Abortion

[ledhed]

Sorry to be late , but I asked a question as before I argue or discuss anything , its nice to know the room . The SCOTUS went through great trouble to determine using the best science of that time , when life began , as a fetus has constitutional protections if it is the opposite of brain dead or aware .
The state then can not sanction murder of fetus by abortion if its a tiny person in the womb .
I guess without reading Roe vs Wade , you can't understand how the government reasoned the abortion issue or understand how in US all abortion is not equal .
So I went away from religion and hypothetical and gave you the law in the USA that allows abortion and in it the reasoning they used .
So the question is has anyone actually read it ? And if so where did they go wrong or right ?

 

[TenEightyOne]

@photonrider has, as we say here, "had his weetabix"

I've got a question on a technicality for you @Danoff, at what point does the foetus become human, the point of umbilical separation?

 

[Famine]

I'll repeat this for you (slowly) so your sypnapses have time to intercept the concept:

If you still cannot wrap your perceptions around that

Wow.

Play nice or don't play.

 

[FoolKiller]

When a mother (an energy that creates something out of itself)

is responsible for her birth (gives birth to herself)

I think this might be the sticking point, and still is. As no one can give birth to herself, it is hard to see how it applies to a real-world situation, such as Danoff is discussing. It's relevance to what he said is confusing outside of some weird hypothetical, never-going-to-happen, philosophical world.

My wife gave birth to our daughter, and that was a huge task that seemed miraculous. Giving birth to herself...well, I'd start a church that worships her if she can pull that off.

 

[Danoff]

Semantics of course, but I try to avoid using "commit suicide", as it's a hangover from when suicide was not merely illegal, but a criminal act.

Drawing a cartoon that uses speech bubbles, it's wise to write the speech content first, then work out how best to frame it. Otherwise it's very easy to stuff it up. It seems that your way does it the other way around, in that the framework is rigidly in place, then the content is mangled and contorted to fit within those lines. It's an almost pharisaical way of remaining true to the ethos in name, but not in nature.

To me, it's not about theft or suicide, but choice. "I'm choosing to act in a way that will ensure that you do not get what you paid for".

ie: Theft.

If you think what I wrote is semantics, I didn't write it very well. I'm speaking about acts and their morality, not making silly arguments based entirely around arbitrary names.

I've got a question on a technicality for you @Danoff, at what point does the foetus become human, the point of umbilical separation?

A fetus is always genetically human. Prior to being a fetus, it is an embryo that is also genetically human. Prior to being an embryo it is egg and sperm who's DNA is still human.

 

[TenEightyOne]

A fetus is always genetically human. Prior to being a fetus, it is an embryo that is also genetically human. Prior to being an embryo it is egg and sperm who's DNA is still human.

Following from that; at what point do you feel the foetus has natural rights? When in the birth (or its overall life) do its rights equal those of its mother?

 

[Danoff]

Following from that; at what point do you feel the foetus has natural rights? When in the birth (or its overall life) do its rights equal those of its mother?

Somewhere around 6-9 months after birth. We draw the line at birth because it is earlier than necessary and convenient.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Somewhere around 6-9 months after birth. We draw the line at birth because it is earlier than necessary and convenient.

And what do you define "birth" as?

Who are "we", and what would be "necessary"?

 

[Danoff]

And what do you define "birth" as?

Physical separation of mother and child.

Who are "we", and what would be "necessary"?

Necessary is that which is consistent with morals. "We" is poor shorthand for a moral society.

 

[LeMansAid]

If you think what I wrote is semantics, I didn't write it very well. I'm speaking about acts and their morality, not making silly arguments based entirely around arbitrary names.

That was purely an aside, and nothing to do with my main point. Chances are it was me that didn't write clearly enough.

My main point was about the difference between having a rigid system (Rights-orama) that tries to manipulate the interpretation of societal machinations to fit itself, versus a system designed around the logical and actual machinations of a society.

Theft and child abuse are both crimes. Evading police is also a crime, because of the existence of theft, child abuse, and many other crimes. Evasion and suicide are both potentially "the getaway" if you will. Police evasion laws aim to protect society, suicide illegality does/would aim to protect society, not being allowed go against a doctor's advice in situations of the highest risk does/would aim to protect society.

I realise that you may well think it's perfectly fine to evade police.

 

[BobK]

Theft and child abuse are both crimes. Evading police is also a crime, because of the existence of theft, child abuse, and many other crimes. Evasion and suicide are both potentially "the getaway" if you will. Police evasion laws aim to protect society, suicide illegality does/would aim to protect society, not being allowed go against a doctor's advice in situations of the highest risk does/would aim to protect society.

I realise that you may well think it's perfectly fine to evade police.

If I understand you correctly, and there's a fair chance I do not, you're saying that one of the arguments against suicide is it's a way of evading the police. But why are the police after you in the first place? Ultimately, to try to ensure that you don't commit a crime again. Seems to me that suicide would also prevent you from committing a crime (assuming suicide isn't itself considered a crime).

 

[LeMansAid]

No, evading responsibilities. For example - children left behind that may then be at the mercy of a society's generosity (or lack of), and unfairly burden that society.

We had written about it earlier.

 

[Exorcet]

not being allowed go against a doctor's advice in situations of the highest risk does/would aim to protect society.

The solution isn't just a blanket no to suicide. If your suicide would lead to you abandoning a responsibility, then it shouldn't be allowed. However just because suicide might lead to an unfulfilled responsibility doesn't mean no one should be given the option.

 

[Danoff]

The solution isn't just a blanket no to suicide. If your suicide would lead to you abandoning a responsibility, then it shouldn't be allowed. However just because suicide might lead to an unfulfilled responsibility doesn't mean no one should be given the option.

@LeMansAid

This is what I'm talking about. There is nothing inherently wrong with suicide, so it shouldn't be illegal. There is something inherently wrong with abandoning your child, and that shouldn't be legal regardless of whether you do it through suicide or through some other legal activity, like walking away.

You raise an interesting point with police evasion. I can't see any real reason why police evasion should be a crime in and of itself. Now if you were, say, driving 100 mph down a public street putting everyone else's lives at risk and eventually destroying property - that would certainly be several legitimate crimes. I haven't thought a lot about police evasion.

 

[ledhed]

In the eyes of the law , they had to determine when a fetus had rights under the US Constitution and thus protection under the law afforded a person .
Law is secular and in Roe vs. Wade they used science to set the trimester when " life " afforded protection under US law began .
.Morality and Religion . Left.at the curb .
Killing is unlawful. Except when it is Legal by law .
Self defense for example .
Death penalty . Etc.

 

[Danoff]

In the eyes of the law , they had to determine when a fetus had rights under the US Constitution and thus protection under the law afforded a person .
Law is secular and in Roe vs. Wade they used science to set the trimester when " life " afforded protection under US law began .
.Morality and Religion . Left.at the curb .
Killing is unlawful. Except when it is Legal by law .
Self defense for example .
Death penalty . Etc.

Killing is an amoral term. Sometimes killing is moral, sometimes it is not. I wholly reject the notion that science has one single answer to when human life should be afforded protection and that somehow that answer was found by the court in Roe vs. Wade. The principle comes from philosophy, the information comes from science. And philosophy does not say "somewhere around the 3rd trimester is what feels icky".

 

[KSaiyu]

It's one of the things there will never be a consensus on. The mind does sometime boggle when you have to go from consoling an expectant mother and offering counseling on the bereavement of their "unborn child" to "treating" unwanted pregnancies, hiding the "products of conception" as if they were used sharps.

 

[ledhed]

To me killing is killing and I must use my own set of values to determine how I feel about it despite what any law may say , since at one time slavery was the law for one example .
I used Roe vs. Wade as an example where the government tried to be Solamon and made a compromise that to this day has never satisfied a large minority that used to be a majority . It seems our public morality evolves also and law just plays catch up.
In the end its my opinion that once a fetus is viable outside the womb its under protection of the law . Before that time its a private matter .
only in cased where mother is at risk or its a rape or other special circumstance like incest would I allow abortion after the baby was viable with medical support .
In general I want the government as far way from me as possible on all issues that involve individual freedom .

But at some point the fetus becomes an individual and thats the sticky point as it then has protection from murder or illegal killing .

 

[Danoff]

But at some point the fetus becomes an individual and thats the sticky point as it then has protection from murder or illegal killing .

...and you seem to be defining that not based on a single attribute of the fetus but rather attributes of our technology. By your definition, if we were able to cultivate an embryo from conception to child entirely in a lab, no abortion at any stage would be moral. This will eventually happen.

Beyond that, since science is capable of taking an egg and sperm and creating an embryo already, I would assume that if we could keep that embryo alive all the way through to birth that you would consider the discarding of any sperm and egg as immoral.

In otherwords, no way.

 

[ledhed]

I am not qualified to decide that question .
So clear that up real fast . I am just putting forth what others have done to base our laws on the issue on.
I am still in the need more learning stage and like many in a very unsettled state on the issue as I do not know seems to be a totally inexcusable response to something so important.
All I can do is try to learn more .
My Gut tells me abortion is killing a potential person , at one point and a PERSON at another .
What I can't decide or determine is , when is a fetus a person ?
Greater minds than mine have tried. I have yet to find a comfortable answer despite all of the argument both theological and scientific.

 

[Dude27]

To me and as a "male" I say, not my business, period. And you should have the same statement... IT IS NOT YOUR BODY, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS! fetus is NOT a person yet.

 

[KSaiyu]

I never understand that argument, and it's increasingly used in the press to oppose changes to abortion law. It's a level of thinking just above the statement "you can't possibly understand what I'm going through". Men are much more rarely raped than women yet no-one has a problem with men passing laws on rapists.

 

[zzz_pt]

The human fetus is similar to any other mammal. It's not a person yet.

There are people even defending that we only became a person / personality at about 2 or 3yo. I won't go that far, but I'm in full support of abortion.

Why would a fetus have priority over the body and will of the person who carries it?

 

[KSaiyu]

Only in very exceptional cases would a foetus have priority

 

[sammy neuman]

@zzz_pt : "The human foetus is similar..." I understand that statement to mean: from conception until time X a human foetus does not have a DNA fingerprint that:
1) Identifies the foetus as human, and
2) identifies the foetus as a unique individual.
Is my understanding of your meaning correct?

 

[Famine]

@zzz_pt : "The human foetus is similar..." I understand that statement to mean: from conception until time X a human foetus does not have a DNA fingerprint that:
1) Identifies the foetus as human, and
2) identifies the foetus as a unique individual.
Is my understanding of your meaning correct?

That would be correct. The DNA "fingerprint" would identify it only as human origin cells - as it would for either the sperm or egg progenitor of the foetus.

 

[zzz_pt]

@sammy neuman

That's right.

We can already grow liver cells in labs and we don't say or think it's a human being. Having human DNA doesn't mean that it's a human being. To be is not the same as to exist. A human liver in a lab is not diferent than a fetus in a womb. Both have human DNA but none of them IS a human being / person.

 

[KSaiyu]

I like your line of thinking. Next time I'm on the train sitting in a priority seat I'm going to refuse to give up my seat for a heavily pregnant woman. Why should I give up my comfort for someone with an extra lot of cells in her belly just as I shouldn't be expected to for someone with an excess of adipose tissue.

 

[zzz_pt]

I like your line of thinking. Next time I'm on the train sitting in a priority seat I'm going to refuse to give up my seat for a heavily pregnant woman. Why should I give up my comfort for someone with an extra lot of cells in her belly just as I shouldn't be expected to for someone with an excess of adipose tissue.

I'm not against pregnancy. We're talking about abortion, not pregnancy or morality in public spaces.

If you're in a train and you see a heavily pregnant woman probably she wants to have that baby (because you'll only notice her belly after 3 or sometimes 4 months of pregnancy). If she wanted to abort, she would do it before you even notice her pregnant belly.

You're reading something that isn't there.

 

[KSaiyu]

No, I'm reading something that is there but people choose to claim ignorance about as a matter of convenience. That same pregnant lady - at her routine scan she discovers her baby (your word not mine) has a cleft lip and decides to abort..