When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2017, 10:59 AM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(21-02-2017 09:29 AM)SYZ Wrote:  There is no legal impediment in Victoria to a pregnant woman smoking tobacco, or consuming alcohol and/or illicit drugs. Those activities cannot be used in a court of law if the foetus or the full-term baby is affected negatively either physically or mentally. In the past, biological fathers have attempted to mount a civil case of neglect or abuse against the mothers of babies so affected, but all have failed.

In some of the "Deep South" US states, there are such laws... basically, anywhere you have groups of Christian theocrats trying to "back-door" their anti-abortion ideas into law through surreptitious means. Generally, they have been unsuccessful, or have been struck down by higher courts, but it's still law in a few places, such as Tennessee (about 30 miles away from me... sigh).

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 11:55 AM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(21-02-2017 10:57 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Are you not reading what I write? I pointed out that the right to life that even fully grown adults possess does not exceed the right to not be compelled to subjugate one's own bodily integrity on behalf of anyone else, adult or fetus.

By you stating that the fetus has "some autonomous rights of it's [sic] own", you are making it clear that you are either ignoring the "this would not even apply in the case of a fully grown adult citizen" portion of my posts, or somehow think that a fetus possesses rights that adults do not. What the legal basis for that might be, I would not even begin to guess... and I'm pretty certain you don't either, as you seem to be talking almost entirely out of your ass.

Just to be clear here. Currently abortion in pretty much every country, state, with very few exceptions, places restrictions at different stages of the pregnancy, with the biggest restrictions imposed late in the pregnancy, allowing for abortions only in extreme circumstances i.e life of the mother, etc...

Most people are generally fine with this, very few believe that there shouldn't be any restrictions at any time in the pregnancy imposed by the government, state or federal.

You on the other hand believe that all legal restrictions should be removed, and that it should be left solely to the discretion of the doctor, and the women carrying the fetus? Is that correct?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 12:08 PM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(21-02-2017 11:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Just to be clear here. Currently abortion in pretty much every country, state, with very few exceptions, places restrictions at different stages of the pregnancy, with the biggest restrictions imposed late in the pregnancy, allowing for abortions only in extreme circumstances i.e life of the mother, etc. [...]

Can you clarify what you mean by "different stages" and "late" in the pregnancy.

And other than acknowledging the life of the mother as being paramount, what other scenarios would you consider legal abortion acceptable? Paedophilia; rape; incest; drug affected; mental retardation; inebriation?

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 01:32 PM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(21-02-2017 12:08 PM)SYZ Wrote:  Can you clarify what you mean by "different stages" and "late" in the pregnancy.

"As of December 2014, forty-two states had bans on late-term abortions that were not facially unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade (i.e. banning all abortions) or enjoined by court order.[25] In addition, the Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart ruled that Congress may ban certain late-term abortion techniques, "both previability and postviability".
The Supreme Court has held that bans must include exceptions for threats to the woman's life, physical health, and mental health, but four states allow late-term abortions only when the woman's life is at risk; four allow them when the woman's life or physical health is at risk, but use a definition of health that pro-choice organizations believe is impermissibly narrow.[25] Assuming that one of these state bans is constitutionally flawed, then that does not necessarily mean that the entire ban would be struck down: "invalidating the statute entirely is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief."[26]
Eighteen states prohibit abortion after a certain number of weeks' gestation (usually 22 weeks from the last menstrual period).[25] The U.S. Supreme Court held in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services that a statute may create "a presumption of viability" after a certain number of weeks, in which case the physician must be given an opportunity to rebut the presumption by performing tests.[27] Because this provision is not explicitly written into these state laws, as it was in the Missouri law examined in Webster, pro-choice organizations believe that such a state law is unconstitutional, but only "to the extent that it prohibits pre-viability abortions".[28]
Ten states (although Florida's enforcement of such laws are under permanent injunction) require a second physician to approve.[25] The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a requirement of "confirmation by two other physicians" (rather than one other physician) because "acquiescence by co-practitioners has no rational connection with a patient's needs and unduly infringes on the physician's right to practice".[29] Pro-choice organizations such as the Guttmacher Institute therefore interpret some of these state laws to be unconstitutional, based on these and other Supreme Court rulings, at least to the extent that these state laws require approval of a second or third physician.[25]
Thirteen states have laws that require a second physician to be present during late-term abortion procedures in order to treat a fetus if born alive.[25] The Court has held that a doctor's right to practice is not infringed by requiring a second physician to be present at abortions performed after viability in order to assist in the case of a living fetus.[30]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termi...ted_States
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 01:35 PM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
If someone believes that a human life starts at conception, then I won't dispute them. They can have that belief if that is how they define it for themselves. But that doesn't mean I have to agree nor that anyone else has to. So while they might see it as a human life at conception, someone else might not see it as a human life until birth or until it has developed to the point of having distinctly and uniquely human physical traits. As long as we can all agree that it is definitely human outside the womb, and definitely not anyone else's business until that moment, we can get along.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
21-02-2017, 01:56 PM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(20-02-2017 08:00 PM)Rik Wrote:  How about when it has a brain and nervous system?
Before that it is just cells - it can't feel pain or anything else, it doesn't think, it is not a human being.
I think it is nonsense to dehumanise the early term fetus. It certainly isn't an argument that makes any sense to the pro-lifers. So who are you using this argument on? It's not even a scientifically valid argument. Your idea of what does or does not constitute a human being is not based on anything solid.



(21-02-2017 05:28 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The difference between the 8- and 10-month point, referenced above, is that the born child is no longer attached to and endangering the life of the mother.
Sure, but most pro-choicers would want protection for the 8 month unborn. My viability argument comes into this because taking an 8 month unborn out of the womb is actually a birth rather than an abortion. The 8 month will most likely survive. So if the mother is overly worried about the "endangerment" her "normal" pregnancy is having on herself, she can opt to have a voluntary cesarean section and that would not kill the fetus.

With regards to earlier term that would actually result in an abortion, I very much doubt (in most cases) that the woman is having an abortion because of her concerns for the pregnancy "endangering the life of the mother". The reason why she aborts (in most cases) is because she doesn't want the fetus to continue to develop into a baby that she then legally must care for. There are other reasons underlying that (e.g. affordability, marital status, age etc) but for whatever the reason, us pro-choicers want the choice to be the mothers, we aren't just defending the "in certain circumstances" position. Therefore, it makes no sense for us to argue from the point of view of "endangering the life of the mother" or from the point of view of "economically viable". Our view is that it is the mother's choice regardless of the reason. Therefore our arguments in favour of abortion should be general rather than specific to certain situations.

(21-02-2017 05:28 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The right to bodily integrity means that, as in the example I keep giving, even if a fully-developed adult was attached to my body for its survival and endangering my life in order to sustain the other life, I would always have the option to sever that attachment, resulting in the death of the person attached to me. Same if I was attached to someone else.
I disagree with this argument.
We, as a society put huge constraints onto legal guardians of dependent children. Babies especially are hugely dependent. We require, by law, that the legal guardians spend their time and money feeding and looking after their dependents in a way that is deemed proper. We do not give them the option to just walk away. They cannot leave their babies unattended at home, in a car, they cannot just walk into a forest and leave their baby behind. Now with regards to a fully grown adult, I can can walk into a forest with my adult offspring and leave without them. I will not be charged of a crime. So I don't think it makes sense to equate a fetus with a grown adult and claim that the responsibilities of the parent should be the same.

The argument with regards to "forcing a woman to look after her fetus despite it being to the detriment of her own life/body" is a weak argument IMO. A woman generally does not abort due to the dangers the fetus presents to her body. She aborts generally because she doesn't want the fetus to develop into a dependent baby that she then has legal obligation to take care of.
Her abortion is to intentionally kill the fetus/embryo before it gets to the stage that she is legally obliged to care for it.

(21-02-2017 07:05 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Just because a baby hasn't exited your vagina, doesn't mean it doesn't have a right to life. And luckily most jurisdictions agree. If your the sort of woman who would abort an 8 month old fetus, just because you changed your mind, you should be deemed as a sociopath, not much different than woman who would commit infanticide.
I think probably many pro-choicers would agree with this.
My point is that once the fetus/baby is out of the womb, you would then need to take further action in order to terminate its life and many people would consider that to be a step too far.


(21-02-2017 09:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So yes a women does have a responsibility, and obligation both morally and legally to the fetus inside of her. She has the moral responsibility to insure she takes the proper precautions, avoids alcohol, drugs, to take the appropriate care for it etc….
There is no way to discover objective morals, morality is just a personal belief. You cannot apply your personal beliefs as binding constraints on others. This is just your personal opinion. You believe the pregnant woman has these responsibilities, but she is under no obligation to conform to your own personal beliefs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
21-02-2017, 02:32 PM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(21-02-2017 01:56 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I think probably many pro-choicers would agree with this.
My point is that once the fetus/baby is out of the womb, you would then need to take further action in order to terminate its life and many people would consider that to be a step too far.

Most people view late term abortions, to be a step too far, other than in extreme circumstance. Though a decent amount of people think restrictions should be removed, and the choice being reserved solely for the carrier of the fetus, no matter the stage of pregnancy or the circumstances. Then there's other who support infanticide, but typically a restricted form, with the restrictions others often impose on late term abortions.


Quote:There is no way to discover objective morals, morality is just a personal belief. You cannot apply your personal beliefs as binding constraints on others.

I can, by voting for candidates that represent the values I hold, or at least support policies that represent those values. Folks like Rocketsurgeon might favor unrestricted abortion no matter whatever the stage of pregnancy or circumstance, but as long as his views are a minority view of among the electorate, and the candidates they choose, my values, in the form of legal restrictions, are binding on him and others.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
21-02-2017, 05:43 PM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2017 05:48 PM by Rik.)
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(21-02-2017 01:56 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(20-02-2017 08:00 PM)Rik Wrote:  How about when it has a brain and nervous system?
Before that it is just cells - it can't feel pain or anything else, it doesn't think, it is not a human being.
I think it is nonsense to dehumanise the early term fetus. It certainly isn't an argument that makes any sense to the pro-lifers. So who are you using this argument on? It's not even a scientifically valid argument. Your idea of what does or does not constitute a human being is not based on anything solid.

A mass of undifferentiated cells is not a human being.

A mass of somewhat differentiated cells lacking a circulatory system, nervous system, brain or other organs is not a human being.

This argument is science-based.

The idea that a woman should be free to opt for an abortion after the fetus has become viable is not an argument that should be defended. The mother had 7+ months to maker the decision - at that point she has committed to having the child.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rik's post
21-02-2017, 07:09 PM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(21-02-2017 02:32 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Most people view late term abortions, to be a step too far,

Prove it.

Quote:Though a decent amount of people think restrictions should be removed, and the choice being reserved solely for the carrier of the fetus, no matter the stage of pregnancy or the circumstances.

prove it. Define 'decent".

Quote:Then there's other who support infanticide, but typically a restricted form, with the restrictions others often impose on late term abortions.

Other than you, prove it.

Quote:I can, by voting for candidates that represent the values I hold, or at least support policies that represent those values. Folks like Rocketsurgeon might favor unrestricted abortion no matter whatever the stage of pregnancy or circumstance, but as long as his views are a minority view of among the electorate, and the candidates they choose, my values, in the form of legal restrictions, are binding on him and others.

Not necessarily. He can travel.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 07:33 PM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(21-02-2017 05:43 PM)Rik Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 01:56 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I think it is nonsense to dehumanise the early term fetus. It certainly isn't an argument that makes any sense to the pro-lifers. So who are you using this argument on? It's not even a scientifically valid argument. Your idea of what does or does not constitute a human being is not based on anything solid.

A mass of undifferentiated cells is not a human being.

A mass of somewhat differentiated cells lacking a circulatory system, nervous system, brain or other organs is not a human being.

This argument is science-based.

The idea that a woman should be free to opt for an abortion after the fetus has become viable is not an argument that should be defended. The mother had 7+ months to maker the decision - at that point she has committed to having the child.

It's not a cat, a dog or a dolphin, nor is it a rock. It is a living human in its very early stages of life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: