hand I think of the great potential scientists have to possibly find a cure for just about anything.  Also, women's rights.  Also like you say, I have NO problem killing cows so that I can eat a nice steak.   ???
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Freak on October 21, 2008, 01:42:05 PM
IwasWrong, why not just leave it as one of those questions you hope you'll never have to answer, and move on? Don't get me wrong, if you enjoy probing the depths of the question and debating it, then by all means please do so... someone has to! But if the question causes you stress or discomfort, it hardly seems like an important enough topic to force an opinion on. The law is already set - no one is asking you to vote on it. You are unlikely to have the need to draw the line in your own life - you have a family and probably wouldn't mind another child, or would abort very early if you did. No one is harming you in any way by having an abortion either. In fact, you could easily argue that forcing people to have abortions would create more turmoil and strife in the world, and certainly would lend to a high degree of unwanted and unhappy children.

Why do you feel you need to find an answer to this question?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: IwasWrong on October 21, 2008, 01:53:10 PM
Quote
The law is already set - no one is asking you to vote on it.

No sir.  In fact, that's why I bring this up.

November 4th.  Detroit Michigan.  United States of America.  Proposal 2:

Quote
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ADDRESS HUMAN EMBRYO
AND HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH IN MICHIGAN
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
Expand use of human embryos for any research permitted under federal law subject to the following limits: the
embryos --
-- are created for fertility treatment purposes
-- are not suitable for implantation or are in excess of clinical needs
-- would be discarded unless used for research
-- were donated by the person seeking fertility treatment
Provide that stem cells cannot be taken from human embryos more than 14 days after cell division begins.
Prohibit any person from selling or purchasing human embryos for stem cell research.
Prohibit state and local laws that prevent, restrict or discourage stem cell research; future therapies and cures.


Just trying to be an informed voter.  It's too important of a vote to be someone who votes because of what people at church say without thinking about the issue.

Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 21, 2008, 01:59:15 PM
One slightly interesting point of irony.  There is a large subset of Protestantism that describe their religious positions in terms of a spiritual re-awakening.  They derive their name from a passage in the book of John, chapter 3.  Having made their religious decisions consciously, as adults, they are famously devout.  However, the name of this group is escaping me at the moment, though it is surely on the tip of my tongue.  Can anyone fill in the name of this group?  _______-Again Christians.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: IwasWrong on October 21, 2008, 02:17:41 PM
Cheating on their wives -Again Christians ?

Did I win?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Cyberia on October 21, 2008, 04:20:57 PM
It's a question of the woman's rights versus the fetus's rights, and in that regard, I think Roe vs. Wade got it exactly right.  A woman can have an abortion for any reason, on demand, during the first trimester.  A woman cannot have an abortion during the third trimester, except to save the mother's life.  The legality of abortion during the second trimester is up to the individual states to decide, with a tendency towards being illegal, but usually less restrictive that the final trimester.

For me this strikes an appropriate balance.

It's not an religious issue really, it's a human rights issue.  As a society, we try to protect individuals that cannot protect themselves, and a human fetus in the very late stages of gestation clearly is a human life worthy of protection.  Even most pro-choice advocates have a gutteral repulsion of late-term partial birth abortions, where the doctor scoops the brains out of the fetus.

On the other hand, it's utterly unfair for the state to hijack a woman's body (or anyone's body) and require her to bring to term a baby she does not want to have.  It sets a wretched example, on a very slippery slope.  Her flesh and blood become an involuntary state-owned breeding factory, for a child that she doesn't want, and will probably dump off on the state to raise.

Roe vs. Wade sets a reasonable standard for balancing these two issues.  During the first trimester, when the fetus is minimally developed, it can be aborted without legal consequence, for any reason.  This allows a woman to back-out during a three month window, when her rights are clearly ascendant over the fetus.  This would also cover rape and incest, as both of these would be known already and could be undone immediately. 

During the third three-month window, it would be illegal (except to save the mother's life) because it is now an issue of two legal 'people' sharing the same body.  The mother can be forbidden from abortion at this point, because she has had ample time to back out and hasn't.  She has passed the point-of-no-return and was allowed significant time for her to 'be sure', it's not a unfairly placed boundary.  At this point, she can be restrained from abortion, for the same reason that I am restrained from killing someone on the street-corner....ie: murder.  The fetus's right aren't ascendant over the mother, they are equal to the mother.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 21, 2008, 04:30:03 PM
One slightly interesting point of irony.  There is a large subset of Protestantism that describe their religious positions in terms of a spiritual re-awakening.  They derive their name from a passage in the book of John, chapter 3.  Having made their religious decisions consciously, as adults, they are famously devout.  However, the name of this group is escaping me at the moment, though it is surely on the tip of my tongue.  Can anyone fill in the name of this group?  _______-Again Christians.

Htf is this a point of irony?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 21, 2008, 04:34:27 PM
I can't quite remember what goes in the blank, JTW.  If you could help me with that, maybe I could remember why it was ironic.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 21, 2008, 04:47:25 PM
How clever.

How is an unrelated metaphor ironic?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 21, 2008, 04:51:43 PM
If ... I ... could ... just ... remember ...
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 21, 2008, 05:10:24 PM
Know what I find ironic? That Jesus actually CORRECTS Nicodemus after Nicodemus asks "how can you enter the womb again?" meaning it had nothing to do with being born and of course, proving the utter stupidity of the empirical atheist as they fail yet again to understand simple literary, metaphorical dialogue.

Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 21, 2008, 05:12:12 PM
Yes, but I think many people still use the term, even Christians, even devout Christians.  If it were only some quick phrase in the Bible, I could excuse myself for forgetting, but I just know that it's real common, even today.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 21, 2008, 05:12:50 PM
But it doesn't have anything to do with ACTUAL birth, moron.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 21, 2008, 05:13:53 PM
Birth!  Ha!  Yes, that's what it was.  Born-Again.  As if something important or meaningful happens at birth.  Something spiritually relevant.  That's the irony.  Now I remember.  Thanks, JTW!
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 21, 2008, 05:15:09 PM
Ha, yeah.

If you get to be.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 21, 2008, 05:40:20 PM
I wonder what that magical thing is.  I wonder what happens at birth that represents the first chance at something, and where you might want to reclaim or reattempt that with a birth metaphor.  Why not Conceived-Again Christians?  It's almost as though conception wasn't viewed as the truly spiritually relevant point, and birth was.  How funny is that?  Ironic, I'd say.  Definitely ironic.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 21, 2008, 06:08:02 PM
How is it ironic? Because last I checked Christians are using "born" in their born again moniker and they want to protect birth.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 21, 2008, 06:19:07 PM
You say the soul is implanted at conception.  You claim there is nothing special or spiritual about birth.  So, for these people to label themselves as born-again, when by their own belief system, birth is not the critical juncture, is called "irony".
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 21, 2008, 06:35:48 PM
I think the irony is the fact that you think you're intelligent.

The fact is that the birth of a person can only happen once so it can easily be understood metaphorically. That's what this is all about. It has nothing to do with irony or semantics of the word birth or anything. Please stop posting.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Red McWilliams on October 21, 2008, 07:28:59 PM
I'm confused.  Are there doctors forcing couples to donate fertilized eggs that would otherwise be carried to term by the mother just so they can do research?

It was my understanding that all the embryonic stem cell research was on embryos described in the list; i.e. ones that were never going to be used for implantation and would be thrown away eventually.

What's the problem with that?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 21, 2008, 07:38:31 PM
The fact is that the birth of a person can only happen once so it can easily be understood metaphorically.

As opposed to being conceived, which happens multiple times?  What the fuck are you talking about?  How can the concept revolve metaphorically around something only happening once if what we're talking about is inherently an "again" proposition?  No, JTW, I'm afraid you are the one injecting the stupid here.  Obviously, they are talking about something spiritual and I find it slightly interesting and certainly ironic that they argue so passionately for conception to be considered the spiritual starting point and against considering birth to be an important line of demarcation, yet want to refer to their newly found spirituality as being born again.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 21, 2008, 08:04:36 PM
Do you understand re-birth?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: PingTheServer on October 21, 2008, 08:10:27 PM
FWIW, I'll state my opinion.  First I separate my personal views from my political views.

Politically, I say abortion should remain legal.  "When life begins" is a religous issue and separation of church and state should end this discussion...but we still talk about it for some reason.

Personally, I say I wouldnt want anyone to have an un-necessary abortion after a month or two of carrying.  By un-necessary, I mean anything not life threatening.  This is only my personal view...I would never want to legislate that view on someone that may have a different opinion.

Both politically and personally, stem cells should be wide open for research and funding.  Given all of the fertility treatment embryos that will be destroyed anyway, it makes more sense to let them help humanity in the process.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 21, 2008, 08:14:24 PM
So it's really in-vetro fertilization that pro-lifers should have a problem with?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Mooby on October 21, 2008, 08:40:40 PM
IwasWrong, why not just leave it as one of those questions you hope you'll never have to answer, and move on? Don't get me wrong, if you enjoy probing the depths of the question and debating it, then by all means please do so... someone has to! But if the question causes you stress or discomfort, it hardly seems like an important enough topic to force an opinion on. The law is already set - no one is asking you to vote on it. You are unlikely to have the need to draw the line in your own life - you have a family and probably wouldn't mind another child, or would abort very early if you did. No one is harming you in any way by having an abortion either. In fact, you could easily argue that forcing people to have abortions would create more turmoil and strife in the world, and certainly would lend to a high degree of unwanted and unhappy children.

Why do you feel you need to find an answer to this question?
I can't speak for IWW, but I feel a need to answer it because I think the law is wrong.  One of the more common arguments I see from the Pro-Choice camp is basically, "Is we make abortions legal, individuals have the option of deciding their own stance on the issue without putting any pressure on those who choose not to have abortions.  No one's imposing views here.  On the other hand, if we make it illegal, the Pro-Life camp is imposing their personal morality on individuals.  Thus, we should make abortions legal."

This argument sounds great.  It's democratic, and it means that no one goes around getting in others' business.  How could a reasonable person possibly object?

My answer: look at history.  You'll see plenty of examples of laws that allowed one group to have control over another in a way we'd currently find abhorrent.  And with many of those examples the same argument was made, "Whether or not we agree, why not let those who want to have the option?"

So why should IWW or I care about this?  Why lose sleep over it?  The law's already there, and no one's asking me to take a stance; why shouldn't I just leave others alone?  The reason for me, personally, is that I think that a fetus is a person.  That's a big deal.  If a fetus is a person, then it should have the rights of a person.  If it has the rights of a person, then governments have an overriding interest to protect it, even if that means restricting the options available to pregnant women.  The thing is, once we establish the fetus as a person, the legitimacy of abortion goes out the window.

Now, you may argue that the fetus isn't a person; indeed, many arguments like that were made throughout history concerning other groups.  I realize that I'll probably never change your viewpoint on the issue, but that's no reason to stay silent.  History has shown us that views can change, and it's my hope that one day enough people will come to view fetuses as human persons to overturn Roe vs. Wade.  Perhaps one day future generations will view abortion as we now view the once-acceptable practice of infant exposure.

So it's really in-vetro fertilization that pro-lifers should have a problem with?
Many do, including me.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 21, 2008, 08:48:01 PM
Mooby, what are the qualities you attach to the label of "person"?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: PingTheServer on October 21, 2008, 09:17:22 PM
So it's really in-vetro fertilization that pro-lifers should have a problem with?

It's whatever their church and political pundits tell them the problem is.

Logically, they should be even more outraged at fertility since it destroys FAR more embryos.  They should also be outraged at every single woman that has had sex after the egg has passed its prime stage...that gets fertilized and flushed anyway.  Zero logic.  100% politics.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 21, 2008, 09:18:42 PM
So it's really in-vetro fertilization that pro-lifers should have a problem with?
Many do, including me.

Me too, but I'm all for stem cell research. Quite a conundrum I've created for myself eh?

Oh no wait, they can use other stem cells from any other source. Dang.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 21, 2008, 09:27:47 PM
So it's really in-vetro fertilization that pro-lifers should have a problem with?

It's whatever their church and political pundits tell them the problem is.

Perhaps, but I think those views are researched in the first place.

Quote
Logically, they should be even more outraged at fertility since it destroys FAR more embryos. 

Yeah because clearly pregnant women who miscarry mostly rejoice and jump for joy when it happens.  ::)

Quote
They should also be outraged at every single woman that has had sex after the egg has passed its prime stage...that gets fertilized and flushed anyway.  Zero logic.  100% politics.

It's still a miscarriage.

Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: PingTheServer on October 21, 2008, 09:33:10 PM

Logically, they should be even more outraged at fertility since it destroys FAR more embryos. 

Yeah because clearly pregnant women who miscarry mostly rejoice and jump for joy when it happens.  ::)


I'm not talking about the ones put in women.  I'm talking about all the ones that they harvest that never get used.

But ya...the ones you mentioned too.  There's no funeral for them is there?  No insurance money?  If you logically take their reasons for outrage, they should also be outraged that we dont have funerals for embryos.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 21, 2008, 09:35:32 PM

Logically, they should be even more outraged at fertility since it destroys FAR more embryos. 

Yeah because clearly pregnant women who miscarry mostly rejoice and jump for joy when it happens.  ::)


I'm not talking about the ones put in women.  I'm talking about all the ones that they harvest that never get used.

But ya...the ones you mentioned too.  There's no funeral for them is there?  No insurance money?

Well why should there be? They're not people according to law.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: PingTheServer on October 21, 2008, 09:36:53 PM

Logically, they should be even more outraged at fertility since it destroys FAR more embryos. 

Yeah because clearly pregnant women who miscarry mostly rejoice and jump for joy when it happens.  ::)


I'm not talking about the ones put in women.  I'm talking about all the ones that they harvest that never get used.

But ya...the ones you mentioned too.  There's no funeral for them is there?  No insurance money?

Well why should there be? They're not people according to law.

So whats you're problem with my statements if you agree?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Freak on October 21, 2008, 11:50:51 PM
@Mooby

If we conclude that the fetus is a person worthy of the right to not be aborted, does that then give us the right to force the mother to bring it to term? Better yet, how the heck would you force a woman to bring a fetus to term? You and I both know it's next to impossible to enforce, because it's her body. There are any number of ways that she could harm/kill the fetus, which are perfectly legal. Woops! I accidentally fell on my stomach! Oh and look the fetus died.
Mooby your fatal problem here is your complete lack of consideration that the fetus is a parasite on the mother, and not an independant person. It does not become an independant person until it is born. We don't force a mother to give a dieing child her left kidney, and we don't force a mother to allow a fetus to parasite off of her. Once you figure out how to beam the baby out of her and into an incubator, then you can reasonably pursue the angle that all fetus' deserve a chance at life. Until then, you are on very shaky ground indeed.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 22, 2008, 12:55:45 AM
There was a good post of Davedave's about this (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=1163.msg31324#msg31324) a while back, talking to JTW.  In part, it reads:

I want to know if you insist on making yourself part of the Canadian Taliban, searching through the bathroom trash cans of women for their tampons, routinely testing hormone levels in their urine, attempting rescuscitation on the tiny little fertilized eggs, sending women outside the city limits during their periods, burn women at the stake as witches if you find a fertilized egg that didn't implant.  What is it that you intend to do?  Would you like to establish a government agency to keep track of the menstrual cycles of every female in Canada?  Is there an upper limit on your bats**t craziness or is it really right back to the Dark Ages with you?

Now, I know Mooby doesn't believe in the Dark Ages, but the point stands.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 22, 2008, 09:37:29 AM
That was his inane response to me having a problem not with abortion or women at all, but with promiscuity causing pregnancy - in which the obvious conclusion was abortion.

Good job guys. Bravao.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 22, 2008, 09:41:53 AM
Hardly an inane response.  What do you intend to do about the deaths of fertilized eggs, JTW?  You never answered his valid question.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 22, 2008, 09:43:18 AM
What caused the deaths?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 22, 2008, 09:45:35 AM
The women did, apparently.  It's their bodoes that physically caused the deaths of the fertilized eggs.

Regardless of this, though, what are you going to do about all those deaths?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 22, 2008, 09:56:01 AM
Let's go ahead and get Mooby's response while we're here.  I'd like to know what solutions he is proposing for the matter of pregnant women who have abortions and for the women who don't want their children.

And Mooby, can you give some sort of statement on the value and importance of quality of life to you?  Abortion is such a one-dimensional topic; it tends to diminish other important issues like pre-natal care, social support for young mothers and their children, the foster care system, and education.  It's easy to be heroic and "save" the life of the fetus when all you have to do is act high and mighty and shit on the "morality" of the mother.  How much money are you prepared to put in the place of your mouth to really give that child a chance to have a decent life?

Oh, and feel free to elaborate on the matter of why you think life begins at conception and how you arrived at the conclusion that your points are so objectively better than anyone else's that yours should be enshrined into law.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: velkyn on October 22, 2008, 12:49:45 PM
good post DD.

It seems to me that JTW takes refuge in the "law" when he doesn't want to give his honest opinion.  A egg that was fertillized and miscarried could have miscarried because of something the woman did.  No different than an abortion, so how would you stop those women?

And btw, JTW, it has been shown that the best stem cells are still from fetuses.  One can manipulate other cells into something similar but they are not the same. 
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 22, 2008, 01:51:31 PM
Did the woman cause her own miscarriage purposely?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Freak on October 22, 2008, 01:53:11 PM
Maybe she just likes to drink a lot of alcohol.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 22, 2008, 01:58:12 PM
Should she be held accountable?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Freak on October 22, 2008, 02:12:52 PM
Should she be held accountable?

You are the one with the ridiculous idea of forcing women to allow parasites to damage their bodies and personal lives against their will, so you tell us if you think they should also be thrown in jail for drinking.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: velkyn on October 22, 2008, 02:33:10 PM
Should she be held accountable?

is she accountable for an abortion?  Per you, yes.  What if she dared to go horseback riding and the fertilized egg dislodged?  She chose to go.  Should she be forbidden?  If so, how do you proposed to stop women from doing these types of things?

EDIT:  I suspect this will degenerate into what has become a mental image of several people in a barnyard, trying to catch one chicken that is madly running to and fro. 

Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 22, 2008, 04:26:04 PM
Should she be held accountable?

You are the one with the ridiculous idea of forcing women to allow parasites to damage their bodies and personal lives against their will, so you tell us if you think they should also be thrown in jail for drinking.

When did I say that?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 22, 2008, 04:26:58 PM
Should she be held accountable?

is she accountable for an abortion?  Per you, yes.  What if she dared to go horseback riding and the fertilized egg dislodged?  She chose to go.  Should she be forbidden?  If so, how do you proposed to stop women from doing these types of things?

EDIT:  I suspect this will degenerate into what has become a mental image of several people in a barnyard, trying to catch one chicken that is madly running to and fro. 


If she self induces an abortion purposely she should be held to that.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 22, 2008, 05:36:19 PM
Should she be held accountable?
You are the one with the ridiculous idea of forcing women to allow parasites to damage their bodies and personal lives against their will, so you tell us if you think they should also be thrown in jail for drinking.
When did I say that?

So, you're in favor of keeping abortion legal then?  If not, then why challenge Freak's assumption that you're pro-life?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 22, 2008, 05:46:50 PM
If she self induces an abortion purposely she should be held to that.

JTW again reveals his staggering ignorance of even the most fundamental principles of human development.

JTW, let's say that a woman is able to will a baby to abort with 25% success.  How would you suggest we proceed with this information?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Goodkat on October 22, 2008, 05:56:14 PM
Should she be held accountable?

is she accountable for an abortion?  Per you, yes.  What if she dared to go horseback riding and the fertilized egg dislodged?  She chose to go.  Should she be forbidden?  If so, how do you proposed to stop women from doing these types of things?

EDIT:  I suspect this will degenerate into what has become a mental image of several people in a barnyard, trying to catch one chicken that is madly running to and fro. 


If she self induces an abortion purposely she should be held to that.
How do you know if she did it on purpose? She could do all sorts of thing to abort the fetus, the lie about it.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 22, 2008, 06:19:11 PM
Should she be held accountable?
You are the one with the ridiculous idea of forcing women to allow parasites to damage their bodies and personal lives against their will, so you tell us if you think they should also be thrown in jail for drinking.
When did I say that?

So, you're in favor of keeping abortion legal then?  If not, then why challenge Freak's assumption that you're pro-life?

Freak is implying that I would override the woman's choice to abort if her life was in danger. I never said such a thing.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 22, 2008, 07:07:09 PM
Quote
Freak is implying that I would override the woman's choice to abort if her life was in danger. I never said such a thing.

Interestingly, neither did Freak.  But hey, don't let what he actually said get in the way of arguing with him.  Straw is fun to play with.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 22, 2008, 07:36:04 PM
Should she be held accountable?

You are the one with the ridiculous idea of forcing women to allow parasites to damage their bodies and personal lives against their will, so you tell us if you think they should also be thrown in jail for drinking.

Re-read this please Az.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 22, 2008, 07:55:33 PM
Hmm, I took "personal lives" to mean "personal lives" in the social sense, rather than just "lives".  You do accept the rest of his charge, though?  Here, I'll adjust it for him:

Quote
You are the one with the ridiculous idea of forcing women to allow parasites to damage their bodies against their will, so you tell us if you think they should also be thrown in jail for drinking.

Will you answer it now?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 22, 2008, 08:05:14 PM
What do you want me to answer? I never implied that.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 22, 2008, 08:18:38 PM
Read up:

Should she be held accountable?
You are the one with the ridiculous idea of forcing women to allow parasites to damage their bodies and personal lives against their will, so you tell us if you think they should also be thrown in jail for drinking.
When did I say that?
So, you're in favor of keeping abortion legal then?  If not, then why challenge Freak's assumption that you're pro-life?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 22, 2008, 08:35:54 PM
And? Freak seemed to think I would take away a woman's right to abort if the baby was a threat to her health.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 22, 2008, 08:44:04 PM
Define "threat".  A pregnancy is always a threat to a woman's health, though often a minor one.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 22, 2008, 08:51:40 PM
Will she die or suffer serious health complications if she goes ahead with the birth.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: PingTheServer on October 22, 2008, 08:52:09 PM
Lets also not forget that the right's ONLY counter to premarital sex is abstinence.  They cant even get vaccinated to eradicate a cervix threatening STD because "they shouldnt be having sex anyway, they dont need it".  We're talking about eradicating a disease FOREVER in one generation of people...and that's the reason we cant do it??!!
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 22, 2008, 08:55:31 PM
Yeah that's stupid.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 22, 2008, 09:06:04 PM
Will she die or suffer serious health complications if she goes ahead with the birth.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  Hard to say, especially early on (say, just after conception).  By the way, Freak wasn't just referring the threat to a woman's health.  You might want to read his actual post again.  You clearly didn't read the last sentence the first time around.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 22, 2008, 09:45:35 PM
Well that's because A) it's Freak's opinion and they're entitled to it and B) I want to force women to have to deal with the responsibility of a life they chose to create if it doesn't harm them.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 22, 2008, 09:50:30 PM
Quote
B) I want to force women to have to deal with the responsibility of a life they chose to create if it doesn't harm them.

Ahh, so it's a penalty thing.  Bearing children as punishment.  No doubt you'll state otherwise in your next post, but that's what this one says.

EDIT:  At least you're being consistent with Biblegod.  The Book of Genesis states that the pain of childbirth is womankind's punishment for Eve's transgression of eating the fruit.  I suppose it's your holy duty to make sure women don't skip out on this punishment.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 22, 2008, 09:55:49 PM
Nope, you read correctly. Only YOU can read too far into my post.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 22, 2008, 09:57:43 PM
What should the replacement punishment be, if a woman skips out on her biological punishment via abortion?

EDIT:  The most logical replacement punishment, according to your reasoning, would be forced insemination (artificial or otherwise).  You've now directly claimed that childbirth is an appropriate punishment for the woman's indiscretion, so it's the most logical one to apply.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Freak on October 22, 2008, 10:01:22 PM
Haha. This is kinda funny. JTW you are such a squirmer. Why not just come out and say what you think, rather than posting cryptic one-liners and using passive aggressive comments to avoid criticism and culpability for your opinions.

If you think that a pregnancy doesn't harm a woman, damage her body, irreversibly change her and severely affect her social life, then you obviously have never closely known a pregnant woman. I will leave it there since your ignorance and chauvinism is overwhelming.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 22, 2008, 10:05:45 PM
Will she or won't she die from the birth?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 22, 2008, 10:10:07 PM
What should the replacement punishment be, if a woman skips out on her biological punishment via abortion?

EDIT:  The most logical replacement punishment, according to your reasoning, would be forced insemination (artificial or otherwise).  You've now directly claimed that childbirth is an appropriate punishment for the woman's indiscretion, so it's the most logical one to apply.

This is the crux. When does life deserve to be protected? The punishment imo should coincide with whatever the state homicide laws are.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 22, 2008, 10:15:25 PM
So the death penalty is acceptable to you, then, if that's what the state homicide laws include.  After all, it's premeditated.

I'd also like to point out, that pregnancy by rape is not an exception to such reasoning.  To allow rape victims to abort a zygote, if one values the zygote as much as one does a child, would be morally equivalent to allowing a mother to kill an infant conceived in rape.  Or to kill her teenaged offspring, even.

So what we have, under your reasoning, is a potential death penalty for pregnant women who abort, even if they were raped.  Harsh.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 22, 2008, 10:30:59 PM
Will she or won't she die from the birth?

Is death the only relevant form of harm?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Mooby on October 23, 2008, 12:30:47 AM
Mooby, what are the qualities you attach to the label of "person"?
Personally?  I draw the line at the formation of the first cell of a unique human organism.  This occurs at conception.


If we conclude that the fetus is a person worthy of the right to not be aborted, does that then give us the right to force the mother to bring it to term?
It would give us the right to make it illegal for her to take deliberate action to harm her fetus.  Complying with this would most likely result in the woman carrying the fetus to term, though the law would not need to explicitly state that she do so.

Quote
Better yet, how the heck would you force a woman to bring a fetus to term? You and I both know it's next to impossible to enforce, because it's her body.
It'd be easier to enforce a no-abortion law than, say, copyright laws on the internet.

Quote
Mooby your fatal problem here is your complete lack of consideration that the fetus is a parasite on the mother, and not an independant person.
A fetus is not a parasite.  Unless, of course, we're allowing casual definitions, in which case I'll be informing the Creationists that "just a theory" is now a legitimate argument.

Quote
It does not become an independant person until it is born.
It seems you're implying that a person needs to be an independent person to gain rights.  I'm going to hold off on a response because I want to know two things:
1. What is an "independent person?"
2. Why give rights only to an "independent person?"

Quote
We don't force a mother to give a dieing child her left kidney, and we don't force a mother to allow a fetus to parasite off of her. Once you figure out how to beam the baby out of her and into an incubator, then you can reasonably pursue the angle that all fetus' deserve a chance at life. Until then, you are on very shaky ground indeed.
What exactly does a kidney transplant have anything to do with not terminating a pregnancy?  I'd say a closer analogy is that we don't force a mother to give her child a kidney, but if she kills the kid she should be prosecuted.  By the same token, we don't "force" a mother to do anything, but if she tries to kill the fetus we can then prosecute.


Quote
Now, I know Mooby doesn't believe in the Dark Ages, but the point stands.
The point is hogwash.  I'm against parents sexually abusing their kids but I'm not about to establish a government agency to do random child rectal examinations.


Let's go ahead and get Mooby's response while we're here.  I'd like to know what solutions he is proposing for the matter of pregnant women who have abortions and for the women who don't want their children.
I never said I was proposing anything.  That's a different discussion for a different topic.  Or, while I'm informing the Creationists that evolution is "just a theory," should I also let them know that the Big Bang is fair game for an evolution discussion?

Quote
It's easy to be heroic and "save" the life of the fetus when all you have to do is act high and mighty and shit on the "morality" of the mother.  How much money are you prepared to put in the place of your mouth to really give that child a chance to have a decent life?
Red herring.  I'll leave it up to you to figure out why.  If you can't, here's a hint: similar red-herring arguments were used to support institutionalized racial discrimination in the United States a century ago.  Perhaps you'll be able to see it more clearly outside the abortion issue.

Quote
Oh, and feel free to elaborate on the matter of why you think life begins at conception and how you arrived at the conclusion that your points are so objectively better than anyone else's that yours should be enshrined into law.
Actually, I said pretty much the exact opposite of that.

Dave, it's clear that you didn't read my post.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: urs on October 23, 2008, 01:51:44 AM
Well that's because A) it's Freak's opinion and they're entitled to it and B) I want to force women to have to deal with the responsibility of a life they chose to create if it doesn't harm them.

Have you really ever been able to force anyone to "be" anything? And why should anyone care (or legislate) what you think women should be forced to do, in the name of responsibility?

Forcing women to deal with the responsibility of a life they "chose" to create is taking children, and child rearing, quite lightly, I think. A disturbingly large percentage of unwanted children are neglected and/or abused. I think that basically confirms that even being forced to have the child won't necessarily make a woman any more responsible. And now, an innocent child pays the price for it. Not only that, but abuse and neglect increase a child's likelihood of participating in antisocial behavior, i.e., crime. Which creates yet more suffering. It can be a domino effect of suffering, an endless cycle that gets passed on from generation to generation.

How is that sort of suffering better than being aborted before you can be abused or neglected, and maybe even go on to abuse and neglect others yourself? And how is it fair, to the child in particular?

If I had to choose the way my children died, I'd rather they were taken out quickly, before they ever knew what hit them, as opposed to being slowly tortured over a number of years until they were irreparably damaged emotionally, physically, or both.

Until all children can be guaranteed a loving home, with adequate care, then abortion will be a necessity. I don't care who provides the home, whether it be the bio parents, adoptive parents, foster parents, or the state - but until someone is seeing to these children properly, I can't condone them being left to rot in a miserable life by uncaring parents.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Cyberia on October 23, 2008, 02:48:13 AM
Why is this an argument from the extremes?  Either a fetus always has rights or it never has rights?  Is that the only option?  This is exactly the type of extremism that has paralyzed American society on this very issue.  Why doesn't the current standard balance the rights of BOTH mother and child adequately?

Frustrated that no one has commented on that position.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 23, 2008, 09:16:29 AM
Mooby, what are the qualities you attach to the label of "person"?
Personally?  I draw the line at the formation of the first cell of a unique human organism.  This occurs at conception.

Mooby, I was hoping you'd actually answer my question.  I already know when you think a person comes into existence.  You made that abundantly clear in your first post.  My question had nothing to do with that.  Please re-read it.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: IwasWrong on October 23, 2008, 09:43:22 AM
Hello, Topic Creator here.

I'm voting on Nov 4th re: stem cell research.

I would not allow anyone to kill a 4 year old child to do medical research.  Or a 2 year old child.  Or a 1 year old child.  Or a child who is out of the womb for 10 minutes.  Or child who is 5 minutes from being "born".  Or 10 minutes before that. 

If an embryo = 4 year old child then don't kill it.  If not, study it for cures.

So it all comes down to  "when does life begin?"

Tough question. 
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: urs on October 23, 2008, 10:04:41 AM
Why is this an argument from the extremes?  Either a fetus always has rights or it never has rights?  Is that the only option?  This is exactly the type of extremism that has paralyzed American society on this very issue.  Why doesn't the current standard balance the rights of BOTH mother and child adequately?
Frustrated that no one has commented on that position.


Because either side of the issue tends to care only about one (the fetus) or the other (the mother).

I think many conservatives feel like Cyberia, i.e., they think that if you make your bed, you should sleep in it. I think that's a pretty crappy attitude when it comes to the seriousness of parenting, but that's just me.

However, many on the other end of the spectrum think that a woman should be free to use abortion as a form of birth control, which I also feel is a crappy attitude. If you want birth control, then freaking get on birth control. Stop before you start. It shouldn't be getting that far. But again, that's just me.

I'm not sure if it matters when life begins. There's such a thing as putting a person out of their misery; in the case of many (but not all) abortions, I think they're doing the kids a favor by preventing them from coming into what would be a miserable existence. "Life" is not the operative word, "suffering" is. Which scenario creates the absolute least amount of suffering is the question we should be asking.


edit: quoted wrong person.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 23, 2008, 10:41:07 AM
I never said I was proposing anything.  That's a different discussion for a different topic.  Or, while I'm informing the Creationists that evolution is "just a theory," should I also let them know that the Big Bang is fair game for an evolution discussion?

I think I was pointedly noting that you were not proposing anything.  That's the problem.  It IS relevant.  You should be proposing something.

Red herring.  I'll leave it up to you to figure out why.  If you can't, here's a hint: similar red-herring arguments were used to support institutionalized racial discrimination in the United States a century ago.  Perhaps you'll be able to see it more clearly outside the abortion issue.

I think that you are setting artificially narrow boundaries.  I want to figure out whether your stance here is one you hold in abstract or one that holds real value to you.  How much do you care about the lives of these fetuses?  It seems to me what you propose is similar to the emancipation of the slaves.  You are basically prepared to force their owners to kick them out into the streets, into a world you have every reason to know will be hostile to them and that they will be unprepared for.  Our nation decided that emancipating the blacks actually WASN'T enough.  They had to also have access to equal education.  They had to have equal access to employment opportunities.  The things I mentioned that you unilaterally rules out of bounds have actually been ruled specifically in-bounds in our society, because they are important.  To emancipate the slaves but not make preparations for their adequate education is wrong.  We tried simply giving them their lives and their freedom under the law, then decided that it was flatly inadequate.

So, I'll ask you again.  What are you prepared to do to ensure proper pre-natal care?  What are you prepared to do to ensure social support for the mother?  What about proper sex ed?  What about radically increasing the availability of birth control methods like the Depo shot or IUDs?  If you start taking more serious preparations for mothers, when you start providing some real social support structure for teen mothers, poor mothers, poor children, unwanted children, children of teen mothers, etc., I suspect that as you work your way down towards fetuses from the mothers, by the time you get to the fetuses, you may find that the size of the issue had shrunk considerably.

These are steps you could take without infringing on the rights of the women.  These are steps you could take to reduce abortions right now, even under Roe v. Wade.  The anti-abortion crowd is so shallow in their conception of the issue, and you reflect that here.  If you provided real healthcare, sex ed, and reproductive control options to young women, if the foster care system and the adoption systems weren't already so massively underfunded and overwhelmed, if there were social support systems in place for the mothers like more accessible and affordable child care services or low interest rate short-term loan programs, maybe you could save many of those fetuses that way, in a way that wasn't divisive or that took away the rights of a human being to make his or her own medical decisions.  For someone who really wanted to save the lives of the little fetuses, these options would be on the table, absolutely.  For someone that just wanted to get on a soapbox and harangue other people, they'd probably be where you are, in denial of the relevance of these sorts of ideas.

Actually, I said pretty much the exact opposite of that.

You said you think a fetus is a person and should have the rights of a person under the law.  You advocate the overturning of Roe v. Wade.  I don't think you said "the opposite" of what I posted.

Furthermore, I would like you to go ahead and answer.  Should spontaneous abortion be considered involuntary manslaughter?  Should birth control that prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg be outlawed and those that use it subject to 25 to life?  If we could prove that a woman intentionally willed a fetus to abort, should that be 1st degree murder?  Why should Roe v. Wade be overturned?  Simply because you decided to believe that a fetus is a human being that should have protection under the law?  How did you arrive at that conclusion and how was is so clear that you feel confident imposing your personal opinion on the rest of the country?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Mooby on October 23, 2008, 12:44:54 PM
Mooby, what are the qualities you attach to the label of "person"?
Personally?  I draw the line at the formation of the first cell of a unique human organism.  This occurs at conception.

Mooby, I was hoping you'd actually answer my question.  I already know when you think a person comes into existence.  You made that abundantly clear in your first post.  My question had nothing to do with that.  Please re-read it.
I bolded the quality for you.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Mooby on October 23, 2008, 01:10:30 PM
I think I was pointedly noting that you were not proposing anything.  That's the problem.  It IS relevant.  You should be proposing something.
No, it's not relevant.  It's a red herring.  Social structure, or lack thereof, does not have any effect on what rights, if any, a fetus should have.

Quote
It seems to me what you propose is similar to the emancipation of the slaves.  You are basically prepared to force their owners to kick them out into the streets, into a world you have every reason to know will be hostile to them and that they will be unprepared for.  Our nation decided that emancipating the blacks actually WASN'T enough.  They had to also have access to equal education.  They had to have equal access to employment opportunities.
It's pointless to worry about what color shingles you're going to put on your roof when the building inspector refuses to approve your contract.  Without emancipation of the slaves, the surrounding social structure is moot.  Without ending abortion, the surrounding social structure is moot.  We can deal with the issues as they arise.

Quote
If you start taking more serious preparations for mothers, when you start providing some real social support structure for teen mothers, poor mothers, poor children, unwanted children, children of teen mothers, etc., I suspect that as you work your way down towards fetuses from the mothers, by the time you get to the fetuses, you may find that the size of the issue had shrunk considerably.
And if we had educated the slave owners then perhaps the slave issue would only be a minor problem today.  If we educated the NAZIS, then perhaps the concentration camps would only hold Jews rather than exterminate them.  If we educated the ancient Greeks and Romans, perhaps we'd have seen a slight reduction in the number of infants "exposed" to death.  Given my views on where life begins, your suggestion is wholly inadequate.

Quote
These are steps you could take without infringing on the rights of the women.  These are steps you could take to reduce abortions right now, even under Roe v. Wade.  The anti-abortion crowd is so shallow in their conception of the issue, and you reflect that here.  If you provided real healthcare, sex ed, and reproductive control options to young women, if the foster care system and the adoption systems weren't already so massively underfunded and overwhelmed, if there were social support systems in place for the mothers like more accessible and affordable child care services or low interest rate short-term loan programs, maybe you could save many of those fetuses that way, in a way that wasn't divisive or that took away the rights of a human being to make his or her own medical decisions.  For someone who really wanted to save the lives of the little fetuses, these options would be on the table, absolutely.  For someone that just wanted to get on a soapbox and harangue other people, they'd probably be where you are, in denial of the relevance of these sorts of ideas.
There are steps you could take without infringing on the rights of slave owners.  There are steps you could take to reduce slave injuries right now, even under Dred Scott v. Sanford.  The abolitionist crowd is so shallow in their conception of the issue, and you reflect that here.  If you provided tasers instead of whips, researched inexpensive security fences, if the police force and the Fugitive Slave Laws weren't already so massively underfunded and overwhelmed, if there were social support systems in place for the owners like affordable runaway reconciliation services or standard low-cost/high efficiency punishment plans, maybe you could save many of those slaves that way, in a way that wasn't divisive or that took away the rights of a human being to make his or her own property decisions.  For someone that really wanted to save slaves from pain, these options would be on the table, absolutely.  For someone that just wanted to get on a soapbox and harangue other people, they'd probably be where you are, in denial of the relevance of these sorts of ideas.

Quote
You said you think a fetus is a person and should have the rights of a person under the law.  You advocate the overturning of Roe v. Wade.  I don't think you said "the opposite" of what I posted.
You said, "you arrived at the conclusion that your points are so objectively better than anyone else's that yours should be enshrined into law."  I said, "I realize that I'll probably never change your viewpoint on the issue, but that's no reason to stay silent.  History has shown us that views can change."  You accused me of arrogance when I wasn't arrogant.  You accused me of actively trying to press my views into law, when I'm trying to change minds.  You accused me of thinking that I was objectively better than anyone else, when my admission that I probably won't persuade others is a recognition of others to arrive at a rational conclusion.  Your accusations are indeed the opposite of what I actually posted.


Quote
Furthermore, I would like you to go ahead and answer.  Should spontaneous abortion be considered involuntary manslaughter?  Should birth control that prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg be outlawed and those that use it subject to 25 to life?  If we could prove that a woman intentionally willed a fetus to abort, should that be 1st degree murder?  Why should Roe v. Wade be overturned?  Simply because you decided to believe that a fetus is a human being that should have protection under the law?  How did you arrive at that conclusion and how was is so clear that you feel confident imposing your personal opinion on the rest of the country?
You don't get an answer until you LEARN TO READ.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: IwasWrong on October 23, 2008, 01:12:50 PM
Quote
I'm not sure if it matters when life begins. There's such a thing as putting a person out of their misery;

 :o 

It doesn't matter when life begins?  By that logic, a mother can go ahead and kill her 3 day old baby if she thinks the baby will have a "miserable" life.  In the United States, you are not allowed to murder another human being.  No Mother has the right to kill their BORN child.  Therfore, the most important quesiton IS:

"When does life Begin"

Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JackWhitehead1 on October 23, 2008, 01:17:26 PM
Quote
I'm not sure if it matters when life begins. There's such a thing as putting a person out of their misery;

 :o 

It doesn't matter when life begins?  By that logic, a mother can go ahead and kill her 3 day old baby if she thinks the baby will have a "miserable" life.  In the United States, you are not allowed to murder another human being.  No Mother has the right to kill their BORN child.  Therfore, the most important quesiton IS:

"When does life Begin"



I thought I killed this one off a few pages ago, but ah well.
There is no such thing as "Life"
Therefore there is no determining when this imaginary status begins.

*EDIT*
I apoligise for confusing this thread with the "Abortion" thread, for that is where I posted the relevant post.

Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 23, 2008, 01:49:47 PM
No, it's not relevant.  It's a red herring.  Social structure, or lack thereof, does not have any effect on what rights, if any, a fetus should have.

So, do you also support overturning Brown v. Board of Education?  After all, social structure, or lack thereof, does not have any effect on rights, correct?

Without emancipation of the slaves, the surrounding social structure is moot.  Without ending abortion, the surrounding social structure is moot.  We can deal with the issues as they arise.

Actually, the whole point of decisions like Brown v. BoE was that these sorts of things are NOT moot.  They are critical.  They are inherently relevant.

And if we had educated the slave owners then perhaps the slave issue would only be a minor problem today.  If we educated the NAZIS, then perhaps the concentration camps would only hold Jews rather than exterminate them.  If we educated the ancient Greeks and Romans, perhaps we'd have seen a slight reduction in the number of infants "exposed" to death.  Given my views on where life begins, your suggestion is wholly inadequate.

I have news for you, sir.  Roe v. Wade is now lodged in as Supreme Court precedent.  You are still a ways off from overturning that decision.  Would you care to do something in the meantime, or don't you care about the lives of fetuses that much?

There are steps you could take without infringing on the rights of slave owners.  There are steps you could take to reduce slave injuries right now, even under Dred Scott v. Sanford.  The abolitionist crowd is so shallow in their conception of the issue, and you reflect that here.  If you provided tasers instead of whips, researched inexpensive security fences, if the police force and the Fugitive Slave Laws weren't already so massively underfunded and overwhelmed, if there were social support systems in place for the owners like affordable runaway reconciliation services or standard low-cost/high efficiency punishment plans, maybe you could save many of those slaves that way, in a way that wasn't divisive or that took away the rights of a human being to make his or her own property decisions.  For someone that really wanted to save slaves from pain, these options would be on the table, absolutely.  For someone that just wanted to get on a soapbox and harangue other people, they'd probably be where you are, in denial of the relevance of these sorts of ideas.

Actually, of course, these things did occur stepwise.  Now, it appears, you'd like to undo the steps.  Instead of learning from history, and seeing that a) you can accomplish a lot at the same time as you work for a larger victory, b) you could demonstrate that this was actually born from conviction and passion rather than malice and perhaps actually win people over to supporting your now unpopular cause this way, and c) achieving your stated goal without making corresponding social improvements leads to misery for the very group you are allegedly attempting to save, you just push on blindly like a horse being whipped.  In the wake of Emancipation and the end of the Civil War, lynchings rose to an all-time high.  Prohibition of abortions is going to lead to increased suicide among young mothers, deaths from illegal abortions, murders by fathers and husbands.  For someone who claims to be interested in preserving life, you seem remarkably unconcerned about these things.  There will be increases in premature babies and unhealthy babies.  You are also going to see more babies left in dumpsters, at hospitals and churches, malnourished by incompetent or impoverished mothers, and more babies that are victims of abuse.  That these things will happen is beyond doubt.  Yet you don't care at all.  Do you think this might affect someone who is ambivalent to Roe v. Wade and their consideration of possibly supporting your efforts, to see you completely and willfully ignore these things?

You said, "you arrived at the conclusion that your points are so objectively better than anyone else's that yours should be enshrined into law."  I said, "I realize that I'll probably never change your viewpoint on the issue, but that's no reason to stay silent.  History has shown us that views can change."

Of course you won't.  Your policy will lead to misery and you are stating very clearly that you know and do not care.  How in the world could anyone in good conscience decide to take up with such a position?

Furthermore, you would like Roe v. Wade overturned.  You said just that.  That means that you are in favor of rescinding the federally guaranteed fundamental right of a woman to have an abortion.  This is where you decide for someone else that your opinion supercedes theirs.  I asked you how you can justify that position.  You have yet to answer.

You accused me of thinking that I was objectively better than anyone else, when my admission that I probably won't persuade others is a recognition of others to arrive at a rational conclusion.  Your accusations are indeed the opposite of what I actually posted.

Not at all.  You are openly stating your desire to inflict your opinion on others.  You would like to take someone who does not agree with your definition of where life begins and make their opinion irrelevant.  As a pro-choice person myself, I couldn't care less if you disagree with my opinion about when life begins.  My position does not force itself upon you.  You and everyone else remain free to pursue whatever personal path you like.  However, this is not reciprocated by your position.  You are not content to hold a personal disgust against abortion.  You want to overturn Roe v. Wade.  That's a whole different ballgame.  It is arrogance and I'd like to see where you can even begin to justify it.

You don't get an answer until you LEARN TO READ.

No, I won't get an answer because you don't have one.  Yours is a bankrupt philosophy.  I will certainly grant you have the right to hold a different opinion on when life begins.  I also certainly support you in your efforts to convince people that your opinion on when life begins is better than some other opinion.  Honestly, best of luck with that.  It's fine with me.  However, when you decide that your opinion must be reflected in the law, I think you need to answer the question about how your opinion is objectively demonstrable as so exceedingly right that no other personal opinion on the matter can be allowed to hold sway under the law.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 23, 2008, 02:06:19 PM
Mooby, what are the qualities you attach to the label of "person"?
Personally?  I draw the line at the formation of the first cell of a unique human organism.  This occurs at conception.
Mooby, I was hoping you'd actually answer my question.  I already know when you think a person comes into existence.  You made that abundantly clear in your first post.  My question had nothing to do with that.  Please re-read it.
I bolded the quality for you.

So when you refer to someone as a "person" you have nothing else in mind with that term, at all, than their biological uniqueness?  I mean, that's what I'm forced to believe, unless there are other attributes that you consider to be part of personhood.  But if such other attributes existed, then surely you would have listed them when I asked the original question.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: urs on October 23, 2008, 02:37:05 PM
Quote
I'm not sure if it matters when life begins. There's such a thing as putting a person out of their misery;

 :o 

It doesn't matter when life begins?  By that logic, a mother can go ahead and kill her 3 day old baby if she thinks the baby will have a "miserable" life.  In the United States, you are not allowed to murder another human being.  No Mother has the right to kill their BORN child.  Therfore, the most important quesiton IS:

"When does life Begin"



But I followed that with: what decisions will lead to the least amount of suffering? A child that has already been born will most likely have attachments, to the father, siblings, grandparents, and/or other caregivers. Killing that child will cause signifigant suffering for those people, in addition to the possible suffering of the baby. For lack of a better term (and I wish this one wasn't so coarse), "getting it over with" before those attachments can be developed very far, if at all, is honestly doing everyone a favor.

Trust me, I'm not crazy about abortion. It makes me feel a little squirmy - I think it makes most people feel that way. I certainly don't think it should be encouraged. But women who feel like they have no other option are going to choose it until we as a society provide them with better options. At this point, we have to consider it a necessary evil. Nobody likes it or promotes it. But for many, it's the best they can do. Once education and contraception become commonplace, accessible to all, and encouraged, the "need" for abortion will drop considerably.

If you want to put a stop to abortion, you don't ask "When does life begin?" You ask "How do we prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place?" Not only is the second question considerably more relevant, it also has solutions that are workable and that a majority of people can use and agree on. That's called a "win-win" scenario. Having to determine when life deserves protection then becomes a moot point, because a situation has been created where the lives that are created do not need protection, because they are wanted.

This is about getting to the root of the problem and dealing with it, not arguing over semantics and ideology. When abortion becomes obsolete, it will not matter "when life begins".
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Freak on October 23, 2008, 02:54:41 PM
What, exactly, is a 'unique human organism'?
Obviously you think that a freshly fertilized egg is this. So what about an egg meets this definition? The egg is almost identical to every other egg the mother has, except that the DNA combined with the sperm is different. Maybe it's the DNA that is unique? But then identical twins would not fit the criteria as being unique. Maybe it's that it is a unique object in space and time? But then so are all the other eggs, and they apparently aren't human. Maybe it's the potential of being a human... but then every single sperm has potential, so that can't be it either.
Are you sure you want to stick with this definition?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: IwasWrong on October 23, 2008, 03:09:34 PM
Quote
When abortion becomes obsolete, it will not matter "when life begins".

This whole topic was started by me as a question to nonreligious people regarding stem cell research.

I agree with most of what you are saying.  But even if abortion was obsolete, the stem cell question is still highly dependant on whether or not you think stem cell research kills a human being.

Rational people would not kill a "normal" human being even if their "mother" wanted them to.

So if a fertilized egg = human being then I vote NO on Proposal 2 November 4th, 2008.

But if a fertilized egg does NOT = a human being, then I vote YES on Proposal 2.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Freak on October 23, 2008, 03:13:22 PM
However, if that person was going to die anyways, then doing research on them is perfectly acceptable (if they consent). Further, organs are harvested from dead people all the time. The point here is that if these fertilized eggs are going to die anyways, why not use them for research?

Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Goodkat on October 23, 2008, 03:13:40 PM
Quote
When abortion becomes obsolete, it will not matter "when life begins".

This whole topic was started by me as a question to nonreligious people regarding stem cell research.

I agree with most of what you are saying.  But even if abortion was obsolete, the stem cell question is still highly dependant on whether or not you think stem cell research kills a human being.

Rational people would not kill a "normal" human being even if their "mother" wanted them to.

So if a fertilized egg = human being then I vote NO on Proposal 2 November 4th, 2008.

But if a fertilized egg does NOT = a human being, then I vote YES on Proposal 2.
If you ask me, as long as the Baby is attached to the mother it is part of her, and thus not an individual human being.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 23, 2008, 05:08:49 PM
I'm with Mooby. Qualifying for human being status occurs at conception.

I don't think a *vegetable is any less of a human being because they're a vegetable. They're still human. They are just disabled. A zygote/fetus is the same.

*vegetable as in human vegetable (for all those who like to get smart, I think I'm going to start doing this to clarify so people can't semantically pick my post apart any longer)
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 23, 2008, 05:16:33 PM
So you believe that a human body kept biologically alive without any living brain is a person?  The law disagrees with you here, too, JTW.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 23, 2008, 05:18:06 PM
Does a single living cell of my body separated from myself have its own soul?  Does it have my soul?  Is it human?  Should it have rights?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 23, 2008, 05:31:02 PM
Az I will answer, Dave can go jump in a lake, we've been down that road before.


Did it have a functioning brain at one point?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 23, 2008, 05:39:01 PM
You don't need to pretend you could debate me, JTW.  My point stands.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 23, 2008, 05:42:35 PM
Az I will answer, Dave can go jump in a lake, we've been down that road before.
As I recall, you admitted that we have no way of knowing how souls work.  But of course, you still want the rest of us to be governed by laws that are based on how souls work.

Did it have a functioning brain at one point?

Let's say 'yes'.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 23, 2008, 05:46:02 PM
Az I will answer, Dave can go jump in a lake, we've been down that road before.
As I recall, you admitted that we have no way of knowing how souls work.  But of course, you still want the rest of us to be governed by laws that are based on how souls work.

Did it have a functioning brain at one point?

Let's say 'yes'.

If yes then it had a chance to be human and possess a soul.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 23, 2008, 06:03:50 PM
Did it have a functioning brain at one point?
Let's say 'yes'.
If yes then it had a chance to be human and possess a soul.[/quote]

Wonderful.  You can file that away in your baseless-soul-claim-box, then, and answer the question I actually posed, which was:

Quote
So you believe that a human body kept biologically alive without any living brain is a person?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 23, 2008, 06:14:31 PM
Does it have the potential to become a living brain again?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 23, 2008, 06:36:36 PM
I'm not asking about the future, JTW.  I'm asking about the present.  The future does not yet exist, while the present does.  To ask about potential is to dodge the question, which was:

Quote
So you believe that a human body kept biologically alive without any living brain is a person?

To be clear, your original contention was:

Quote
I don't think a *vegetable is any less of a human being because they're a vegetable.

If you meant to add "as long as that vegetable might revive someday" then why didn't you?  By the way, even a completely brain-dead vegetable is still a "unique human organism".  If you disagree with Mooby's parameter, then please state so.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 23, 2008, 06:38:30 PM
So the future doesn't exist for a zygote?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 23, 2008, 06:40:28 PM
I am taking the position here that no set future exists at all.  Please respond to my post.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 23, 2008, 06:42:33 PM
If no set future exists then I can't argue for the rights of an unborn. Debate over.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 23, 2008, 06:49:47 PM
Interesting.  Apparently, then, there is nothing about qualities of a zygote in the present that is worth granting rights to.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 23, 2008, 06:52:10 PM
Interesting, because of course, it is in the present that this non-entity demands consideration.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 23, 2008, 06:53:54 PM
Uh, no. If left to its own devices a non functioning brain won't become "functional".
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 23, 2008, 07:10:11 PM
If left to its own devices, a zygote will not develop into a fetus.  What's your point?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Freak on October 23, 2008, 08:22:21 PM
Mooby:
What, exactly, is a 'unique human organism'?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Sota on October 23, 2008, 09:22:06 PM
Hey all, sorry to divert your attention away from the mini-debates going on, but I have some interesting stuff.

Freak, I showed one of my friends your first post in this thread.  She's extremely pro-life.  And it annoys the crap outta me.  Her response was this:


"^_^ Abortions one of my favorite things to debate about.

For one thing, with me at least, I don't agree with the whole fertilized egg thing. It's fertilized, that means that eventually, it's going to grow and get bigger. It's going to grow and form into a human. So size doesn't matter- it's just forming, and it will look and feel more human-like. Of coarse it's small at first, but alas, people don't consider it human because of how small and how "unnoticeable it is". (I'm sorry, but if you were just starting to form, of coarse you're not going to be big and look already human and whatnot.)

Second thing, I remember talking to you about this. I knew some girls- not too much older than myself who used abortion as a way out and blamed it on "I was raped" and "I had a miscarriage!" but it was an excuse to keep fucking random guys. Not having abortions, I feel that that could be a good way to teach some girls of the consequences of that shit. Being whores, not using protections.. you know.. stuff like that. If they have sex with a million guys, gets pregnant by Lord-Knows-Who, and is suffering knowing there is no abortions and whatnot, HOPEFULLY that will teach them that acting without thinking is costly.
That, and seeing that I already said once the egg is fertilized, it's technically a growing human inside of you. If small because it's starting out. So once you have an abortion, technically, you are killing a human.

Third, the democratic system. This is one of the flaws I find in the system. Maybe the only flaw? Idk. but I don't understand how most democrats are against capitol punishment, but they are for abortions. So they're going to let serial killing child rapists live, but they'll let a little growing baby die. I don't understand that at all.

Fourth, what if you were aborted?

I hope I don't sound like a bitch, Andrew. :)
Everytime abortion is brought up, I have to give my 2 cents in. ;)"

BTW, my name is Andrew.  Sorry if I diverted anything.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Red McWilliams on October 23, 2008, 09:33:05 PM
The point here is that if these fertilized eggs are going to die anyways, why not use them for research?

That's what I'd like to know, too.  I asked this question back on page one, but the OP didn't address it.

The fertilized eggs are going in the trash.  They have no "potential" to become humans.  Where's the harm in using them to "potentially" save millions of already born people?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Red McWilliams on October 23, 2008, 09:35:02 PM
Does it have the potential to become a living brain again?

If potentiality confers rights, you should be able to vote on Nov. 4.  After all, you're a potential American citizen.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 23, 2008, 09:38:28 PM
I'll respond to her arguments, in the order she listed them.  She's clearly not thought them through very well:

#1 - "It's fertilized, that means that eventually, it's going to grow and get bigger."  As I just said to JTW above, a fertilized egg wil not necessarily grow and get bigger, forming a baby later on.  Not without the mother's body actively helping it.  In itself it's not destined to become anything significant at all.  A fertilized egg on the sidewalk will just die.  The question then becomes, why must the mother's body be forced to continue nurturing developing that egg into a baby?

#2 - She's taking the birth-as-punishment-for-promiscuity angle.  It's morally bankrupt and inconsistent, as I demonstrated to the user Freezykow from posts 582-584 of this thread (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=1163.msg40688#msg40688).

#3 - There is no contradiction, here, since the fertilized egg is not a person, and an adult - even a terrible criminal - is.

#4 - Inconsistent again.  What she is saying here - he reasoning - is that if, for a given action, the outcome of that action would have prevented you from being born, that action is wrong.  By her reasoning, the decision of your parents not to have children would be equivalent, morally, to abortion.  Who seriously applies that reasoning in any other context?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Sota on October 23, 2008, 09:41:46 PM
The main reason she's pro-life is because she thinks the little fetuses (feti?) are little people, and have feelings.  She allows too much emotion into the equation, and not enough thought.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 23, 2008, 09:49:39 PM
Ask her how many babies are in this picture, maybe?
(http://celldynamics.org/celldynamics/gallery/imagesPageButtons/dendraster/23-8cell.jpg)

If she's religious, ask how many souls are present.  That should get her thinking, at least.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Mooby on October 23, 2008, 11:17:19 PM
So, do you also support overturning Brown v. Board of Education?  After all, social structure, or lack thereof, does not have any effect on rights, correct?
What are you talking about?  Brown vs. BoE was about civil rights.
And you're right.  Social structure is secondary to a rights discussion.  It's not relevant.  It comes afterwards.  Once you get the rights in place, you can mold the social structure to fit those rights.

Quote
I have news for you, sir.  Roe v. Wade is now lodged in as Supreme Court precedent.  You are still a ways off from overturning that decision.  Would you care to do something in the meantime, or don't you care about the lives of fetuses that much?
Slavery was written into the US Constitution.

Quote
Actually, of course, these things did occur stepwise.  Now, it appears, you'd like to undo the steps.  Instead of learning from history, and seeing that a) you can accomplish a lot at the same time as you work for a larger victory, b) you could demonstrate that this was actually born from conviction and passion rather than malice and perhaps actually win people over to supporting your now unpopular cause this way, and c) achieving your stated goal without making corresponding social improvements leads to misery for the very group you are allegedly attempting to save, you just push on blindly like a horse being whipped.  In the wake of Emancipation and the end of the Civil War, lynchings rose to an all-time high.  Prohibition of abortions is going to lead to increased suicide among young mothers, deaths from illegal abortions, murders by fathers and husbands.  For someone who claims to be interested in preserving life, you seem remarkably unconcerned about these things.  There will be increases in premature babies and unhealthy babies.  You are also going to see more babies left in dumpsters, at hospitals and churches, malnourished by incompetent or impoverished mothers, and more babies that are victims of abuse.  That these things will happen is beyond doubt.  Yet you don't care at all.  Do you think this might affect someone who is ambivalent to Roe v. Wade and their consideration of possibly supporting your efforts, to see you completely and willfully ignore these things?
Are you arguing that we should've kept slavery instead?  That we'd have been better off enforcing the fugitive slave laws than letting people die over a few measly slaves?

Quote
Of course you won't.  Your policy will lead to misery and you are stating very clearly that you know and do not care.  How in the world could anyone in good conscience decide to take up with such a position?
To run with the slavery analogy, because these are people here we're talking about, not garden hoses.  You're willing to sell out a section of humanity to make social problems go away, and then you're implying that I'm the monster.  While we're at it, let's borrow some baby cooking recipes from Jonathan Swift; they could've solved the poverty problems of his day!

Quote
Furthermore, you would like Roe v. Wade overturned.  You said just that.  That means that you are in favor of rescinding the federally guaranteed fundamental right of a woman to have an abortion.
Correct

Quote
This is where you decide for someone else that your opinion supercedes theirs.
False. I decide that one set of rights supersedes another.

Quote
I asked you how you can justify that position.  You have yet to answer.
In my view, one person is already imposing their will on the will of someone who doesn't have a voice.  She's deciding that the person should die without the consent of that person.  That person has no options, no defenses, no responsibility for the situation, nothing.  I want to impose my will on the actions who in most cases is partially responsible, has options, can seek aid, and has nine months to prepare.  My position doesn't default to having someone die.

Quote
You are not content to hold a personal disgust against abortion.  You want to overturn Roe v. Wade.  That's a whole different ballgame.  It is arrogance and I'd like to see where you can even begin to justify it.
Let's play a game:
Replace "abortion" with any historical injustice.  Replace "Roe v. Wade" with whatever ended it.  Repeat the resulting sentence someone you feel is likely to take the opposing viewpoint.  (Example: Use "slavery" and "13th Amendment" and find a slavery descendant.)

Maybe someone will beat into you that it's not arrogant to take a stance that grants human rights to a group, whether you agree with it or not.

Quote
No, I won't get an answer because you don't have one.
False.  Argument from silence.  You didn't get an answer because you didn't read my post.

Quote
I think you need to answer the question about how your opinion is objectively demonstrable as so exceedingly right that no other personal opinion on the matter can be allowed to hold sway under the law.
Sure, right after you objectively prove to me that Jews are people and not "Juden swine."


Dave, since you completely missed the point of my original post, let me sum it up for you in one sentence:
If a fetus is a human person, then that fetus deserves the rights of a person.  If the Pro-Life camp is right about when life begins, then the Pro-Life argument goes out the window.  It's that simple.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 23, 2008, 11:32:50 PM
If left to its own devices, a zygote will not develop into a fetus.  What's your point?

Left to its own devices in the womb, it won't develop into a fetus?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 23, 2008, 11:33:27 PM
Does it have the potential to become a living brain again?

If potentiality confers rights, you should be able to vote on Nov. 4.  After all, you're a potential American citizen.

No I'm not.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Freak on October 24, 2008, 01:19:04 AM
Is a sperm not a potential human?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Freak on October 24, 2008, 01:23:16 AM
If left to its own devices, a zygote will not develop into a fetus.  What's your point?

Left to its own devices in the womb, it won't develop into a fetus?

It's estimated that greater than 50% of all zygotes die.
Anyways, what right does it have to be in someones womb? No one else is allowed in a persons body without their explicit and continuing consent.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 24, 2008, 05:55:10 AM
If left to its own devices, a zygote will not develop into a fetus.  What's your point?
Left to its own devices in the womb, it won't develop into a fetus?

The womb is not one of its own devices.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 24, 2008, 06:48:31 AM
JTW, you've really dug a hole for yourself here.  I'll outline why for you:

Case #1 - Future is not set
You have claimed, in post 104 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=1948.msg40635#msg40635), that you could not argue for the rights of the unborn at all under this case.

Case #2 - Future is set
In this case, we do not know whether the zygote is destined to grow, or whether it's not, but whichever case it is, it's 100% destined to happen.  Let's explore both cases, to make sure our bases are covered:

Case #2a - Future is set and that future contains the zygote developing into a baby
Under this case, abortion is impossible.  The future is set, and that future does not entail an abortion.  Pro-lifers can rest easy in this case, because abortion is destined not to happen.

Case #2b - Future is set and that future does not contain the zygote developing into a baby
The zygote had no future at all.  It had no potential.  The future is set, and that future does not contain the possibility of the zygote developing into anything at all.  The potentiality arguments, and any that depend on them, fall flat.

Did I miss any cases, JTW?  I think your arguments are pretty much deflated at this point, unless you want to take issue with your earlier response to Case #1.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 24, 2008, 06:59:50 AM
JTW, you've really dug a hole for yourself here.  I'll outline why for you:

Case #1 - Future is not set
You have claimed, in post 104 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=1948.msg40635#msg40635), that you could not argue for the rights of the unborn at all under this case.

Case #2 - Future is set
In this case, we do not know whether the zygote is destined to grow, or whether it's not, but whichever case it is, it's 100% destined to happen.  Let's explore both cases, to make sure our bases are covered:

Case #2a - Future is set and that future contains the zygote developing into a baby
Under this case, abortion is impossible.  The future is set, and that future does not entail an abortion.  Pro-lifers can rest easy in this case, because abortion is destined not to happen.

Case #2b - Future is set and that future does not contain the zygote developing into a baby
The zygote had no future at all.  It had no potential.  The future is set, and that future does not contain the possibility of the zygote developing into anything at all.  The potentiality arguments, and any that depend on them, fall flat.

Did I miss any cases, JTW?  I think your arguments are pretty much deflated at this point, unless you want to take issue with your earlier response to Case #1.

Ah, I get it. So abortion is like one of those things, like Schrodingers cat - like that Minority Report part where Cruise rolls the pool ball around the table and Colin Ferrell catches it and then Tom asks "why did you do that"

"because it was going to fall"

"but it didn't fall - you caught it"

I get it. Abortion is the no future you're talking about?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 24, 2008, 07:03:27 AM
That's what Case #2 entails.  But, hey, you're the one insisting on Case #2, not me.  I'm more inclined to believe in Case #1, which avoids the reasoning you've mentioned.  But you've also already claimed that you can't justify your position under Case #1.  I just thought I'd point out the alternatives to you.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: IwasWrong on October 24, 2008, 08:28:47 AM
Quote
A fertilized egg on the sidewalk will just die.

By that logic, a 5 month old baby left on a sidewalk would die.  So can a mother kill it?

For that matter, my best friend who is handicapped, left on the sidewalk, would die.

That argument is not valid.

(not that I am basing an entire argument on just that point)
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 24, 2008, 09:36:33 AM
Quote
A fertilized egg on the sidewalk will just die.

By that logic, a 5 month old baby left on a sidewalk would die.  So can a mother kill it?

For that matter, my best friend who is handicapped, left on the sidewalk, would die.

That argument is not valid.

(not that I am basing an entire argument on just that point)

The argument is perfectly valid as a counter to Sota's friend's argument of "It's fertilized, that means that eventually, it's going to grow and get bigger."  As a counter to that logic, it's perfectly valid.  As a justification for abortion in general, it fails.  Do you see why that doesn't matter, now, for the context in which I made the argument?

To be clear, IwasWrong:  Take a perfectly valid argument, say, that Christians need to provide evidence their god's existence in order for belief in it to be rational.  Apply that argument in order to convince someone that they should sleep in from work.  It fails, doesn't it?  Do you understand why context matters to an argument's validity?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 24, 2008, 10:23:01 AM
It comes afterwards.

Why must it come afterwards?  Where is that written?  How long afterwards?  Where is that written?  You don't have any answers, Mooby.  You are making things up as you go along.  What you are essentially saying is that you'd like to develop a cure for cancer, and therefore, there is no reason for you to give any thought to treatment or prevention.

Slavery was written into the US Constitution.

Your opinion is vastly unpopular, Mooby.  Your intent to write it into law is even more unpopular.  Given these realities, does your care for the lives of fetuses inspire you to take any treatment or preventative actions, or is this purely malicious?

Are you arguing that we should've kept slavery instead?  That we'd have been better off enforcing the fugitive slave laws than letting people die over a few measly slaves?

Do you have even the first idea what the hell you're talking about?  Fugitive slave laws did nothing to ameliorate slavery.  They are in no way comparable to what I am discussing.  Are you unable to answer my questions directly?

To run with the slavery analogy, because these are people here we're talking about, not garden hoses.  You're willing to sell out a section of humanity to make social problems go away, and then you're implying that I'm the monster.

Do you care about the fetuses?  Yes or no?  Because if you do, you'd realize that this isn't a zero-sum game.  You can make gains toward changing public sentiment regarding the rights of fetuses AND make the changes I am suggesting.  The changes I am suggesting would help real people AND fetuses.  What's wrong with that?  Why are you so against the idea?  Your way takes from one and gives to another.  My way gives to both.  Naturally, this tends to make your intent appear to be malice rather than compassion.  Considering that your opinion is outnumbered about 2:1 in this country, one would imagine that you'd leap at the chance to undertake actions that would result in fewer abortions.  Instead, you stubbornly refuse to take anything less than total victory.  Well, then, you can continue to lose and continue to lose into the foreseeable future, and the fetuses you allegedly care so much about will get no relief from anything you do.  Go on, Quixote.  To me, it is quite clear that your position does not stem from concern about the welfare of fetuses, and therefore, I remain utterly unconvinced that joining you would serve any positive purpose whatsoever.  There is more than one way to skin a cat, but for you, it's your way or the highway.  That's neither effective nor moral, in my book.

False. I decide that one set of rights supersedes another.

A set of rights that only exists in your opinion.

In my view, one person is already imposing their will on the will of someone who doesn't have a voice.  She's deciding that the person should die without the consent of that person.  That person has no options, no defenses, no responsibility for the situation, nothing.

I knew this was coming.  Fortunately, there's an easy answer.  I guess you don't know much about the state of the art of gynecology, but rarely is the fetus directly killed by any part of the operation.  The fetus is simply removed from the uterus.  The fetus is free to live or die as best it can from there, same as anyone else.  The abortion has no direct effect on the fetus' rights.  It is not "killing" the fetus, or taking away it's "right" to life.  It is simply removing the fetus from imposing on the rights of the mother, at which point, the parasite generally finds itself unable to sustain life functions on its own.  You know what?  Too fucking bad.  You told me yourself that such considerations are not relevant.  The fetus finds itself alive and with rights but without adequate social support, but that's fine with you and it's fine with me.  So fuck it.  Conversation over.

Dave, since you completely missed the point of my original post, let me sum it up for you in one sentence:
If a fetus is a human person, then that fetus deserves the rights of a person.  If the Pro-Life camp is right about when life begins, then the Pro-Life argument goes out the window.  It's that simple.

I'm trying to figure out what this means.  Do you mean the second "Pro-Life" to actually be "Pro-Choice"?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Cyberia on October 24, 2008, 05:38:15 PM
This question is to Dave and anyone else in the pro-choice camp (of which I consider myself a part)

What are your viewpoints on late term abortions, where the fetus is indeed viable outside he womb, albeit with medical assistance?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 24, 2008, 06:21:25 PM
Define "viable".  Does viable mean that if every resource available to mankind was spent on preserving the life, that we might be able to?  I personally don't find that very relevant.  We could save more lives for less effort in many, many ways.  Furthermore, a lot of late-term abortions could be headed off earlier by easing access to abortions.  There are states in the US that have only one facility that performs abortions.  Many have restrictions designed to obstruct and delay.  Roe v. Wade has been silently undermined by forces primarily aimed at those that are in the weakest position to fight back.  Right now in California, there's a proposition on the ballot that will force underage girls to notify their parents before they undergo an abortion.  Who is standing up for them and their rights?  How many will end up waiting a few months to turn 18 or to obtain a fake ID?  If they aren't in a position to tell their parents, are we to suppose that they are prepared to go on a news program to advocate their own rights?  Hardly.  And so the erosion continues.  No, I do not care about the fetus.  I have said before that I don't really buy into criminalizing infanticide either, so the fact that the fetus or the baby is theoretically capable of surviving with the help of massive external intervention is unconvincing to me.  Until those people that wish to show that degree of concern about the fetus show that same level of concern for the mother, count me out.  The idea of spending a quarter of a million dollars to preserve the life of a fetus, and then refuse to provide even minimal welfare for the mother unless she is magically going to X number of job interviews a week or refuse to raise the minimum wage or refuse to pony up for comprehensive health care, well, that's just far too finely focused for my tastes.  I'd bet that if you gave those mothers half the money you were prepared to spend saving the life of a Week 28 fetus, a lot more of them could see their way clear to carrying the child full-term.  But how many so-called pro-lifers are willing to sign up for that?  Ha.  Haven't seen that on the ballot recently.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Cyberia on October 24, 2008, 07:18:02 PM
I'm talking about 8+ months (maybe 7.5mo), where the fetus needs an incubator and minimal life support.  I don't mean 'apollo-project' type resources.  I understand your point, and mostly I agree, but at the same time I think that if the mother had 7.5 months to abort and didn't and now she wants to...that's just too fucking bad.  She had the chance, now things have progress too far.

Concerning parental notifications...fucking A they have to notify the parent.  The parent is responsible for them and their health, they absolutely deserve to know about that.  You can't argue that abortion/birth are serious enough medically that the woman should retain the right to abort throughout but not serious enough that the parents shouldn't know.  If the parents are abusive, then that's an excellent case for emancipating the minor (which should have been done ANYWAY for an abusive situation) and then she can do what she wants.

You know as well as I do, that teenagers are rather irresponsible.  Eliminating the need for parental notifications for underage girls will turn it into birth control for middle and upper class girls who just are too embarrassed to tell mommy and daddy.  That contradicts your intended goal of reducing the number of abortions in the first place.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 27, 2008, 10:23:40 AM
I'm talking about 8+ months (maybe 7.5mo), where the fetus needs an incubator and minimal life support.  I don't mean 'apollo-project' type resources.  I understand your point, and mostly I agree, but at the same time I think that if the mother had 7.5 months to abort and didn't and now she wants to...that's just too fucking bad.  She had the chance, now things have progress too far.

Well, like I said, there has been an unfortunate but very clear trend in many parts of the country to make abortions less accessible to the very women who need them the most.  Again, to reduce this to the one-dimensional issue that revolves entirely around the timing of the procedure is to ignore the humanity of the issue.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but did this forum suddenly turn into the Sean Hannity Program?  I suppose if you insist on a reduction ad absurdum, if that leads you to a satisfying personal opinion, that's your business.  But if the intent or the ultimate result is to inflict your specious opinion of 7.5 months on pregnant women across the country, then I consider that viewpoint unacceptably narrow.  If you are going to ignore the difficulties women face in getting abortions, I don't think you can hold them accountable for timeliness.  Access to the procedure is nigh-on impossible for many women.  If they can manage to get there at "7.5" months, that's fine with me.  Eliminate unnecessary obstacles first, then perhaps I'd be willing to revisit the matter of timeliness.

The parent is responsible for them and their health, they absolutely deserve to know about that.

Obviously not.  Ultimately, the pregnant woman is responsible, not her parents.  If you'd like to obligate the parents, by law, to care for any and all children their children have before the age of 18, then perhaps we can revisit the question.  Until then, though, since the parents have no obligation to the baby, they have no say about it in my book.

You can't argue that abortion/birth are serious enough medically that the woman should retain the right to abort throughout but not serious enough that the parents shouldn't know.

Sure I can.  The medical procedure itself is quite safe.  It's actually quite a bit safer than carrying and birthing the child.  Since clearly the obligation of the parents is to their child, not their grandchild, making the finding of safety a matter of law seems like a reasonable step to me.  Or at least securing the pregnant female's inalienable right to opt for the abortion.  Parental notification serves what purpose, exactly?  What input must the parents be guaranteed by law that is a legitimate interest of the state and cannot be provided by the doctor?

By the way, the facts:
This table (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm#tab19) reflects deaths caused by abortions, as recorded by the CDC.

Annex 3 of the WHO report on maternal mortality (http://www.who.int/whosis/mme_2005.pdf) reflects death from childbearing and childbirth.

You can see that the risk from legal abortion in the United States is roughly 1/10th of the risk of pregnancy and childbirth.  If we can decide, as a matter of law, that an individual with a 0.08 BAL is too drunk to drive, then I think we can similarly decide that an underage girl's medical decision to cut risk to her personal health by 90%+ is not something that requires parental notification.

If the parents are abusive, then that's an excellent case for emancipating the minor (which should have been done ANYWAY for an abusive situation) and then she can do what she wants.

Which will take how long?  What if that process means the individual won't be free until after "7.5" months?  Too bad?  I'm sorry, but asking pregnant teens to rush into emanicipation proceedings constitutes exactly the sorts of roadblocks and obstacles I alluded to earlier.  Maybe the girls should go to college, go to medical school, become OB/GYNs and perform their own abortions on themselves?  Having a child is a responsibility they will bear for 18 years.  I thought you were trying to encourage women to abort early.  What will the effect of this opinion be on that?  Which one takes precedent, for you?  Besides, I hope you noted that I didn't even mention parental abuse in my defense of my position on notifying parents.  I don't think Daddy needs to beat the girl or fuck the girl in order to grant them the right to make their own medical decisions, particularly when the direction of that decision is so dramatically inclined toward the safety of the pregnant female.  Frankly, if the girl refused to have an abortion, THAT'S when we should start talking about parental notification.  That's clearly a risky medical decision and a decision that will have real and significant impacts on her life for decades to come.

Eliminating the need for parental notifications for underage girls will turn it into birth control for middle and upper class girls who just are too embarrassed to tell mommy and daddy.  That contradicts your intended goal of reducing the number of abortions in the first place.

So, your solution to that is to eliminate that avenue for birth control entirely?!  C'mon, you're not serious, are you?  Maybe we should stop treating people with broken arms, so they don't start relying on the medical community to fix their problems after the fact.  In front of my goal to reduce the number of abortions is my goal to reduce the number of teen mothers who don't want the children they have.  Is that clear?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: velkyn on October 27, 2008, 12:01:57 PM
Quote
I'm talking about 8+ months (maybe 7.5mo), where the fetus needs an incubator and minimal life support.  I don't mean 'apollo-project' type resources.  I understand your point, and mostly I agree, but at the same time I think that if the mother had 7.5 months to abort and didn't and now she wants to...that's just too f**king bad.  She had the chance, now things have progress too far.
What if she didn't have a "chance"?  What if she lives in some backwater that has no one who could help her?  I grew up in very rural Pennsylvania.  It is more than likely that a mother couldn't get the help she needed in time.
Quote
Concerning parental notifications...f**king A they have to notify the parent.  The parent is responsible for them and their health, they absolutely deserve to know about that.  You can't argue that abortion/birth are serious enough medically that the woman should retain the right to abort throughout but not serious enough that the parents shouldn't know.  If the parents are abusive, then that's an excellent case for emancipating the minor (which should have been done ANYWAY for an abusive situation) and then she can do what she wants..
what about when the parent is responsible for the situation?  A father molesting his daughter, a mother in self-denial so she won't see it.  A mother whoring out her own daughters.  There are situations, as much as you would prefer there not to be. You seem to think that the minor should be made to suffer because of her abusive parents.  Way to go.
Quote
You know as well as I do, that teenagers are rather irresponsible.  Eliminating the need for parental notifications for underage girls will turn it into birth control for middle and upper class girls who just are too embarrassed to tell mommy and daddy.  That contradicts your intended goal of reducing the number of abortions in the first place.
All teenagers aren't irresponsible.  Some have bad situations that they have trouble negotiating themselves out of.  You are presenting a strawman with no evidence.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 27, 2008, 01:43:54 PM
Something on the order of 25% of all pregnancies in the United States end in a legal, induced abortion.  Solving this problem by criminalizing abortion or putting obstacles up to accessing an abortion is very much a sweep it under the rug solution.  One would have imagined that the lessons from Prohibition and the War on Drugs would have been learned by now.  There are some problems that should be considered crimes.  But criminalization is not the only tool in the tool box.  We HAVE to look at other solutions.  If 25% of pregnancies end in abortions, there is a MAJOR systemic failure occurring in family planning services in the United States.  These women aren't criminals.  They should not be treated as such.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Cyberia on October 27, 2008, 08:37:08 PM
Well, like I said, there has been an unfortunate but very clear trend in many parts of the country to make abortions less accessible to the very women who need them the most.

Educate me.  I simply cannot fathom how this can POSSIBLY be true.  It would be akin to 1870s voting laws regarding blacks.  Roe vs. Wade says it's legal, thus it's legal.  If it's a late term abortion, then the law says it's illegal.  Mid-terms are determined by the state.  Since practically EVERY state is within 2 hours of another state, bypassing your state laws on this matter seem trivial.  If according to your state, it's illegal to go out of state and get an abortion, that should obviously be challenged in court.  It will be struck down or dismissed almost summarily in a federal court.


Again, to reduce this to the one-dimensional issue that revolves entirely around the timing of the procedure is to ignore the humanity of the issue. 

What kind of an argument is this?  The "humanity of the issue"?  A late term fetus is human, so the humanity of the issue should fall on the side of protecting those that cannot defend themselves.  I AGREE that it's an awful choice, but blame nature.  The only options are: kill a human, or partially reduce another humans rights for two months.  That's it.  I didn't create the system, but NOT killing a human is the lesser of the two evils.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but did this forum suddenly turn into the Sean Hannity Program? 

Dave, that's a blatant Ad Homenium attack.  Because I advocate protecting those that cannot protect themselves, I'm Sean Hannity.  Maybe you could work Ann Coulter in there too?  Does it simply surprise you than an Atheist values human life? or that an Atheist considers a late-term fetus a human life?


I suppose if you insist on a reduction ad absurdum, if that leads you to a satisfying personal opinion, that's your business.  But if the intent or the ultimate result is to inflict your specious opinion of 7.5 months on pregnant women across the country, then I consider that viewpoint unacceptably narrow. 

We, as a society, "inflict" our opinion that a stranger cannot walk up to you, put a gun to your head and splatter your brains on the wall.  What an unfair society!  We "inflict" laws that say that a drug-addict cannot steal and murder to get money because his body needs more "medicine".  Obviously we are "controlling" his body in an unfair manner.  How dare we!  Obviously those are unacceptably narrow viewpoints as well. 

In this case, women had over half-a-year to get out of the situation legally, without penalty.  This should have been made perfectly clear to them from society, their doctor, from Planned-Parenthood, et al.  If it wasn't, that's awful, but "ignorance of the law" is not a legally defensible argument.


If you are going to ignore the difficulties women face in getting abortions, I don't think you can hold them accountable for timeliness.  Access to the procedure is nigh-on impossible for many women.  If they can manage to get there at "7.5" months, that's fine with me.  Eliminate unnecessary obstacles first, then perhaps I'd be willing to revisit the matter of timeliness.

Again, educate me.  If this is actually true and not some perceptional delusion, then yes, obstacles need to be removed IMMEDIATELY.  If a woman was barred from having an abort when she was legally entitled to one, then yes, wholeheartedly, no argument from me, it needs to be changed, NOW. 

But I suspect you're talking about cases involving women who weren't barred from abortion, but were disadvantaged (educationally, economically, socially, parentally) and that argument doesn't fly at all.  Removing human rights for an entire class of humans so that another class can have a band-aid applied is ridiculous.  You know that.  Yes, abortion, in those cases, is a band-aid, because it doesn't address the real problem AT ALL.  The real problem is getting them out of the disadvantages they are trapped in.  This requires significant social change, and I'm all for that.  That's not lip service, I am ALL FOR changing whatever we need to economically, politically, socially to bring about more equality in our society.  Major change is called for urgently.

No system, ever, anywhere can be "fair" in all situations.  But declaring an entire class of humans to be "non-human" for the convenience of another class is ethnic-cleansing.


Obviously not.  Ultimately, the pregnant woman is responsible, not her parents.  If you'd like to obligate the parents, by law, to care for any and all children their children have before the age of 18, then perhaps we can revisit the question.  Until then, though, since the parents have no obligation to the baby, they have no say about it in my book.

Are you from Mars?  Parents ARE legally responsible for their children until the age of 18.  Period.  Parents are sent to prison for child-abuse, incest and, yes, neglect.  Where are you getting the idea that they have NO legal obligations to their children?  The only possible escape you have here is in the enforcement of these laws, which is a complete travesty, as is DCFS in practically every state.  No argument there, but that needs to be tackled where it's broken.  Call to bear whatever force is necessary, but don't break the rest of the system because another part is grossly malfunctioning.  Fix what's broken.


You can see that the risk from legal abortion in the United States is roughly 1/10th of the risk of pregnancy and childbirth.  If we can decide, as a matter of law, that an individual with a 0.08 BAL is too drunk to drive, then I think we can similarly decide that an underage girl's medical decision to cut risk to her personal health by 90%+ is not something that requires parental notification.

You're right that parents shouldn't be able to override the girls decision, but they should know.  They'll notify parent (or next of kin) if I get in a car wreck, or other trauma.  The only reason NOT to notify is that there is fear of repercussions on the girl.  That is a) grounds for emancipation right there, b) legally actionable in court if it does occur, and c) grounds for non-notification in those cases.


Which will take how long? 

I was an emancipated minor.  It took about an hour.  Counting the paperwork, it took maybe a few days.  Your argument fails.


So, your solution to that is to eliminate that avenue for birth control entirely?!

I'm not advocating parental-override of the girls choice.  I never said that.  Just that parents should be notified, especially if they are legally responsible for the child.  Some D.A. will certainly try parents for neglect if the girl dies in the procedure, I guarantee it.


In front of my goal to reduce the number of abortions is my goal to reduce the number of teen mothers who don't want the children they have.

I agree with that goal, and support it entirely.  Given that there are a zillion-and-one methods of preventative birth-control, including free condoms, free birth-control pills and even legal early-term abortion, I reject the concept of late-term abortion as birth-control.  Education is called for, not the complete declaration of an entire class of humans into "non-humans" to satisfy another class.  That's been tried numerous times, and is common argument against atheism.  Way to play into the trap.

You don't reject infanticide either.  I hope you realize what a slippery-slope you are on.  Next you'll be advocating killing the handicapped, because they place a "burden" on society.  Sure.  That's how we deal with problems, we just kill the people we perceive as problematic.  Blacks?  Jews?  Women?  The uneducated?  The poor?  The religious?


What if she didn't have a "chance"?  What if she lives in some backwater that has no one who could help her?  I grew up in very rural Pennsylvania.  It is more than likely that a mother couldn't get the help she needed in time.

Oh well, by all means, lets just start killing members of society we don't want.  This is 2008, in America!  We don't declare entire classes of humans to be "non-human" and therefore kill-able to satisfy another group.

Pennsylvania?!?!  Give me a break.  She could get in a car and drive to Canada, New York or anywhere where abortion is legal up to the second trimester.  "Telephone", "automobiles", "buses", "planes" (we can fly now, if you haven't heard, for a century)  You are actually arguing that because a women didn't take what amounts to trivial responsibility for her own health that we should permit murder?

If you find a population of people in America that doesn't know about modern technology, and yet still performs abortions, then I'll grant an exception in that case.


what about when the parent is responsible for the situation?  A father molesting his daughter, a mother in self-denial so she won't see it.  A mother whoring out her own daughters.  There are situations, as much as you would prefer there not to be. You seem to think that the minor should be made to suffer because of her abusive parents.  Way to go.

Um, OBVIOUSLY, in that case:

1) The abortion would be granted
2) Notification would NOT be required
3) The parent(s) would go to jail
4) The girl would be emancipated

Please stop the ridiculous arguments.


All teenagers aren't irresponsible.  Some have bad situations that they have trouble negotiating themselves out of.  You are presenting a strawman with no evidence.

As a class, they are irresponsible enough that they do NOT have the right to:

Vote
Buy alcohol
Buy cigarettes
Buy a gun
View a movie with an NC-17 (X) rating
Drive a car (until16)
Get married (until 16)

Argument refuted.

Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: velkyn on October 28, 2008, 10:17:40 AM
Quote
What if she didn't have a "chance"?  What if she lives in some backwater that has no one who could help her?  I grew up in very rural Pennsylvania.  It is more than likely that a mother couldn't get the help she needed in time.
Quote
Oh well, by all means, lets just start killing members of society we don't want.  This is 2008, in America!  We don't declare entire classes of humans to be "non-human" and therefore kill-able to satisfy another group.
By all means, commence with concocting a straw man argument ::) 
Quote
Pennsylvania?!?!  Give me a break.  She could get in a car and drive to Canada, New York or anywhere where abortion is legal up to the second trimester.  "Telephone", "automobiles", "buses", "planes" (we can fly now, if you haven't heard, for a century)  You are actually arguing that because a women didn't take what amounts to trivial responsibility for her own health that we should permit murder?
A minor can't drive anywhere they want.  You do realize that one has to have documentation to get into Canada, I hope?  I am talking about females of reproducing age.   
Quote
If you find a population of people in America that doesn't know about modern technology, and yet still performs abortions, then I'll grant an exception in that case.
By all means, keep beating on that strawman, cyb. 
Quote
what about when the parent is responsible for the situation?  A father molesting his daughter, a mother in self-denial so she won't see it.  A mother whoring out her own daughters.  There are situations, as much as you would prefer there not to be. You seem to think that the minor should be made to suffer because of her abusive parents.  Way to go.
Quote
Um, OBVIOUSLY, in that case:
1) The abortion would be granted
2) Notification would NOT be required
3) The parent(s) would go to jail
4) The girl would be emancipated
Please stop the ridiculous arguments.

Obviously, it is not the case, per your own words.  You stated that the parents should 'ALWAYS' be told
Quote
Concerning parental notifications...f**king A they have to notify the parent.  The parent is responsible for them and their health, they absolutely deserve to know about that.  You can't argue that abortion/birth are serious enough medically that the woman should retain the right to abort throughout but not serious enough that the parents shouldn't know.  If the parents are abusive, then that's an excellent case for emancipating the minor (which should have been done ANYWAY for an abusive situation) and then she can do what she wants..
.  You now change your mind when presented with something that demonstrated that your view was wrong. 
All teenagers aren't irresponsible.  Some have bad situations that they have trouble negotiating themselves out of.  You are presenting a strawman with no evidence.
Quote
As a class, they are irresponsible enough that they do NOT have the right to:
Vote
Buy alcohol
Buy cigarettes
Buy a gun
View a movie with an NC-17 (X) rating
Drive a car (until16)
Get married (until 16)
Argument refuted.
You wish.  Again, your insistence of "all" is simply wrong.  The law takes a lowest common denomintator approach for expediency.  It does not prove your claim.  I could argue that since teenagers can enlist in the military, they in fact are considered to be able to make decisions.  Again, it does not prove that "all" teenagers are so able.   

You keep presenting claims that insist that "all" of something is a fact when it is not. You present claims with no supporting evidence.  You are tedious and ignorant.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 28, 2008, 11:36:38 AM
Educate me.  I simply cannot fathom how this can POSSIBLY be true.  It would be akin to 1870s voting laws regarding blacks.  Roe vs. Wade says it's legal, thus it's legal.  If it's a late term abortion, then the law says it's illegal.  Mid-terms are determined by the state.  Since practically EVERY state is within 2 hours of another state, bypassing your state laws on this matter seem trivial.

That's exactly what it is akin to.  There are states with only one clinic that performs abortions.  Many people live hours from the nearest clinic that performs the procedure.  What if you don't have a car?  How are you going to get there?  What if you are working for minimum wage?  How are you going to afford it?  Many states have imposed 72-hour waiting periods.  Why?  So that you have to either come there twice in short order or you have to have four or five days off.  What the hell is a teenager going to do?  What if you aren't old enough to have a driver's license?  There's a million problems.  Did you know that 16 states have never even overturned their abortion prohibitions since Roe v. Wade made them unconstitutional?  Do you intend to make a woman seeking an abortion hire a lawyer and file suit against the state, out of pocket?  As someone who has tried to sue a state agency himself, I can attest to the difficulty in even finding an attorney that is without conflict of interest (i.e. a lawyer that has never done work for the state), not to even talk about competence or affordability or willingness to take a case suing for abortion rights.  Most states make a point of hiring every decent attorney at least once so that they won't ever have to face them in court.  If you think that sounds absurd and paranoid, you're right.  It does sound absurd and paranoid.  Unfortunately, it's also absolutely true.  Parental notification, spousal notification, both obstacles, both completely unnecessary.  Many states severely restrict abortions based on type of procedure and stage of pregnancy.  46 states have laws that allow medical personnel to opt out of performing abortions due to personal beliefs.  Three times, those laws have been found unconstitutional as applied to public facilities, yet the laws remain.  Five states prohibit public employees from offering any referrals to abortion facilities.  Do you know what that means?  Do you understand what a huge impediment that is to even finding a clinic?  Several states have instituted rules about counselling citizens about abortion procedures.  Some states force medical practitioners to read or present materials to the person considering an abortion, materials that are often patently false.  Read that again.  State laws require doctors to tell outright lies to their patients about what an abortion is and what it does and the risks involved.  Many states refuse to allocate any public funding for abortions.  Only 16 states do not restrict their funding thusly.  Five states prohibit insurers from paying for abortions either, unless a special premium is paid.  Pennsylvania requires insurers to provide policy alternatives, excluding abortion.  There are also many states with laws restricting use of chemical abortion techniques and access to emergency contraception.  Some states require proof of sexual assault as necessary evidence for receiving certain services.  As has become somewhat infamous, the woman currently on the Republican ticket for vice-President passed a law in her town requiring women who wanted to demonstrate that they had been victims of sexual assault to pay for their own "rape kits", at a cost of between $500 and $1200 dollars.  At federal minimum wage, $500 is about the post-tax wages for 100 hours of work.  $1200 is about 250 hours.  What do you think the likelihood is that the average woman you see walking home from work at night has savings amounting to between 2 and 6 weeks of full-time work?  How about your average high-schooler?  Or community college student?  Or waitress?

In other words, getting an abortion can be a nightmare.  Roe v. Wade has provided the cover for a lot of people to assume that things were fine.  Things are not fine.  And you don't hear much about it, because abortions are stigmatized, the people are often poor and scared, and they don't want to be on the front page of the newspaper fighting for their rights, nor do they have the resources anyway.  Now in addition to all of this, you want me to slam a ticking clock in front of them, set completely artificially?  No thanks.  Count me out.  I think things need to be made easier, not harder.

What kind of an argument is this?  The "humanity of the issue"?  A late term fetus is human,

It's like me asking you if you have stopped beating your wife yet.  It's a loaded question.  The question presupposes a whole host of information that is not yet in evidence.  Simply repeating the question ad nauseum does not constitute an argument either, Cyberia.  Abortion is an artificially narrow question.  It presupposes a whole lot of other important and relevant information, the kind of information I have presented so far in this thread.  As human beings, we are capable of recognizing invalid questions and when you attempt to narrow this issue down to abortion or no abortions, you are making the question invalid.  I don't feel any need to address the matter of abortions while consciously avoiding the other parts of the matter.

If you kill somebody, we understand that there may be conditions that justify killing.  Things like self-defense.  Self-defense IS relevant.  I can't just repeat over and over again, "Did you kill the person?  Did you kill the person?" to attempt to portray you as a killer or supporter of killing.  We are not robots and the slanted way that someone may choose to frame or ask a question certainly can be taken into account when we consider a response.  The asking of a particular question in a particular way does not obligate anyone to answer in kind.  Similarly, attempts to limit this question to just the matter of abortion fail to consider other relevant information.

The only options are: kill a human, or partially reduce another humans rights for two months.  That's it.  I didn't create the system, but NOT killing a human is the lesser of the two evils.

Not at all.  There are LOTS of other options.  Only because you refuse to acknowledge the reality that abortion does not exist in a vacuum do you find yourself trapped.

Dave, that's a blatant Ad Homenium attack.  Because I advocate protecting those that cannot protect themselves, I'm Sean Hannity.  Maybe you could work Ann Coulter in there too?  Does it simply surprise you than an Atheist values human life? or that an Atheist considers a late-term fetus a human life?

It's not a reference to Sean Hannity's position on abortion.  I frankly don't know his position on abortion.  The reference was to his style of asking questions that excludes important and relevant information.  Of course if you refuse to look outside the most narrow confines possible for examination of a problem, you will only find very limited and poor choices.  I am saying that you don't have to view the issue that narrowly.  That is a choice you make, and for no reason.  There is a world of other options out there.  You are a prisoner here of your own device.

We, as a society, "inflict" our opinion that a stranger cannot walk up to you, put a gun to your head and splatter your brains on the wall.  What an unfair society!  We "inflict" laws that say that a drug-addict cannot steal and murder to get money because his body needs more "medicine".  Obviously we are "controlling" his body in an unfair manner.  How dare we!  Obviously those are unacceptably narrow viewpoints as well. 

Well, let's go the other direction, then, shall we?  Since you have decided to turn this discussion into a contest to see who can make the more extreme and outrageous extension of the others' position, game on.  If I can show you that eating spinach puts carcinogens into breast milk, shall we imprison breast-feeding mothers who eat spinach for attempted manslaughter?  Since it is now the state's business to enact laws that restrict the mother on behalf of the child, why not?  Let's accompany new mothers home from the hospital, then confiscate every knife, every pair of scissors, every letter opener in their house.  Heck, why let mothers raise their children at all?  That's frankly negligent on the part of the state.  We know they'll be unsafe.  Let's establish a system of nationalized child-rearing that we can know will be the safest possible environment for children.  Mothers can have visitation rights twice a month.  Of course, we'll have to frisk and conduct cavity searches on the mothers to make sure they aren't smuggling in some sort of choking hazards.  Maybe we should nix the physical visitation and just have phones set up on opposite sides of panes of bulletproof glass.  Since all of this logically flows from the assertion that it is within the rights of the state to protect children at the expense of the rights of the mother, I'll just go ahead on the idea that all of this accurately reflects your opinions on the matter, as you did with me.

Hey, that was fun.

Again, educate me.  If this is actually true and not some perceptional delusion, then yes, obstacles need to be removed IMMEDIATELY.  If a woman was barred from having an abort when she was legally entitled to one, then yes, wholeheartedly, no argument from me, it needs to be changed, NOW. 

Never barred.  Of course not.  All she has to do is take out full-page newspaper ads announcing her intent to abort her baby, with a picture of her face, plus be prepared to pay $100,000 for the procedure.  That's not "barred".  If she can't manage it, then it's sort of like flying first class on a plane.  

But I suspect you're talking about cases involving women who weren't barred from abortion, but were disadvantaged (educationally, economically, socially, parentally) and that argument doesn't fly at all.

Right.  Just like poll taxes or literacy tests for black voters.  Never barred.  Simply restricted by common sense and equally applied nominal restrictions.  Access to a medical procedure that may radically alter your life for decades to come should be treated like a sushi dinner or flying first class.  If you are in an educational/economical/social/parental situation that allows you to access this luxury, congratulations.  You are living the American dream.  And if not, oh well.  You don't get a nose job and you don't get an abortion.

I also love the appeal to protecting life.  At 6 billion people on the face of the earth, I defy you to present anything other than emotional appeal for why human life should be considered valuable.  Basic economics indicates that as supply goes up, value goes down.  I don't know where you live, but in the US, there have been something like 50,000,000 abortions performed since 1973.  That's 1/6th of the current population of the US.  Whose city needs 1/6th more people?  Yours?  You'd be happy to wake up tomorrow and find that your city and every other city in the US had just experienced a 16% increase in population?  Let's see, the city I'm in can't afford to treat our sewage in accordance with federal law.  I'm sure they'd be thrilled to find out there's 16% more shit coming down the pipes.  16% more air pollution.  16% more development.  16% more water usage.  16% more traffic and wear on the roads and 16% more imported petrofuels.  Classrooms would be 16% more crowded, which I guess would mean that the proposed bond issue on the ballot next week would be 16% larger, since the taxpayers refuse to pay for upkeep on the schools we have now.  Golly gee, I never thought about the wonderful utopia this country would be with 50 million more Americans.  Thanks for opening my eyes.  Surely, every morning I wake up from now on, I'll think to myself, just as I'm sure you do, "Boy, I sure miss having 50 million more people here."  My city could be 16% deeper in the hole, my state could be 16% deeper in the hole, my country could be 16% deeper in the hole.  We could have hit $10 trillion in national debt a five years ago.  Every line I see could be 16% longer.  There'd be 16% more Starbucks coffee shops.  Ratings for Wife Swap would be up 16%.  Considering how excellently we're handling the people we've got, 16% more would just be a blessing, more hands on deck to push the American Win Train even faster down the track.  16% more people for Baby Jesus to love.  My God, it'll be beautiful.

Yes, abortion, in those cases, is a band-aid, because it doesn't address the real problem AT ALL.  The real problem is getting them out of the disadvantages they are trapped in.  This requires significant social change, and I'm all for that.  That's not lip service, I am ALL FOR changing whatever we need to economically, politically, socially to bring about more equality in our society.  Major change is called for urgently.

That is lip service.  You don't care to even look at the larger issues.  You insist that I educate you.  Are you a grownup?  Educate yourself.  Why wait?  Oh, that's right, because you don't really care.  You just told me that it was too bad for the people that couldn't access their elective surgery because of those issues.  You told me you couldn't FATHOM how what I said could possibly be true.

No system, ever, anywhere can be "fair" in all situations.  But declaring an entire class of humans to be "non-human" for the convenience of another class is ethnic-cleansing.

Ethnic?  What the hell are you talking about?  Okay, tell the truth.  Are you getting your arguments from a pamphlet?  Ethnic cleansing?  Good gravy.  I feel like I'm talking to Polly the Parrot.  That's why I said earlier that your view was absurdly one-dimensional.  You can't extricate your arguments from the meaningless buzzwords that other people have whispered into your ear.  

Are you from Mars?  Parents ARE legally responsible for their children until the age of 18.  Period.  Parents are sent to prison for child-abuse, incest and, yes, neglect.  Where are you getting the idea that they have NO legal obligations to their children?  The only possible escape you have here is in the enforcement of these laws, which is a complete travesty, as is DCFS in practically every state.  No argument there, but that needs to be tackled where it's broken.  Call to bear whatever force is necessary, but don't break the rest of the system because another part is grossly malfunctioning.  Fix what's broken.

I was referencing the obligation of the minor's parents to their grandchild.

You're right that parents shouldn't be able to override the girls decision, but they should know.

Why?  Why should they know?  Why do they need to know beforehand?

I agree with that goal, and support it entirely.

No, you don't.  You support it conditionally.  You support it when it doesn't conflict with other goals you support more, goals that often DO conflict with it.

Given that there are a zillion-and-one methods of preventative birth-control, including free condoms, free birth-control pills and even legal early-term abortion, I reject the concept of late-term abortion as birth-control.

This is fantasy and it proves that I was right to consider your previous statement a lie.

You don't reject infanticide either.  I hope you realize what a slippery-slope you are on.  Next you'll be advocating killing the handicapped, because they place a "burden" on society.

It doesn't bother me.  I think there are better things for the justice system to be doing.  I think there are other things more critically in the interest of the state that are not being done.  I think that medical resources could be better spent.  This isn't fantasy baseball, Cyberia.  You cannot simply judge a problem in a vacuum.  It must be compared to other problems, and in light of available resources.  I think criminal prosecution of infanticide scores below the place where I personally would like to see my tax rate, and I think that it falls below what my fellow citizens are willing to pay as their tax rate.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 28, 2008, 11:51:40 AM
You can see how this infantile "Me Wantee" attitude operates in practice here (http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2275.pdf).  I want services and I don't want to pay.  I want you to prosecute infanticide, but don't raise my taxes.  It buries every level of our society under a mountain of debt and practically forces our representatives to lie to us and institutes monumental fiscal insolvency.  You can't get anywhere suggesting tax increases, but watch the angry mob form when you start looking at cutting back on state services.  Because stating that I consider infanticide a less-than-critical state priority is essentially no different than bludgeoning children that come to my door on Halloween.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 28, 2008, 11:54:40 AM
Regarding the extra-population issue, Davedave, there's another factor to consider for the anti-abortion camp:  Having an unwanted child early can very well mean not having a wanted child later.  Denying abortion can deny the future child the opportunity to live.

I actually have a friend in my hometown who would probably never have lived if his mother had not had an abortion earlier on in her life.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 28, 2008, 11:58:15 AM
That's an excellent point.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 28, 2008, 05:09:03 PM
You can see how this infantile "Me Wantee" attitude operates in practice here (http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2275.pdf).  I want services and I don't want to pay.  I want you to prosecute infanticide, but don't raise my taxes.  It buries every level of our society under a mountain of debt and practically forces our representatives to lie to us and institutes monumental fiscal insolvency.  You can't get anywhere suggesting tax increases, but watch the angry mob form when you start looking at cutting back on state services.  Because stating that I consider infanticide a less-than-critical state priority is essentially no different than bludgeoning children that come to my door on Halloween.

I'm actually forced to pay for abortions.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 28, 2008, 05:15:48 PM
Irrelevant.  The question is how much are you prepared to pay to support these children yourself or is this another unfunded mandate?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 28, 2008, 05:18:28 PM
Shouldn't the parents fund the child?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 28, 2008, 05:32:08 PM
No.  Do you know the difference between sex and a legal contract?  The mother doesn't want it.  If you're the one forcing her to bear and birth the child, then it's only fair that you assume the obligation to take care of it.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 28, 2008, 05:38:04 PM
No.  Do you know the difference between sex and a legal contract?  The mother doesn't want it.  If you're the one forcing her to bear and birth the child, then it's only fair that you assume the obligation to take care of it.

I think this is the problem, Dave.  Based on his earlier comments regarding childbirth as a (moral? legal?) responsibility for having engaged in sex, he clearly doesn't know the difference.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 28, 2008, 05:41:05 PM
Yes.  JTW obviously has a warped view of sex and sexuality.  But it's also the same thing he quoted from me above.  He wants the state to enforce this and enforce that whim of his, yet when it comes time to pony up the $$$, he's nowhere to be found.  It's both childish and immoral, neither of which should be shocking when heard from a theist.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 28, 2008, 06:47:22 PM
No.  Do you know the difference between sex and a legal contract?  The mother doesn't want it.  If you're the one forcing her to bear and birth the child, then it's only fair that you assume the obligation to take care of it.

I didn't create it though, she did.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 28, 2008, 06:48:25 PM
Liar.  You don't believe that, so don't say it.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 28, 2008, 07:03:32 PM
Well, that's biology for ya.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 28, 2008, 07:07:39 PM
You don't define human life at conception.  You define human life at the implantation of a human soul.  I'm sorry if you cannot resolve your opinions, but that doesn't mean you get to be disingenuous.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 28, 2008, 07:17:49 PM
You don't define human life at conception.  You define human life at the implantation of a human soul. 

Which is when?

Quote
I'm sorry if you cannot resolve your opinions, but that doesn't mean you get to be disingenuous.

The point is that she did it, not me.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 28, 2008, 07:21:49 PM
You're the one that believes this crap, not me.  I love how you insist everyone else take responsibility but you.  Take responsibility yourself first, then you can start in on others, maybe.

But you are the one that would use the power of the state to bring the child into this world.  That makes you partially responsible.  Look what a little chicken you are!  Look how funny you look when you try to dance and dodge taking responsibility for your own decisions, your own advice.  Any time anyone looks at you to take responsibility for YOUR decisions, you'll do or say whatever it takes to shift that onto anyone else standing nearby.  What a coward.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 28, 2008, 07:39:11 PM
Take responsibility for what? Do tell.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 28, 2008, 07:43:00 PM
For the cost of legislating your opinion.  If you want to make a law that says that cooking must be taught in grade school, you have to provide a source of funding for the kitchens.  If you want to make a law that brings babies into the world that the mothers do not want, then you have to pay.  Take responsibility.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 28, 2008, 07:45:41 PM
I love what a novel idea this is to you. 

JTW:  "Me?  Take responsibility?!  Wha-a-a-a?"
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 28, 2008, 07:53:30 PM
For the cost of legislating your opinion.  If you want to make a law that says that cooking must be taught in grade school, you have to provide a source of funding for the kitchens.  If you want to make a law that brings babies into the world that the mothers do not want, then you have to pay.  Take responsibility.

Ah, I see. Gladly.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 28, 2008, 07:58:53 PM
How many children have you adopted this year, JTW?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 28, 2008, 08:09:36 PM
lol, relevancy?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 28, 2008, 08:11:45 PM
You said you would gladly take responsibility.  What have you already done, to that end?  What responsibility have you taken on yourself, to take care of unwanted children that were not aborted?  Adoption is the most direct way to do this.  How many children have you adopted this year?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 28, 2008, 08:19:20 PM
Abortion isn't illegal.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 28, 2008, 08:39:03 PM
Well, that about takes the cake for the most blatant non-answer I've ever seen on this site.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 28, 2008, 08:40:49 PM
That's because you're stupid and haven't been paying attention to the past page of exchanges.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 28, 2008, 08:44:36 PM
Azdgari's question:  How many children have you adopted this year?
Jeremy's answer:    Abortion isn't illegal.

Now, maybe I really am stupid, but it seems to me that your response does not answer the question.  It seemed to me that the question asked for a number, and it also seemed that your answer was not numeric.

So, can you explain to me, in my apparent stupidity, how the answer "Abortion isn't legal" answers the question "How many children have you adopted this year?"
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 28, 2008, 08:52:29 PM
Why are you asking me how many children I've adopted this year?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 28, 2008, 08:53:47 PM
Post 158.  Will you answer, or are you just going to dodge as usual?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 28, 2008, 08:57:22 PM
You said you would gladly take responsibility.  What have you already done, to that end?  What responsibility have you taken on yourself, to take care of unwanted children that were not aborted?  Adoption is the most direct way to do this.  How many children have you adopted this year?

I would gladly take responsibility to save non-aborted children if it was state mandated.

Do try to keep up.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 28, 2008, 09:02:48 PM
That isn't what I asked.  Still dodging a simple numerical question, I see.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 28, 2008, 09:05:35 PM
Well, if it's not what you asked then you're out of place and you should go back and read the exchange.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 28, 2008, 09:14:27 PM
Going back and reading...

My questions:

"What have you already done, to that end?"
"What responsibility have you taken on yourself, to take care of unwanted children that were not aborted?"
"Adoption is the most direct way to do this.  How many children have you adopted this year?"

Your answers:

"Abortion isn't illegal"
"I would gladly take responsibility to save non-aborted children if it was state mandated."
"You're stupid"

Again, maybe I'm just dumb, but none of these responses seem to answer any of the questions I posed.  Is it just me?  Can we get a third party in here to check?

EDIT:  Made the difference in verb tenses more obvious for Jeremy.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 28, 2008, 09:21:41 PM
You're asking an irrelevant question? What have you done to ensure women are able to have abortions? Why not go personally perform one. Well? You've done nothing to support your worldview.

This is essentially what you're trying to extract from me and it's complete nonsense.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 28, 2008, 09:26:53 PM
I pay taxes to allow for public access to abortions.  There are no orphaned children resulting from abortions that need homes, so our respective situations are not parallel.  There are however orphaned children resulting from the lack of abortions.  What have you done about them?  You don't really care, do you?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: JTW on October 28, 2008, 09:34:31 PM
No, because abortion is legal.

Get it now?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 28, 2008, 09:38:12 PM
Unwanted children that were not aborted are still without homes here in Canada, Jeremy.  Are you saying that because abortion is legal, these children should have been aborted?  If not, then my questions stand.  Why aren't you adopting? (assuming you aren't actually adopting a child, of course; you never did answer that question)
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Cyberia on October 29, 2008, 02:44:36 AM
There are states with only one clinic that performs abortions [insert medical procedure].  Many people live hours from the nearest clinic that performs the procedure.  What if you don't have a car?  How are you going to get there?  What if you are working for minimum wage?  How are you going to afford it? 
Red Herring/Special Pleading.  The argument applies to a huge number of medical procedures.  (cancer treatment, brain surgery, specialty diseases, etc)  It's not grounds for terminating a life, and it never will be.

Many states have imposed 72-hour waiting periods.  Why?
I suspect for the same reason there is a waiting period for buying a gun.  To attempt to deter emotional reactions from the taking of a life.

Did you know that 16 states have never even overturned their abortion prohibitions since Roe v. Wade made them unconstitutional? 
You know they don't need to, right?  The federal government doesn't overturn laws that are ruled unconstitutional either.  That's how it works.  The law is 'technically' still on the books, but no one will touch it with a ten foot pole.  Functionally, it's not there anymore.

Do you intend to make a woman seeking an abortion hire a lawyer and file suit against the state, out of pocket?
Red Herring.  Lawsuits seeking to establish abortion right should be, and usually are, brought forth by civil rights lawyers, pro-choice lawyers, feminist lawyers, ACLU, etc.  Organizations that exist for this express purpose, are well funded, and LOVE to bring these cases to light.  Most of the time they bring them as challenges to laws, not necessarily in defense of a client.  However, in cases where they do not have standing to bring these cases without a client, they can usually find one without too much effort.  Typically they represent these clients pro-bono.

If she already had an abortion, was rejected by the aforementioned civil-rights parties, AND assuming that the state bothered to file a case against her (which MOST D.A.s would not file frivilous lawsuits that could be summarily dismissed by referencing Roe Vs. Wade) then:  "You have the right to an attorney.  If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you."

She can also go to another state.  That's cheaper and faster than a lawsuit.

As someone who has tried to sue a state agency himself, I can attest to the difficulty in even finding an attorney that is without conflict of interest (i.e. a lawyer that has never done work for the state), not to even talk about competence or affordability or willingness to take a case suing for abortion rights.  Most states make a point of hiring every decent attorney at least once so that they won't ever have to face them in court.  If you think that sounds absurd and paranoid, you're right.  It does sound absurd and paranoid.  Unfortunately, it's also absolutely true. 
It is absurd and paranoid.  Conflict of Interest means the lawyer is not currently representing the state in another case, not 'has never done work for the state'.  It also ignores the other sources of legal representation I mentioned above.  (civil rights lawyers, pro-choice lawyers, feminist lawyers, ACLU, etc.)

I've never heard someone make the case that there aren't enough lawyers, before.  Congratulation for making me smile.

Parental notification, spousal notification, both obstacles, both completely unnecessary. 
In your opinion.  Presented as fact.

Many states severely restrict abortions based on type of procedure and stage of pregnancy. 
As Roe vs. Wade says they can do.

46 states have laws that allow medical personnel to opt out of performing abortions [insert medical procedure] due to personal beliefs.
If a doctor doesn't want to perform knee-surgery on me because of personal beliefs, then I DON'T WANT HIM TO, and she/he should be excused from doing it.  Now, I'm sure you'll try to paint it as 'medically necessary emergency treatment', in those cases they should not be able to opt-out, I agree.  If it's done to save the mother's life, of course. 

Five states prohibit public employees from offering any referrals to abortion facilities. 
While I think that is awful and should be rescinded, it does refer to public employees.  Not private practice doctors, planned parenthood and other private institutions.  So you are somewhat painting it in a false light.  Still though, it seems stupid, if not a flat out violation of the free-speech rights of the public employees.

Some states force medical practitioners to read or present materials to the person considering an abortion, materials that are often patently false.
Yep, that's genuinely awful.  Why hasn't it been challenged by the aforementioned organizations?

Many states refuse to allocate any public funding for abortions.
States have lots of stupid rules, all over the place.  They also have limited funds.  When we get nationalized health care the situation should improve, if for no other reason, that there will be a single target for civil-rights lawsuits, rather than a patchwork of state rules.  This should improve in the near future.

Five states prohibit insurers from paying for abortions either, unless a special premium is paid.  Pennsylvania requires insurers to provide policy alternatives, excluding abortion. 
That's bad.  It should be addressed.  Where are the civil-rights organizations?

There are also many states with laws restricting use of chemical abortion techniques and access to emergency contraception. 
That's bad.  It should be addressed.  Where are the civil-rights organizations?


Some states require proof of sexual assault as necessary evidence for receiving certain services. 
That 'proof' thing always gets in the way, doesn't it?  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean 'unreasonable proof', as long as that's not defined as 'taking her word for it'.  By it's very nature, unreasonable proof is unreasonable and therefore:

That's bad.  It should be addressed.  Where are the civil-rights organizations?

As has become somewhat infamous, the woman currently on the Republican ticket for vice-President passed a law in her town requiring women who wanted to demonstrate that they had been victims of sexual assault to pay for their own "rape kits", at a cost of between $500 and $1200 dollars.  At federal minimum wage, $500 is about the post-tax wages for 100 hours of work.  $1200 is about 250 hours.  What do you think the likelihood is that the average woman you see walking home from work at night has savings amounting to between 2 and 6 weeks of full-time work?  How about your average high-schooler?  Or community college student?  Or waitress?
Well, she can see Russia from her home.....  that's gotta count for something.  She's a retard.  She won't get into office (VP), hopefully.

As for paying for their own rape kits:  Without nationalized health care, that's how it works.  You pay for EVERYTHING when you go to a hospital, often always excessively marked-up.  Shrug.  Special pleading.  It sucks, but if we're ALL in that boat (unless we have private coverage) which I do NOT, just so you know.  My solution is to cover everything and everyone.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Cyberia on October 29, 2008, 02:46:19 AM

In other words, getting an abortion can be a nightmare. 
I have no doubt.  People don't wake up and say "I think I'll have an abortion today! Yay!"

... people are often poor and scared, and they don't want to be on the front page of the newspaper fighting for their rights, nor do they have the resources anyway. 
Women's Suffrage, Black Suffrage, Gay Rights, Abortion Rights, Handicapped Rights, and on and on and on...

Rights have to be fought for, sometimes re-fought for, bled for, cried for, begged for.....   That's part of what makes them worth having.

Are you arguing that this case is special, more special than the above cases? or that you are tired of fighting for your rights? or just commenting on the wastefulness of having to fight for each.and.every.right.in.the.experience.of.life?


Now in addition to all of this, you want me to slam a ticking clock in front of them, set completely artificially?
Well, first, the connotation of 'slam a ticking clock' is portraying the situation in a false light.  6+ months to figure out a way to get transportation to the next state over.  Phew, such a difficult task in this day and age.  Not buying it, not by a long shot.

Second, 'set completely artificially' is....wait for it....your opinion.  It is set, in actual fact, upon viability of the fetus.  It is set AT that point because, at that point it can live outside the mother with minimal lifesupport.  That makes it a human being.  That means it has rights, including "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".   And that's a great segway into the next part.....

What kind of an argument is this?  The "humanity of the issue"?  A late term fetus is human,

It's like me asking you if you have stopped beating your wife yet.  It's a loaded question.  The question presupposes a whole host of information that is not yet in evidence. 
Have you?  And it's not a loaded question at all (the humanity question) and it presupposed nothing.  It's a viable fetus.  Therefore it is human and has human rights.  It's quite simple. 

"The question presupposes a whole host of information that is not yet in evidence" sounds like Afadly trying to refute evolution.  You haven't GIVEN the 'presupposed evidence', at least, not any that even remotely justifies removing someone's human rights and terminating their life.  The fact of the matter is that you WANT abortion to be legal in ALL cases, on demand, and your desire for this to be true has clouded your judgement and logic.

IF a fetus is human, then it's rights cannot be abridged for anothers convenience.  IF it isn't human, we can do anything we want.  That should probably be your avenue of attack.  However.....


Simply repeating the question ad nauseum does not constitute an argument either, Cyberia.
.... you don't WANT to address this issue, because you know that the "non-human" argument is quite weak (for a viable fetus) and it is about as appealing as Mein Kampf.  (reference intentional)

So, you just complain that I'm forcing you to make an uncomfortable comparison.  I repeated it 3 times, and bolded/underlined it.  It's the crux of the argument.  It's important.  Rather that address it, you tried to deflect it.  Beat it and you've got your case won.  I suspect you know that, and that's why it was deflected.

Abortion is an artificially narrow question.  It presupposes a whole lot of other important and relevant information, the kind of information I have presented so far in this thread. 
You have presented NO information that trumps the "non-human" argument.  Your apathy for the fetus, does not an argument make.


As human beings, we are capable of recognizing invalid questions and when you attempt to narrow this issue down to abortion or no abortions, you are making the question invalid. 
/ignore


I don't feel any need to address the matter of abortions while consciously avoiding the other parts of the matter.
At least you admit that you are consciously ignoring the (viable) fetus.  This is why you deflected the above comment.  your answer is "I don't care".  Obviously, we as a nation, should base national public policy on what you care about.  My answer is "I don't care about what you don't care about".

Or we could try to have a reasonable discussion about the merits of the points and a frank exchange of views, even if we don't agree.


If you kill somebody, we understand that there may be conditions that justify killing.  Things like self-defense.  Self-defense IS relevant.
Strawman, and irrelevant.  It's legal to save the mother's life, even in late term, and should be.  If there is some specific case where the hospital refused to perform one, and the mother died, then we would be in agreement that people should be put into prison for it...in which case there is no argument.  Self-defense is indeed relevant but not applicable in most pregnancies.

It may possibly have been an attempt to paint me as some ULTRA-conservative wanting to ban abortion in ALL cases.  If that's the case, it stupid, because I have declared my position from the get-go and it's decidedly not true.  It's like McCain saying "Obama will raise your taxes!" after Obama just said he'd lower them.

The only options are: kill a human, or partially reduce another humans rights for two months.  That's it.  I didn't create the system, but NOT killing a human is the lesser of the two evils.

Not at all.  There are LOTS of other options.  Only because you refuse to acknowledge the reality that abortion does not exist in a vacuum do you find yourself trapped.
Oh really?  There's LOTS of options beyond "Have the abortion" or "Not"?  What?  Abort the left arm only?  The toes and left leg, but not the rest?  The ONLY thing we are debating is weather a late-term viable fetus can be legally or morally aborted.  I'm not trappped in the slightest.  I'm not even penned in.  Not killing a human is usually the lesser of the two evils.  There, I explicitly added 'usually'.  Given that I have stated my support for Roe vs. Wade, I assumed you would not try to interpret things in a hyper-literal manner as Velkyn does. 

I think both of you are confused as to your proper avenue of attack.  You aren't used to debating an atheist who opposes late-term abortion on human-rights grounds.  It confuses you and so your shots go astray.


I also love the appeal to protecting life.  At 6 billion people on the face of the earth, I defy you to present anything other than emotional appeal for why human life should be considered valuable.  Basic economics indicates that as supply goes up, value goes down.
See?  You are actually trying to use economics to define the value of a human life?  Well, lets see.  If that's the case, then wealthy people actually ARE more valuable than poor people due to the fact that they control more resources.  In which case, your argument addressing the economic difficulty of obtaining abortions fails.  Rich people will get their abortions, poor people won't.  But poor people SHOULDN'T (or at least there is a huge apathy factor) because they aren't as valuable human beings.

Don't use economics to define the value of human life.  The rich always win.  Unless, you ARE rich, in which case you'd be arguing for your own interest.  If that's the case, just say so.

It also makes you look like Stalin.

You don't care to even look at the larger issues.  You insist that I educate you.  Are you a grownup?  Educate yourself.  Why wait?  Oh, that's right, because you don't really care.
Sigh.  Roe vs Wade is set.  If you want to change it, present your evidence (of which you presented some).  I asked that you educate me.  I am comfortable with the current situation, excluding some unreasonable restrictions in some states.

The larger issue is that RvW declared viable fetuses to be human, and thus have human rights, including the right to life.  That's the basis of the ban on late-term abortions.  Oh wait, you don't really care.

Ethnic?  What the hell are you talking about?  Okay, tell the truth.  Are you getting your arguments from a pamphlet?  Ethnic cleansing?  Good gravy.  I feel like I'm talking to Polly the Parrot.  That's why I said earlier that your view was absurdly one-dimensional.  You can't extricate your arguments from the meaningless buzzwords that other people have whispered into your ear. 
Maybe 'ethnic' was the wrong word, but it's functionally equivalent.  Targeting and killing one group of people to satisfy another.  It's not ethnically based, but that doesn't make it ok.  If it's a viable human, you can't kill it, except in self-defense.


Are you from Mars?  Parents ARE legally responsible for their children until the age of 18.  Period.  Parents are sent to prison for child-abuse, incest and, yes, neglect.  Where are you getting the idea that they have NO legal obligations to their children?  The only possible escape you have here is in the enforcement of these laws, which is a complete travesty, as is DCFS in practically every state.  No argument there, but that needs to be tackled where it's broken.  Call to bear whatever force is necessary, but don't break the rest of the system because another part is grossly malfunctioning.  Fix what's broken.

I was referencing the obligation of the minor's parents to their grandchild.
Utterly irrelevant.  WTF?  Arguing that the legally responsible parents of a girl should NOT be notified about a serious medical procedure being performed on their daughter because.....the (grand)parents have no legal obligation to the (grand)child???

Are you stoned??

They have to be notified because the procedure is being performed ON THEIR DAUGHTER, for whom they ARE legally responsible.  This is another "We want it to be the case so bad that we cannot present a good argument".  I'll borrow a phrase from you book.  "I don't care"


You're right that parents shouldn't be able to override the girls decision, but they should know.

Why?  Why should they know?  Why do they need to know beforehand?
Because parents are in the best position to guide and counsel her.  To prevent the "I'm too embarrassed to tell mommy and daddy" scenario.  They are going to find out anyway, you might as well tell them and get it over with face to face.  Maybe she doesn't actually want the abortion, but can't imagine how she would support the baby.  It's scarry, and a child doesn't really understand the options available.  That's why minors can't vote, buy a gun, get married, etc...


I agree with that goal, and support it entirely.

No, you don't.  You support it conditionally.  You support it when it doesn't conflict with other goals you support more, goals that often DO conflict with it.
Shrugs. Ok.  I'm ok with that.  The cornerstone being that you don't kill other human-beings.  So yea, that's fine.

Given that there are a zillion-and-one methods of preventative birth-control, including free condoms, free birth-control pills and even legal early-term abortion, I reject the concept of late-term abortion as birth-control.

This is fantasy and it proves that I was right to consider your previous statement a lie.
Really?  Those methods DON'T exist in reality?  I was always told they do, I though I've even used some of them.  Thank you for revealing the truth.


You don't reject infanticide either.  I hope you realize what a slippery-slope you are on.  Next you'll be advocating killing the handicapped, because they place a "burden" on society.

It doesn't bother me.  I think there are better things for the justice system to be doing.  I think there are other things more critically in the interest of the state that are not being done.  I think that medical resources could be better spent.  This isn't fantasy baseball, Cyberia.  You cannot simply judge a problem in a vacuum.  It must be compared to other problems, and in light of available resources.  I think criminal prosecution of infanticide scores below the place where I personally would like to see my tax rate, and I think that it falls below what my fellow citizens are willing to pay as their tax rate.
Say hi to der Führer.  The position you advocate leads directly to Hitler's policies.  Exterminate the unwanted.  I advocate that all human life has rights and should be protected.  It does cause resource and other problems.  However those problems are dealt with, never break rule #1. 

Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Cyberia on October 29, 2008, 02:50:30 AM

By all means, commence with concocting a straw man argument ::) 

If a late-term fetus is a human, then it has rights.  It's only a strawman if you think it is "non-human"

what about when the parent is responsible for the situation?  A father molesting his daughter, a mother in self-denial so she won't see it.  A mother whoring out her own daughters.  There are situations, as much as you would prefer there not to be. You seem to think that the minor should be made to suffer because of her abusive parents.  Way to go.
Quote
Um, OBVIOUSLY, in that case:
1) The abortion would be granted
2) Notification would NOT be required
3) The parent(s) would go to jail
4) The girl would be emancipated
Please stop the ridiculous arguments.

Obviously, it is not the case, per your own words.  You stated that the parents should 'ALWAYS' be told

Stop imagining thing.  You SHOW ME where i said the word "ALWAYS" in the following paragraph.  And also read the last sentence.

Quote
Concerning parental notifications...f**king A they have to notify the parent.  The parent is responsible for them and their health, they absolutely deserve to know about that.  You can't argue that abortion/birth are serious enough medically that the woman should retain the right to abort throughout but not serious enough that the parents shouldn't know.  If the parents are abusive, then that's an excellent case for emancipating the minor (which should have been done ANYWAY for an abusive situation) and then she can do what she wants..

You now change your mind when presented with something that demonstrated that your view was wrong. 

You're smoking crack.  It's an utterly unfounded accusation, and my original quote proves it.  I granted the exception from the get-go, and I never said "ALWAYS".  Please, rescind your accusation.


All teenagers aren't irresponsible.  Some have bad situations that they have trouble negotiating themselves out of.  You are presenting a strawman with no evidence. 
Quote
As a class, they are irresponsible enough that they do NOT have the right to:
Vote
Buy alcohol
Buy cigarettes
Buy a gun
View a movie with an NC-17 (X) rating
Drive a car (until16)
Get married (until 16)
Argument refuted.
You wish.  Again, your insistence of "all" is simply wrong.  The law takes a lowest common denomintator approach for expediency.  It does not prove your claim.  I could argue that since teenagers can enlist in the military, they in fact are considered to be able to make decisions.  Again, it does not prove that "all" teenagers are so able.   

You keep presenting claims that insist that "all" of something is a fact when it is not. You present claims with no supporting evidence.  You are tedious and ignorant.

You are imagining words that are not there.  Where is this word "all" in my post?  I dare you to demonstrate a word that isn't there.  Strawman indeed.  Stop "quoting" me with words I never said.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 29, 2008, 06:58:19 AM
... people are often poor and scared, and they don't want to be on the front page of the newspaper fighting for their rights, nor do they have the resources anyway. 
Women's Suffrage, Black Suffrage, Gay Rights, Abortion Rights, Handicapped Rights, and on and on and on...

Rights have to be fought for, sometimes re-fought for, bled for, cried for, begged for.....   That's part of what makes them worth having.

So barriers to rights should remain, because fighting for rights is what makes them worth having.  That's what you're saying.  Wow.  Just wow.  So, what you've just said is that:
1. Those who want abortion to be available should still have to fight hard for it.
2. Those who want women to be able to vote should still have to fight hard for that right (but not men, apparently).
3. Those who want blacks to be able to vote should still have to fight hard for that right (but not whites, apparently).
4. Those who want gays to have equal rights (rather than being classified as mentally ill) should still have to fight hard for any of these rights.
5. Those who are physically disabled should still have to fight hard for any of those rights.

I guess actual social progress, in which moral victories are actually won, is anathema to your worldview.  Should we still have to fight tooth and nail every time we want to enjoy freedom of speech, too?  You think these fights should be ongoing, and thus never won, because "that's part of what makes (the rights) worth having".  Disgusting.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: IwasWrong on October 29, 2008, 09:44:38 AM
 :o

Yikes, I leave my topic for a few days and it's so derailed I don't even recognize it anymore.

All of the debate back and forth still comes down to whether or not you think an embryo is equal to a human being or not.

It's that simple.

A women does not have the right to kill her 5 year old child for any reason.  So does an embryo have the exact same rights as a 5 year old human child?  Right now it does not.  If it did, then all those embryos inside those labs are imprisoning human beings against their will.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 29, 2008, 09:46:24 AM
No, because abortion is legal.

No, JTW.  You have to fund the mandate before it can go into effect.  Pay first.  For starters, the foster care system needs more money, so you certainly aren't going to be allowed to add children to the system until you take better care of the children that are already there.  This is what I mean.  When all it takes is jabber, you're the first in line with the finger extended.  But until I see you out hustling for the foster care system, working to make it easier for parents who have children they can't take care of to put them there, with confidence that they will be properly taken care of and not rented out as sex slaves and the like by the employees, your empty words will remain just that.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 29, 2008, 11:17:07 AM
Red Herring/Special Pleading.  The argument applies to a huge number of medical procedures.  (cancer treatment, brain surgery, specialty diseases, etc)  It's not grounds for terminating a life, and it never will be.

Did you read my post?  There are state laws that prevent access to treatment SPECIFICALLY FOR ABORTION.  I didn't invent the special pleading, Cyberia.  The pro-lifers did.  Did you read where I pointed out that several states have laws prohibiting people's medical insurance from covering abortions without special payments?  By the way, pregnancy isn't a rare condition.  1 in 4 are currently medically aborted.  If it wasn't for objections external to the nature of the procedure itself, there wouldn't be a clinic in the country that wasn't prepared to do it.  It's a relatively simple procedure that involves the same basic surgical tools as pretty much every other surgery.  Many states refuse to cover it under Medicaid.  So, really, it's not at all like cancer treatment or brain surgery.  Nice try, though.

I suspect for the same reason there is a waiting period for buying a gun.  To attempt to deter emotional reactions from the taking of a life.

Yawn.  Can you point out to me where state legislators became legally capable of overturning Supreme Court decisions, because I'm having trouble finding that.

You know they don't need to, right?  The federal government doesn't overturn laws that are ruled unconstitutional either.  That's how it works.  The law is 'technically' still on the books, but no one will touch it with a ten foot pole.  Functionally, it's not there anymore.

Do you understand that they can still prosecute those laws?  Perhaps they will not be successful, but those laws are still enforceable.  It is furthermore common practice to interpret those laws to be immune to the Supreme Court ruling, by some inane line of reasoning.  It is also common practice to re-write a law in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling and add two commas and a semi-colon and declare the new law not specifically covered by the ruling.  Just because a seemingly similar law has been overturned doesn't mean that state law enforcement can't make arrests under a state law that's still on the books.  Furthermore, those laws can be used to bully and intimidate not only the women seeking the abortions, but also the gynecologists.  Many gynecologists flee to states where they won't have to worry about whether they'll be the next headliner, the next test case, for abortion rights in this country.

Loitering laws are a perfect analogy.  The Supreme Court has routinely shot down loitering laws of a dozen stripes.  Yet almost every major city still actively pursues their own version of loitering laws, because they want to and they know that it will take years for anyone to run it back up to the Appeals Court to overturn the law, and in the meantime, they can still arrest people and charge people.  These laws are written banking on the fact that the types of people they'll generally affect are ones particularly unlikely and unable to fight back effectively and they're right.  States did it with sodomy laws for years as well.  Again, you are demonstrating an incredible naivete when it comes to how laws and the real world intersect.  In your high-school government class, when the Supreme Court says something, it magically and instantly changes lives throughout the land.  In reality, overturning a law doesn't make the impetus for the law disappear, nor does it castrate those that supported the law in the first place.  As we can see by the incredible variety of intrusive laws involving abortions, the same forces that put the anti-abortion laws into effect are quite talented at finding ways to achieve the same end.  Roe v. Wade established very clearly that every woman in America is guaranteed the right to exercise control over her own body and make her own medical decisions.  That was found to be a Constitutional guarantee.  Underhanded moves like carving out special exemptions to Medicaid funding or requiring women that get abortions to wear a Scarlet A are bullshit and nasty.  If you don't like something the Supreme Court has done, you don't take out your anger on pregnant women.  This is the United States.  What the Supreme Court says is the law of the land, even in the Bible Belt.

Red Herring.  Lawsuits seeking to establish abortion right should be, and usually are, brought forth by civil rights lawyers, pro-choice lawyers, feminist lawyers, ACLU, etc.  Organizations that exist for this express purpose, are well funded, and LOVE to bring these cases to light.  Most of the time they bring them as challenges to laws, not necessarily in defense of a client.  However, in cases where they do not have standing to bring these cases without a client, they can usually find one without too much effort.  Typically they represent these clients pro-bono.

You are simply unaware of reality.  This is not even close to true.  I am aware that Rush Limbaugh has a radio program, but you shouldn't understand that to mean that every word he says is true.  Have you ever tried to find a "civil rights" lawyer?  I live in an urban area of well over a million people.  My phone book contains lots of categories of attorneys.  There is no category for "civil rights" attorneys.  Have you ever sought counsel from the ACLU?  Do you actually know anything about that organization or are you just running your mouth?  The ACLU has numerous criteria for selecting their cases, criteria which probably cut out 90-95% of even the cases that are submitted to them.  Do you want to know what I'm talking about, specifically?  I can tell you because I actually know.  The ACLU will not take a case where there are any factual disputes.  Period.  They won't take it.  No matter how much evidence there is that your version of the facts are correct, if the other side disputes ANY fact of the case, the ACLU won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.  But you knew that, didn't you?  Number two, the ACLU won't take a case unless there is an opportunity to set a legal precedent.  They are not interested in cases where the law is settled.  They do not see their role as ensuring that people are adequately protected by past decisions.  They want to set the precedent, then let others take it from there.  But you knew that too, didn't you?  As a corollary of the first two, they also routinely reject cases where the fact set is overly narrow, where an egregious or unusual fact set would limit the legal applicability of any decisions won.  Another corollary is that they rarely, if ever, take cases at the level of the trial court.  If you want to sue somebody or want the ACLU to defend you from a prosecution, you're barking up the wrong tree.  They want you to take the case to trial yourself, lose, THEN call them.  Furthermore, decisions on taking cases are generally made by the local chapters, and generally at the monthly board meeting.  Don't use your one phone call to call the ACLU because you'll probably get a recorded message asking you to leave your mailing address so they can send you their case submittal forms.  Leave a message, wait til the paperwork comes in the mail, fill it out and mail it back, wait until after the monthly board meeting, and then they'll send you the same rejection letter they send most people.  If you have some sort of emergency or time-sensitive case, the ACLU specifically recommends that you NOT seek their help.  But you knew all that, didn't you?

It is absurd and paranoid.  Conflict of Interest means the lawyer is not currently representing the state in another case, not 'has never done work for the state'.

You're wrong.  Ever heard of a "retainer"?

Besides, you've attempted to dodge the question.  Do you have any basis for knowledge on this topic or is this characterization of what I just said a completely blind guess?  If you wish to accuse me of lying, please stop pussy-footing around and do it.

I've never heard someone make the case that there aren't enough lawyers, before.  Congratulation for making me smile.

What you haven't heard could fill a mid-sized galaxy.

In your opinion.  Presented as fact.

I see.  So, you're one of those people that is "ALL FOR changing whatever we need to economically, politically, socially to bring about more equality in our society," but what you mean by that is that you personally support a whole raft of laws of highly dubious utility and malicious intent that have a net effect of placing abortion beyond the reach of millions of women living in the country today.

As Roe vs. Wade says they can do.

Yes, and that is exactly the same justification that was used for poll taxes and literacy laws.  Roe v. Wade also doesn't prevent jurisdictions from requiring women to buy a billboard with their picture underneath a big sign that says "BABY KILLER".  Would you consider that acceptable as well?  Maybe it's just another way to make sure they consider the gravity of taking a life*.

* "Life", in this context, should not be taken to mean an actual legal life as decided by the Supreme Court, but some other definition of life invented by Bob Whatsit and Steve Whonow.

If a doctor doesn't want to perform knee-surgery on me because of personal beliefs, then I DON'T WANT HIM TO. 

Good for you.  Other people DO want him to anyway.  If your doctor tells you he doesn't want to do a particular procedure on you and you decide not to have him do that procedure, great.  But let's assume that you wouldn't like me to make a law that forced you to have a medical procedure that you didn't want done.  Are you capable of similarly minding your own business or do you insist that your personal medical decisions should be made into law for everyone else to follow, under state duress?

By the way, knee-surgery is a great example.  I don't think I've brought up serious medical emergency in terms of abortions here.  Knee-surgery, I think we all can agree, it not very likely to be life-threatening.  Let's say you are walking down the street and are hit by a car, and your knee is blown to pieces.  As you lay bleeding on the gurney, the doctor comes in and says, "Well, I think that the bleeding will clot by itself long before your blood-loss becomes life-threatening.  So, seeing as how this is not a life-threatening emergency, I decide as a matter of personal morality not to perform any medical treatment in this case.  You will likely be crippled for the rest of your adult life as a result of my personal moral decision and I certainly don't dispute that I am trained and capable of competently performing reconstructive surgery to restore to you full use of your knee, but since it's not LIFE-threatening, I choose not to, as per State Code XYZ.  Have a good day."  Fine by you?  Sound like a good law and a reasonable decision?  Still don't want that doctor to perform that procedure on you?

While I think that is awful and should be rescinded, it does refer to public employees.  Not private practice doctors, planned parenthood and other private institutions.  So you are somewhat painting it in a false light.  Still though, it seems stupid, if not a flat out violation of the free-speech rights of the public employees.

They can't REFER you to those organizations.  A sixteen-year-old girl may never have heard of Planned Parenthood.  The police can't tell her about it.  State hospitals can't tell her about it.  They can't tell her about the existence of a private institution where she could have that work done.  They can't even suggest to her that the critical difference she should be looking for is public versus private without breaking the law.

Yep, that's genuinely awful.  Why hasn't it been challenged by the aforementioned organizations?

Because you don't understand the "aforementioned" organizations.  Why are you asking me, since you are the one that decided to lecture me about how these organizations operate just a minute ago?  With all their piles of money and bored lawyers, how did laws like these ever make it out of committee, Cyberia?  Are you ready to admit that you haven't the faintest idea how these organizations actually operate in the real world?  Are you willing to admit the possibility that your understanding of the situation may be flawed and incomplete?  If you, in fact, DON'T know the important and relevant details, why don't you stop and listen or look into it and educate yourself instead of blathering on in total ignorance, knowing that you really are totally ignorant?

States have lots of stupid rules, all over the place.  They also have limited funds.  When we get nationalized health care the situation should improve, if for no other reason, that there will be a single target for civil-rights lawsuits, rather than a patchwork of state rules.  This should improve in the near future.

This is pathetic.  You just told me about the wealth of private legal aid organizations, and now you are arguing the poverty of state governments.

That's bad.  It should be addressed.  Where are the civil-rights organizations?

It is bad.  Based upon the picture you have painted of "civil-rights organizations", I can only assume that they are hanging around in the atrium of their South Dakota headquarters, drinking cocktails and discussing framing designs for their law degrees.

That's bad.  It should be addressed.  Where are the civil-rights organizations?

Well, as I have been led to understand, probably buying jewel-encrusted briefcases with their unused donations.

That's bad.  It should be addressed.  Where are the civil-rights organizations?

Out on the links, I suppose, telling their lawyer jokes to each other.

Well, she can see Russia from her home.....  that's gotta count for something.  She's a retard.  She won't get into office (VP), hopefully.

Doesn't help pregnant women in Wasilia, does it?  Well, have no fear.  I'm sure as soon as the Feminist Lawyers Of Wasilla get back from their yachting trip, they'll sort it all out up there.

As for paying for their own rape kits:  Without nationalized health care, that's how it works.  You pay for EVERYTHING when you go to a hospital, often always excessively marked-up.  Shrug.  Special pleading.  It sucks, but if we're ALL in that boat (unless we have private coverage) which I do NOT, just so you know.  My solution is to cover everything and everyone.

Not true.  Medicaid helps cover many poor people for important medical procedures.  Except in places where a special pleading has been made against abortion.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: velkyn on October 29, 2008, 01:33:49 PM
Cyb, you are having some trouble with basic terms and concepts.  A strawman is a flawed concept that is presented to be easily knocked down and claimed to be a victory for the presenter.  You said
Quote
Oh well, by all means, lets just start killing members of society we don't want.  This is 2008, in America!  We don't declare entire classes of humans to be "non-human" and therefore kill-able to satisfy another group.
You’ve presented an extreme position, e.g. genocide basically, as equivalent to abortion.  It is not, therefore you are presenting a strawman.

You then claim to not have used the word “always”.  No you didn’t.  However, one does not need to say “always” to mean that.  You have made blanket statements with no exceptions.  When you say that “f**king A they have to notify the parent”, you mean that all parents should be notified, correct?  If you say “absolutely deserve” you mean that all parents deserve to know.  You said made no exceptions about notification when you mentioned “if the parents were abusive”.  Read your own words.  It is not my fault that you may have not written what you intended. 
Quote
Concerning parental notifications...f**king A they have to notify the parent.  The parent is responsible for them and their health, they absolutely deserve to know about that.  You can't argue that abortion/birth are serious enough medically that the woman should retain the right to abort throughout but not serious enough that the parents shouldn't know.  If the parents are abusive, then that's an excellent case for emancipating the minor (which should have been done ANYWAY for an abusive situation) and then she can do what she wants..

The same thing occurs in your claim that you did not say “always” in regards to teenagers.  You said this:
Quote
You know as well as I do, that teenagers are rather irresponsible.  Eliminating the need for parental notifications for underage girls will turn it into birth control for middle and upper class girls who just are too embarrassed to tell mommy and daddy.  That contradicts your intended goal of reducing the number of abortions in the first place.
Again, you make a blanket statement with no exceptions, indicating a situation where “teenagers”, a group containing “all” teenagers, are claimed as “rather irresponsible”.  You then try to excuse that statement by saying that that the law agrees with you.  I have shown you how it does not. If you did not mean such things, be more careful how you write.  It’s that simple.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Cyberia on October 29, 2008, 03:51:05 PM
You’ve presented an extreme position, e.g. genocide basically, as equivalent to abortion.  It is not, therefore you are presenting a strawman.
Well, I'll ask you the same thing I asked Dave.  Why is it not?  Beat the argument, rather than simply stating that your position is factually true.  Anytime someone makes a statement that 'situation X' does not constitute human life, and can therefore be ignored, red flags go up.  It's an inherently dangerous argument.  It leads to places I don't think you or Dave really intend to go.  I don't think you are monsters, don't present me as one for demanding really good evidence that 'situation x' actually is what you're portraying.

It an argument for terminating life, I'm going to hold you to a high standard.  I don't feel bad about it.  I don't feel I should.


You said made no exceptions about notification when you mentioned “if the parents were abusive”.  Read your own words.  It is not my fault that you may have not written what you intended. 
Look, I realize this is the internet and there is an inherent difficulty in expressing oneself.  You asked me to clarify my position, and I did.  I think it's somewhat pedantic, because the exception in my original post including emancipating the girl, which (and here's what I feel you are missing) automatically eliminates the need for parental notification.  You don't NEED to notify the parents of a legal adult.  I didn't elucidate that, because I assumed it went without saying.  I apologize for the confusion however.

You then try to excuse that statement by saying that that the law agrees with you.  I have shown you how it does not.
Your refutation to my statement was this:

Quote from: velkyn
I could argue that since teenagers can enlist in the military, they in fact are considered to be able to make decisions.
This refutes nothing.  They cannot enlist until they are 18, at which time they can vote.  I'm not arguing about 18/19 year olds, even though they are 'teenagers', because at that point they are legally adults.  Did you really not know what I meant? or were you just trying to find something to argue with?


If you did not mean such things, be more careful how you write.  It’s that simple.
Good advice.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Cyberia on October 29, 2008, 04:12:18 PM
So barriers to rights should remain, because fighting for rights is what makes them worth having.  That's what you're saying.  Wow.  Just wow.  So, what you've just said is that:
1. Those who want abortion to be available should still have to fight hard for it.
2. Those who want women to be able to vote should still have to fight hard for that right (but not men, apparently).
3. Those who want blacks to be able to vote should still have to fight hard for that right (but not whites, apparently).
4. Those who want gays to have equal rights (rather than being classified as mentally ill) should still have to fight hard for any of these rights.
5. Those who are physically disabled should still have to fight hard for any of those rights.

I guess actual social progress, in which moral victories are actually won, is anathema to your worldview.  Should we still have to fight tooth and nail every time we want to enjoy freedom of speech, too?  You think these fights should be ongoing, and thus never won, because "that's part of what makes (the rights) worth having".  Disgusting.

You're living in fantasy-land.  While there has been some social progress in the past 100 years, the fight can never be "won".  You will never, ever find some place where you are automatically granted EVERY right you feel you should possess, without so much as even asking for those rights.  Even asking for a right you do not currently possess constitutes 'fighting' for it.

Ideally, they should NOT have to fight for them.  We do not live in an ideal world, and we never will.  It's akin to trying to count to infinity with the expectation that you will actually reach it as some point.  Wake up.  We don't live in an ideal world, and that means you are going to have to fight for your rights on a daily basis.  The second you stop fighting, your rights start shrinking.  You ONLY have rights at all because those whom hold the 'power' in this world don't feel it's worth the fight.  I suggest you take that to heart and keep continually being a pain in their asses, because when you stop they automatically assert their authority again.

Quote
Should we still have to fight tooth and nail every time we want to enjoy freedom of speech, too?
Should we have to?  Nope.  Do we, as a matter of pragmatic reality? Yep.  That one, in particular, is encroached upon continuously.....and then those encroachments are fought against.  Back and forth, and on and on, forever.

It won't ever end.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" -Thomas Jefferson

He knew this two hundred years ago.  It troubles me that you do not.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Azdgari on October 29, 2008, 04:31:22 PM
Quote
Should we have to?  Nope.

Given the context, your previous post - to which I was replying - answered the above with "yes".  That was what I was responding to.  Does it make more sense now?
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Cyberia on October 29, 2008, 05:50:54 PM
I suspect for the same reason there is a waiting period for buying a gun.  To attempt to deter emotional reactions from the taking of a life.

Yawn.  Can you point out to me where state legislators became legally capable of overturning Supreme Court decisions, because I'm having trouble finding that.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here but one could make the exact same case regarding the right to bear arms. 

In the case of abortions, it's the right-wing that is creating artificial barriers to something that has been clearly granted by the supreme court.  They do this because they don't like the decision and are trying to weasel around it, for reasons that they feel are correct and proper.  They feel that they hold the high ground morally.

In the case of guns, it's the left-wing that is creating artificial barriers to something that has been clearly granted by the supreme court.  They do this because they don't like the decision and are trying to weasel around it, for reasons that they feel are correct and proper.  They feel that they hold the high ground morally.

Just an observation.  I am refraining from commenting on my position on the second matter, as it does not pertain to this discussion.  But the tactic is common and widespread.

----------

As for the rest, we could go back and forth endlessly.  I do think you have made several good points, and believe it or not, given me much to think about.  It's an emotional issue and I don't think many people here have to capability to engage in the debate without it turning into a instantaneous flame war.  A lot of good information was exchanged, and although personal shots were fired in our discussion, I don't take personal offense and I don't think that you really do either.  We're big boys.  Water off a ducks back.

Please correct me if I am wrong, without sarcasm, distortion or misrepresentation, your viewpoint is this:

Women should have not only the right, but the unequivocal practice of being able to obtain an abortion, at any point of the pregnancy, upon demand.  All barriers to this goal should actively and fiercely removed where possible (social, economic, parental, etc) and reduced as much as possible otherwise (biological, physical, geographical)

The goal should be to enable abortion for all women, and indeed for many disadvantaged women it should be actively encouraged as a method of reducing the disadvantages they face, and the problems facing modern society.  Real people, living real lives, need to be protected: people with friends, family, jobs, assets to protect, debts to pay, hardships of all types.  A fetus has none of these.  Claiming an idealistic, and naive goal of protecting the unborn, wastes money and other resources that are urgently needed to help people here and now, not some potential hypothetical human with nothing real to lose.


Is that correct?  If it isn't, please correct me/it.  If I have misrepresented it or made a mistake, I sincerely apologize.  I ask, but do not require, that you do the same for my viewpoint, without sarcasm, misrepresentation or distortion.

I'm not going to comment on it further, unless you feel we should continue. I'm comfortable with people holding a different opinion than mine, but I do want to understand it.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 29, 2008, 06:08:11 PM
Are you arguing that this case is special, more special than the above cases? or that you are tired of fighting for your rights? or just commenting on the wastefulness of having to fight for each.and.every.right.in.the.experience.of.life?

I'm saying that Roe v. Wade made people feel like getting an abortion was a Constitutional right.  It made people feel like the matter was settled.  Even without being overturned, the matter is FAR from settled.

Well, first, the connotation of 'slam a ticking clock' is portraying the situation in a false light.  6+ months to figure out a way to get transportation to the next state over.  Phew, such a difficult task in this day and age.  Not buying it, not by a long shot.

The length of time on the ticking clock is immaterial.  The important thing is that it is artificial and arbitrary.  Your 7.5 months is completely arbitrary.  And setting that as the deadline is completely artificial.

It is set, in actual fact, upon viability of the fetus.

No, it's not.  You already said that we shouldn't be talking about Apollo-program type rescue efforts.  Was that not an arbitrary decision on your part?

It is set AT that point because, at that point it can live outside the mother with minimal lifesupport.

Bolded to highlight the arbitrary part.

It's a viable fetus.  Therefore it is human and has human rights.  It's quite simple.

Isolating this single aspect of the question and hammering on it like a woodpecker IS making it a loaded question.  I already gave a perfectly good analogy to asking whether you killed someone while refusing to allow discussion about self-defense.  Self-defense is inherently relevant to the matter of killing another person.  To ask the question and refuse to consider relevant context is simply you inviting me not to answer, so I don't.  If you want an answer, ask a fair question.  I'm not stupid and I'm not a pushover.  Your question is loaded.  This is not merely a question of life and death.  Quality of life is relevant.

"The question presupposes a whole host of information that is not yet in evidence" sounds like Afadly trying to refute evolution.  You haven't GIVEN the 'presupposed evidence', at least, not any that even remotely justifies removing someone's human rights and terminating their life.  The fact of the matter is that you WANT abortion to be legal in ALL cases, on demand, and your desire for this to be true has clouded your judgement and logic.

No, what I want is to not put children into places they are not wanted.  You seemed able to understand that concept when it came to backing off trying to force a doctor to perform a surgery he didn't want to perform.  In fact, you ALL-CAPSed it, to make sure I understood your conviction on the matter.  This is very similar.  If the mother doesn't want the child, I don't want to force her to have it.  I refuse to blinker the conversation here to life vs. death.  Quality of life matters.  It is relevant.  

.... you don't WANT to address this issue, because you know that the "non-human" argument is quite weak (for a viable fetus) and it is about as appealing as Mein Kampf.  (reference intentional)

The decision about granting of rights is a legal one, not a moral one and not a scientific one.  That decision has been made by the Supreme Court.  If I were to become convinced that the people that would like to move that line back were doing so out of concern for the fetus, I might feel more empathy for their position.  However, you absolutely refuse to take any additional account for the well-being of the fetus or of children or for the mother.  It's simply grandstanding.

Furthermore, Azdgari made an excellent point in another thread.  Let's say that having a child now will lead to one less child being made in the future?  Have we really gained anything by salvaging this particular child's life?  When DOES a human being begin?  Why is it any less valid to declare that once an intention to conceive a child has formed, that the right to life begins?  If a woman intends to wait until she is 25 to bear children, but instead is forced to bear one at age 21, then decides not to bear anymore children, haven't you killed the child she would have born when she was 25?  Doesn't that make you a baby-killer as well?

So, you just complain that I'm forcing you to make an uncomfortable comparison.

It's not an uncomfortable comparison.  It's absurdly narrow.  Like I said, self-defense is a relevant matter to any question of one man killing another.  To consider a killing without considering the possibility of a self-defense scenario is to reduce the situation beyond the point of meaninglessness.  Talking about killing while disallowing discussion of self-defense simply robs killing of significance.  This situation is no different.  In a discussion, we attempt to cut away things that are irrelevant so we can get at the crux of the matter.  However, you cannot blindly continue to remove aspects of the question just so the ultimate question reached can be simply stated.

It's like having a chunk of iron.  I can slice off a chunk of iron and still have a chunk of iron.  I can do that many times.  But at some point, I will only have a single atom of iron and it will no longer be possible to either remove a chunk of iron from it or have a chunk of iron remaining.  This is no different.  To reduce this issue below a threshold where discussing quality of life is no longer within the scope is to eliminate the entire question of "humanity" before it even gets off the ground.  Ultimately, you cannot avoid the quality of life issue.  Quality of life is what makes human life worth preserving.


I repeated it 3 times, and bolded/underlined it.  It's the crux of the argument.  It's important.  Rather that address it, you tried to deflect it.  Beat it and you've got your case won.  I suspect you know that, and that's why it was deflected.

Cyberia, you're obviously not grasping this, so let me put it to you differently.  If you truly considered quality of life not relevant to the discussion, then how can you justify not salvaging the life of a bacterial cell?  Outside of quality of life issues, what is the difference between a bacteria and a fertilized human egg?  What's the difference between a chicken and a fetus or a cow and a child?

You have presented NO information that trumps the "non-human" argument.  Your apathy for the fetus, does not an argument make.

So, why should human be the relevant factor?  Your apathy toward E. coli does not an argument make.

What?  Abort the left arm only?  The toes and left leg, but not the rest?  The ONLY thing we are debating is weather a late-term viable fetus can be legally or morally aborted.  I'm not trappped in the slightest.  I'm not even penned in.  Not killing a human is usually the lesser of the two evils.  There, I explicitly added 'usually'.  Given that I have stated my support for Roe vs. Wade, I assumed you would not try to interpret things in a hyper-literal manner as Velkyn does. 

Why humans only?  I defy you to make your argument without reference to quality of life.

I think both of you are confused as to your proper avenue of attack.  You aren't used to debating an atheist who opposes late-term abortion on human-rights grounds.  It confuses you and so your shots go astray.

Hardly.

It also makes you look like Stalin.

I also support the construction of new hospitals.  Do you?  If so, then you, me and Stalin need to get together.

They have to be notified because the procedure is being performed ON THEIR DAUGHTER, for whom they ARE legally responsible.

I'm sorry you are unable to present a decent counterargument, so I'll go ahead and end this little jaunt now.  The decision to have a baby is very dangerous.  It could not be anything other than textbook child endangerment to force a child to carry a pregnancy through to full term.  People are allowed to make dangerous medical decisions on their own behalf, but courts have consistently ruled that parents may NOT endanger their own children because of their personal beliefs.  Since the parents could make no decision OTHER than approval of the abortion without running afoul of child endangerment laws, there is NO pressing need whatsoever to involve them at all.

Shrugs. Ok.  I'm ok with that.  The cornerstone being that you don't kill other human-beings.  So yea, that's fine.

Please, then, stop lying.

Say hi to der Führer.  The position you advocate leads directly to Hitler's policies.  Exterminate the unwanted.  I advocate that all human life has rights and should be protected.  It does cause resource and other problems.  However those problems are dealt with, never break rule #1. 

It's simply a different point on the same scale as you choose to slide down when you ruled out Apollo Project type efforts.  Again, it seems you and me and Hitler make three.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 29, 2008, 06:45:20 PM
I'm just playing devil's advocate here but one could make the exact same case regarding the right to bear arms. 

I think you're right and I similarly disagree with those efforts.  They are dishonest and underhanded.  The fundamental decision is clear.  People who disagree can either shove it or try to change the decision.  Trying to quietly erode the decision is bullshit.  Many of the deepest flaws in our society can be traced to our lazy attitude regarding fixing problems.  Our democratic systems tend to criminalize, then ignore, rather than seek out better answers.  Speed limits and drug laws are two good examples of this.  Instead of turning vast swaths of otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals, we need to get honest and serious about how we intend to approach these issues.  It sows disrespect for the law; normalizes and legitimizes dishonesty, oversimplification, and avoidance as problem-solving techniques; encourages a perverse perspective both of our fellow citizens and of law enforcement; and makes everyone in society ripe for victimization at the hands of essentially out of control "justice" mechanisms.  It's a damned poor show for a bunch of adults of an allegedly intelligent species.

They feel that they hold the high ground morally.

Their ends do not justify their means.  It undercuts the rule of law in this country.

I don't take personal offense and I don't think that you really do either.

No, I'm fine.

Women should have not only the right, but the unequivocal practice of being able to obtain an abortion, at any point of the pregnancy, upon demand.  All barriers to this goal should actively and fiercely removed where possible (social, economic, parental, etc) and reduced as much as possible otherwise (biological, physical, geographical)

No.  That is a means, not a goal.  If our society were able to remove the fetus and give it adequate care, I'd be all for that.  But we can't.  That's not just a scientific can't.  That's a financial can't and an unwillingness can't.  To me, this elevates the matter beyond right and wrong, as right and wrong do not apply to situations of helplessness.  Our society is not capable of taking care of the essentials for a quality human life.  This is independent of our ability or inclination to actually sustain the life.

The goal should be to enable abortion for all women

No again.  The goal should be to find ways to deal with the real and larger problems in a better fashion.  Abortion is a sad statement about the failures of our systems for pre-emption as well as our systems for post-natal social support.  Abortion is not the problem; it is the indicator of the problem.  Trying to directly suppress abortions using the power of the state is simply sweeping the real problems under the rug.  We should be GLAD that we have abortion available as a fallback position, because otherwise, other more severe problems would be far worse.  Criminalizing abortion would be like banning the use of canaries in mines because the canaries die.  For lack of a better system, we should be glad the canary is there, as it heads off far greater disasters.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: velkyn on October 31, 2008, 09:47:31 AM
You’ve presented an extreme position, e.g. genocide basically, as equivalent to abortion.  It is not, therefore you are presenting a strawman.
Well, I'll ask you the same thing I asked Dave.  Why is it not?  Beat the argument, rather than simply stating that your position is factually true.  Anytime someone makes a statement that 'situation X' does not constitute human life, and can therefore be ignored, red flags go up.  It's an inherently dangerous argument.  It leads to places I don't think you or Dave really intend to go.  I don't think you are monsters, don't present me as one for demanding really good evidence that 'situation x' actually is what you're portraying.

It an argument for terminating life, I'm going to hold you to a high standard.  I don't feel bad about it.  I don't feel I should.


You said made no exceptions about notification when you mentioned “if the parents were abusive”.  Read your own words.  It is not my fault that you may have not written what you intended. 
Look, I realize this is the internet and there is an inherent difficulty in expressing oneself.  You asked me to clarify my position, and I did.  I think it's somewhat pedantic, because the exception in my original post including emancipating the girl, which (and here's what I feel you are missing) automatically eliminates the need for parental notification.  You don't NEED to notify the parents of a legal adult.  I didn't elucidate that, because I assumed it went without saying.  I apologize for the confusion however.

You then try to excuse that statement by saying that that the law agrees with you.  I have shown you how it does not.
Your refutation to my statement was this:

Quote from: velkyn
I could argue that since teenagers can enlist in the military, they in fact are considered to be able to make decisions.
This refutes nothing.  They cannot enlist until they are 18, at which time they can vote.  I'm not arguing about 18/19 year olds, even though they are 'teenagers', because at that point they are legally adults.  Did you really not know what I meant? or were you just trying to find something to argue with?


If you did not mean such things, be more careful how you write.  It’s that simple.
Good advice.

Cyb, you are saying teenagers.  What does teh age 18 mean?  It's a teenager.  You have constantly attempted to move the goal posts.  First you claimed teenagers, and now you you say that you didn't mean actual teenagers.  You have created this imaginary subset that now doesn't include some teenagers, that somehow I should have read your mind.  If you are such a bad thinker that you cannot imagine any exceptions to your blanket statments and have to continually alter them, it's your problem, not mine. 
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Davedave on October 31, 2008, 06:25:58 PM
I thought I should bolster my claims about the risk involved with teen pregnancy.  The CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5202a1.htm) says that the death rate for teen mothers is 8.6 in 100000 live births.  Now, I am a little concerned about using live births to count dead mothers, but I suppose if the CDC finds that to be the most practical/useful way to do it, that's what we have to look at.  In any case, we're talking about rates of death that are roughly 100 times the acceptable risk levels set by agencies like the FDA, EPA, and OSHA.

Interestingly, I attempted to provide (as an analogy) an acute toxicity dose-response curve for a well-known chemical (like aspirin, Vitamin C, cough syrup, ethanol) and was unable to find one online.  All of the ones I have access to in hard copy are for chemicals that are so unfamiliar to most people as to be useless as context.  So, for anyone hoping for a nice comparison to some more familiar source of child endangerment, too bad.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Cyberia on October 31, 2008, 08:09:30 PM
I've been thinking about this debate much in the past days. 

Regarding the Pennsylvania law regarding insurance and also in the case of the waiting-period.  I wasn't particularly in favor of those situations before, but wasn't strongly against them either.  I have now come to realize how deeply abhorrent those are.  Yes, they do indeed erode the rights specified by the supreme court decision, and a clear and firm reversal needs to be done in those (and other) cases.  They actually open a Pandora's Box on far more than the issue at hand, and are extremely dangerous.

I have also come to realize what you meant when you said I was trapped by my line of thinking.  I had been interpreting your comment in a different light and misunderstood it.  It's a situation where compromise isn't possible (beyond that within RvW), if one adheres to a 'right vs wrong' principle.  However, I don't think that automatically invalidates my position.  I believe there are indeed times where a line in the sand needs to be drawn, but it gives me pause and makes me want to try to consider it from other viewpoints.

You may not believe it, but I had considered quality of life before and during my argument.  I had just rejected the argument out-of-hand as even a bad life is better than no life at all.  Additionally, it seems the supreme court agrees with my position in RvW.  I do agree that there are things worse than death, but an not convinced that is the situation here, at least for the majority of the time.  One could make the case as 'what right do you have to make that decision?', but the same could be argued in reverse.  At least, some of them will make it out of the bad situation they are in, whereas, you don't come back from death at all.   I still stand by my argument that we shouldn't invoke a policy of killing members of society we do not value.  You may view that as a strawman, because you understand the scope and details of your principles.  But will the next generation?  It take just one demagogue to pervert that suggestion into a catastrophe.  I feel it is better to keep that door closed on fundamental principle rather than risk generational interpretation of your suggestion.  That does trap oneself, but that may be better than the alternative.

I don't accept that the financial burden imposed on us by my policy is either impossible or even unreasonable.  I justify that by pointing to the amount of money we spend on killing and warfare, which dwarf EVERY other expenditure our government makes.  The amount of money we spend monthly in Iraq would fund a national health care system for a year.   The money is available, it is just not being spent where it is needed most.

I still have mixed feeling on parental notification, but tend to support it.  The supreme court has ruled that children in schools do not have the right to free speech.  Obviously, children do not have a number of other rights that we confer on adults in our society.  Can you point to a case where a parent was tried for child-endangerment for not allowing the child to have an abortion?  Do parental notification laws specifically exempt parents from legal responsibility in these cases?

Regarding the risk of birth for teen pregnancy in your most recent post, of course it isn't a tremendously risky event.  Reproduction is the fundamental mechanism for evolution.  4 billion years of life have fine tuned the procedure.  That's not to say there isn't some risk, nor that modern medicine doesn't improve the situation even more, but nature doesn't activate the reproductive systems of children before they are ready.  Consider that until modern times, children gave birth as soon as they were capable.  That's true in the entire animal kingdom.  I do agree that it puts more stress on their systems that it does for a 22 year old, however.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: bartly on November 01, 2008, 08:05:01 AM
I'm rather new to this whole "Wow, I'm not a Christian anymore" so please don't take my thoughts here as me "militantly arguing my side."
Think of me as in "research mode."

As far as abortion and stem cell research goes: When does life deserve to be protected?

It seems to me that I would not vote to allow a baby to be killed when it is 48 hours old.
 - You probably wouldn't either

But what about 48 hours before that?  What about 12 minutes before that?

Christian, religious or not, right now it seems to me that a fertilized egg is just as human as a 48 hour old baby.

When does life begin?

I dont care what some of these weirdos on this site think, to me, god creates all life. Now, im NOT trying to preach any religon, but life is above petty bigotrys anyhow, so im very, very, very pro life. Now this isnt eugenic nonsense; but i believe in extreme cases children shouldnt be born. When there is cripling illness, terminal brain damage etc, the child should be spared the pain.................But to KILL, an unborn child with even a below average chance of life is to me - PLAIN, COLDBLOODED, MURDER! - and i think it should be illigel
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: velkyn on November 03, 2008, 11:18:51 AM
I've been thinking about this debate much in the past days. 

Regarding the Pennsylvania law regarding insurance and also in the case of the waiting-period.  I wasn't particularly in favor of those situations before, but wasn't strongly against them either.  I have now come to realize how deeply abhorrent those are.  Yes, they do indeed erode the rights specified by the supreme court decision, and a clear and firm reversal needs to be done in those (and other) cases.  They actually open a Pandora's Box on far more than the issue at hand, and are extremely dangerous.

I have also come to realize what you meant when you said I was trapped by my line of thinking.  I had been interpreting your comment in a different light and misunderstood it.  It's a situation where compromise isn't possible (beyond that within RvW), if one adheres to a 'right vs wrong' principle.  However, I don't think that automatically invalidates my position.  I believe there are indeed times where a line in the sand needs to be drawn, but it gives me pause and makes me want to try to consider it from other viewpoints.

You may not believe it, but I had considered quality of life before and during my argument.  I had just rejected the argument out-of-hand as even a bad life is better than no life at all.  Additionally, it seems the supreme court agrees with my position in RvW.  I do agree that there are things worse than death, but an not convinced that is the situation here, at least for the majority of the time.  One could make the case as 'what right do you have to make that decision?', but the same could be argued in reverse.  At least, some of them will make it out of the bad situation they are in, whereas, you don't come back from death at all.   I still stand by my argument that we shouldn't invoke a policy of killing members of society we do not value.  You may view that as a strawman, because you understand the scope and details of your principles.  But will the next generation?  It take just one demagogue to pervert that suggestion into a catastrophe.  I feel it is better to keep that door closed on fundamental principle rather than risk generational interpretation of your suggestion.  That does trap oneself, but that may be better than the alternative.

I don't accept that the financial burden imposed on us by my policy is either impossible or even unreasonable.  I justify that by pointing to the amount of money we spend on killing and warfare, which dwarf EVERY other expenditure our government makes.  The amount of money we spend monthly in Iraq would fund a national health care system for a year.   The money is available, it is just not being spent where it is needed most.

I still have mixed feeling on parental notification, but tend to support it.  The supreme court has ruled that children in schools do not have the right to free speech.  Obviously, children do not have a number of other rights that we confer on adults in our society.  Can you point to a case where a parent was tried for child-endangerment for not allowing the child to have an abortion?  Do parental notification laws specifically exempt parents from legal responsibility in these cases?

Regarding the risk of birth for teen pregnancy in your most recent post, of course it isn't a tremendously risky event.  Reproduction is the fundamental mechanism for evolution.  4 billion years of life have fine tuned the procedure.  That's not to say there isn't some risk, nor that modern medicine doesn't improve the situation even more, but nature doesn't activate the reproductive systems of children before they are ready.  Consider that until modern times, children gave birth as soon as they were capable.  That's true in the entire animal kingdom.  I do agree that it puts more stress on their systems that it does for a 22 year old, however.

I'm not sure what you mean by "nature doesn't activate the reproductive systesms of children before they are ready".  We have kids going into puberty earlier and earlier.  Are they "ready"?  By whose definition?  I have had cats that have had kittens and being physicaly capable doesn't not mean that they know what to do with the kittens after they are born.  I've had to watch too many critters die because what you say isn't true. 

If you believe in parental notification and that abortions are wrong, what are you willing to do to make sure babies are born as "healthy" as possible?  Camps for women?  Tie them down so they can't do anything that "might" harm the fetus?  Now caffeine is under the microscope as being a thing bad for developing embryos.  No more starbucks for pregnant women? 

Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: IwasWrong on November 05, 2008, 04:22:23 PM
Well then, back on topic.

The Stem Cell proposition passed.

I look forward to someone finding something useful with this research.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: urs on November 06, 2008, 01:15:49 AM
Well then, back on topic.

The Stem Cell proposition passed.

I look forward to someone finding something useful with this research.

I am nearly positive that a lot of enormously useful research will be gleaned from this. Those otherwise trashed fetuses may be responsible for saving lives, with the potential to save thousands or millions. I doubt it will all have been for nothing. People are fighting for it because of all the good it can do, not because they want to kill babies. I think it is safe to say that it is better to use a "potential" life to save many, than to allow the continued suffering of those already alive for the sake of a "potential human", especially if that potential human will be garbage in the morning. Surely, it's not the ideal situation, but I think we're making the absolute best of it.
Title: Re: When does life deserve to be protected?
Post by: Red McWilliams on November 06, 2008, 09:46:21 PM
I dont care what some of these weirdos on this site think, to me, god creates all life. Now, im NOT trying to preach any religon, but life is above petty bigotrys anyhow, so im very, very, very pro life. Now this isnt eugenic nonsense; but i believe in extreme cases children shouldnt be born. When there is cripling illness, terminal brain damage etc, the child should be spared the pain.................But to KILL, an unborn child with even a below average chance of life is to me - PLAIN, COLDBLOODED, MURDER! - and i think it should be illigel

Yes, yes, we all know what you and you're ilk think about this.  The fascinating part, to me, is that the instant that unborn child becomes a born child, you and your ilk don't give half a shit about it.  At that point, you and your ilk do everything you can to make life as difficult as possible for the mother of that child to have even a below average chance at a decent life.

Until you get every unwanted born child off the streets, out of orphanages and out of foster homes, you don't need to give thought one to the unborn.