Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Giving The Kids A Chance  
User currently offlineAllstarflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1773 times:

"North Dakota House Gives Fertilized Eggs Human Status"

Good for them.  thumbsup 

51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSW733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6324 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1756 times:

Me thinks you may have started an all out political/moral argument here, my friend.

I personally am pro-choice and think this is a bit extreme. But hey, that's me. So I say "bad for them"


User currently offlineCasInterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4623 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1752 times:

It's a clear challenge to Roe vs Wade, and basically a litmus case for the Supreme court.

The Supreme court used a consitutional and scientific reasoning on determining when life begins for the purpose of Roe Vs Wades decision.

This law basically stands at odds with the decision in Roe Vs Wade that made assertions about the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus being differentiated. It won't pass the muster of a Supreme court challenge.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineAllstarflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1743 times:



Quoting CasInterest (Reply 2):
It won't pass the muster of a Supreme court challenge.

We shall see.

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 2):
The Supreme court used a consitutional and scientific reasoning

Both could be said in favor of this bill, too . . .


User currently offlineCasInterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4623 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1740 times:



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 3):

Both could be said in favor of this bill, too . .

This law ignores the mother though. and that will be where it fails.


Homestly laws like this won't make a difference. Abortion is like prostitution. Even being illegal , it will still be done.

I don't agree with Abortion for most reasons, but i believe it should be an option in extreme cases.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19699 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1717 times:

The problem is that this means that intrauterine devices and emergency contraception would be illegal.

A fertilized egg cannot become a baby without implanting in the uterus. This step is as important as fertilization itself. So the distinction is a bit artificial.

It also raises the question of what to do with banked fertilized eggs. Keep them frozen forever? If the power fails, is that genocide? Mass murder?

I'm a bit uncomfortable with all this.

I'm also uncomfortable with fertilizing a human egg just to destroy the embryo for stem cell research, but I think this decision has too many far-reaching implications for healthcare and reproductive rights and I don't like it at all.

And if this fertilized egg is the product of a rape? Do we put the poor woman (or girl) through a pregnancy because of that?


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21625 posts, RR: 55
Reply 6, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1706 times:

If the North Dakota legislature really wanted to "give the kids a chance", they'd spend the money they're going to spend on the inevitable Supreme Court challenge to this on improving their education system. So let's call this like it is - the North Dakota House wants to ban abortion.

Also, it seems that Dan Ruby, R-Minot, needs to read up on his Constitution a bit:

"This language is not as aggressive as the direct ban legislation that I've proposed in the past," Ruby said during House floor debate on Tuesday. "This is very simply defining when life begins, and giving that life some protections under our Constitution — the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

That's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 4):
I don't agree with Abortion for most reasons, but i believe it should be an option in extreme cases.

Exactly. One can never make a blanket statement on stuff like this. Abortion is not a pleasant thing, and it shouldn't be used in lieu of other forms of birth control. But there are always going to be situations in which it is the right thing to do.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
And if this fertilized egg is the product of a rape? Do we put the poor woman (or girl) through a pregnancy because of that?

There is also the question of what would happen were the mother's life threatened by the continuation of the pregnancy.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19699 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1702 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 6):

There is also the question of what would happen were the mother's life threatened by the continuation of the pregnancy.

Admittedly, that's a rare one. In general, the decision is that the mother's life comes first. I have never seen a situation, however, in which a viable pregnancy was aborted after 25 weeks due to a life-threatening situation. You might have to deliver, but the baby goes to the NICU. The outcomes at 24-25 weeks are often quite poor, so you try to hold off as long as possible, but if mom has a blood pressure of 230/150 and is having a seizure, you have to deliver.


User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1699 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 6):
That's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution

Also from the Bill of Rights, as in

Quote:
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

. If a fetus is a live person, then abortion does violate the above. None of us chose the cicumstances of our conception, does the differance make one life less protected than the next?

[Edited 2009-02-18 11:26:55]


Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19699 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1685 times:



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 8):

. If a fetus is a live person, then abortion does violate the above. None of us chose the cicumstances of our conception, does the differance make one life less protected than the next?

But the definition of "person" varies. For example, under the strictest interpretation of Jewish law, a male infant is not a true "person" until his circumcision at 8 days old.

This definition is clearly pushed by Christian political forces and that also makes me uncomfortable.

Either way, this all smacks of a political stunt. It's going to get knocked down by the Supreme Court and then some Limbaugh-esque loudmouth is going to rail on about how the courts are legislating from the bench and how democracy is dead and how we're in a Liberal Communist Dictatorship that commits genocide and blah-blah-blah.

Turns my stomach, really, to see these games getting played with peoples' lives.


User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1682 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):
But the definition of "person" varies. For example, under the strictest interpretation of Jewish law, a male infant is not a true "person" until his circumcision at 8 days old.

But that is not the law we live under, and that argument is a bit of a canard. IF we define a fetus as a live person, then you have to admit that abortion violates the principle of equal protection under the law. In many jurisdictions, a person who kills a pregnant woman can be charged with two counts of homicide, so the idea of a fetus as a citizen is not entirely without precedent.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):
Either way, this all smacks of a political stunt.

Just like the coat hanger waving mobs.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):
Turns my stomach, really, to see these games getting played with peoples' lives.

Yes, but whose lives? Surely you can see how the need to set a legal definition has far reaching consequences, not only for abortion, but for euthanasia and end of life care as well.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39884 posts, RR: 74
Reply 11, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1654 times:

From the article;
Ruby said the state has been willing to go to bat for other principles that were less important.

That's for damn sure. We are on the brink of an economic depression and these lawmakers want to waste their time with the tired old abortion argument.
As North Dakota's Republican governor John Hoeven was in Washington expecting stimulus money, members of his party are back at home bickering over abortion.  boggled 



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21625 posts, RR: 55
Reply 12, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1644 times:



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 8):
If a fetus is a live person, then abortion does violate the above.

But a fetus isn't a live person. It's a fetus.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 8):
None of us chose the cicumstances of our conception, does the differance make one life less protected than the next?

No, it doesn't. The fact that one fetus is aborted and another is not does not mean that the one that wasn't had extra legal protection.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 10):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):
Either way, this all smacks of a political stunt.

Just like the coat hanger waving mobs.

Sure. And as usual, the sensible people who make up the majority are going to have one ideology or another forced upon them.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1635 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 12):
But a fetus isn't a live person. It's a fetus.

So a fetus isn't alive, or it isn't a person? Or both? If it is alive but not a person, what is it? If it is only a person at birth, at what point during the birth? The onset of labor, when the head emerges, or when the last part leaves (breach born babies could really lose on that one)? And why? If it is not a person until it is born, are fathers not liable for child support until after the birth? If it is not a person, does that mean the mothers care or lack of during pregnancy cannot be considered in custody matters? Look at all the worms in that can. Where do we draw the distintion and how do we justify it?

Quoting Mir (Reply 12):
The fact that one fetus is aborted and another is not does not mean that the one that wasn't had extra legal protection.

Not quite what I was angling at. Was the aborted fetus afforded less legal protection?

Quoting Mir (Reply 12):
And as usual, the sensible people who make up the majority are going to have one ideology or another forced upon them.

Unless they actually find and advocate a sensible solution.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2760 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1629 times:

I've got a few choice words for the representative that introduced this garbage, but I'd get banned for them.

The argument that a single cell equals a human being completely escapes me. There is no part of that warped logic that I can wrap my mind around. It has no place in the law of any state.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21625 posts, RR: 55
Reply 15, posted (5 years 7 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1610 times:



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 13):
So a fetus isn't alive, or it isn't a person?

It's a living fetus.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 13):
Where do we draw the distintion and how do we justify it?

Here's the line: when you can reasonably say that if the baby was delivered at that moment, it could survive on its own without the aid of an intensive care unit. At and after that point, I have a problem with an abortion unless the life of the mother is threatened (acknowledging DocLightning's post above). But up until that point, when the embryo/fetus is entirely dependent on something else for survival, I would not consider it with the same status as someone who is capable of surviving on their own.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 13):
Was the aborted fetus afforded less legal protection?

That's the point entirely - no. If one didn't have extra, the other didn't have less.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (5 years 7 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1602 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 15):
it could survive on its own without the aid of an intensive care unit.

But that will vary depending on the level of technology available at the time and place, so fetuses in poor areas are people much later than those in well developed areas, and in the future what was a fetus one day would have been a person following an advancement in medical technology. Sort of an fickle line for something so important, wouldn't you say?



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 7 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1592 times:

Pretty soon unfertilized eggs and sperm are going to be considered "possible humans" or life. I mean, in a way, sperm are alive. They swim......I can't imagine HOW many billions upon billions of possible children I've killed in the past 16 years....?

UAL


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21625 posts, RR: 55
Reply 18, posted (5 years 7 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1582 times:



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 16):
But that will vary depending on the level of technology available at the time and place

No it won't, because the ability of the fetus to survive outside the womb is, as I said, not dependent on technology.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (5 years 7 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1579 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
not dependent on technology

While I have no statistics to back this up, it would seem to me that this would occur at a younger age in the US vs. Bangladesh, or even in a wealthy suburb vs. Appalachia.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineCadet57 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 9085 posts, RR: 30
Reply 20, posted (5 years 7 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1575 times:



Quoting Allstarflyer (Thread starter):
Good for them.   

Yes, kudos to eggs!  sarcastic 

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 17):
.I can't imagine HOW many billions upon billions of possible children I've killed in the past 16 years....?

Well,that explains why I was told it was a sin  devil 



Doors open, right hand side, next stop is Springfield.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21625 posts, RR: 55
Reply 21, posted (5 years 7 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1575 times:



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 19):
While I have no statistics to back this up, it would seem to me that this would occur at a younger age in the US vs. Bangladesh, or even in a wealthy suburb vs. Appalachia.

Well now you're talking about the ability of a child to survive. Which is not the same as a fetus surviving birth, which is what the topic is about.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAllstarflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (5 years 7 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1572 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 12):
Quoting Lowrider (Reply 8):
If a fetus is a live person, then abortion does violate the above.

But a fetus isn't a live person. It's a fetus.



Quoting Mir (Reply 15):
Quoting Lowrider (Reply 13):
So a fetus isn't alive, or it isn't a person?

It's a living fetus.

Isn't "when life begins" central to all this? The fetus "isn't a live person" . . . "it's a living fetus" . . . huh?


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21625 posts, RR: 55
Reply 23, posted (5 years 7 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1553 times:



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 22):
Isn't "when life begins" central to all this?

Plenty of things are living, and we have no problem killing them. It's killing people that is the issue, and so the central question is really at what point a fetus becomes a person.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (5 years 7 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1542 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 21):
Which is not the same as a fetus surviving birth, which is what the topic is about.

To survive birth only to die in the next few hours or days makes the exercise sort of pointless, doesn't it? You earlier mentioned surviving without the benefit of sophisticated medical technology. That sort of implies survival beyond the first few minutes outside the womb.



Proud OOTSK member
25 Mir : Not really. The test is really very simple: if a doctor does not believe that the fetus, if delivered at that moment, will live without the immediate
26 JCS17 : It's a positive if it passes. Abortion, in general is a horrific procedure. Let me clarify my position. I have no problem with abortion if it is done
27 DocLightning : I'll do you one better. When you can reasonably say that the baby, if delivered at that moment, could survive on its own WITH the aid of an intensive
28 Mir : I can easily respect that opinion. But what you should understand is that if this bill passes, those 1st trimester abortions that you have no problem
29 LXA333 : Im semi-pro choice despite being a moderate republican. All I know is that that the fetus is a potential life. It is all up to the mother though. No o
30 OA260 : Complete hypocrisy .
31 Post contains links Mir : Might as well include the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8 -Mir
32 Vikkyvik : So if a 30-year-old is in, say, a horrific car accident, and is on life support in the ICU, are they no longer a person? I don't see any distinction
33 Mir : I would say no, because once you become a person, that status can't be removed. The issue here is at what point a fetus becomes a person, and I think
34 Lowrider : You make a good case, but I still would disagree. I look at it from the stand point of, "what is the normal result of this process?". In this case, i
35 UAL747 : If you are gay you don't have to worry about it.....alls I'm sayin'. UAL
36 Alias1024 : Children normally become adults but are still treated differently under the law. This is where I'd draw the line if I were emperor.
37 Lowrider : Yes, children generally enjoy more protection than adults do. They younger they are, the more they tend to be protected. The laws are aimed at helpin
38 Mir : Children do not have some of the protections that adults do. The ability to sign contracts, the right to vote for their representatives in government
39 Lowrider : They may lack a couple of protections, but they also lack most of the attendant responsibilities. On the balance, they enjoy far more protections.
40 Alias1024 : If children aren't treated the same as adults even though they have the potential to become adults, they why should a fertilized egg be treated as a
41 Post contains links and images FLY2HMO : Exactly. Heck, the "plan B" pill, while not its main purpose, could theoretically cause an abortion, because a) it stops ovulation and b) eggs alread
42 DocLightning : Plan B prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall. It will also stop ovulation if it has not yet occurred. However, if ovulation
43 UAL747 : What's that got to do with him being a Doc? He's seen enough already I'm sure.... All I am saying is that, when you are gay, abortion really isn't th
44 Allstarflyer : And this action by the legislature might change what the eyes of the law perceive - if it's determined that life begins at conception - you even made
45 Mir : The question is whether a fetus is a person or not, not whether it's alive or not. It obviously is alive, but as I said before, so are a lot of thing
46 Vikkyvik : That could still be a gray area, as in, a fetus could survive outside the womb with appropriate medical care, but since it's still in the womb it's n
47 PPVRA : Is that "vacuuming" of the brain thing really how it goes? No anesthesia either? One of the best/most interesting approaches (and seems appropriate)
48 Mir : Like I said before, the issue of whether something is a legal person or not is not the same as the issue of whether an abortion should be legal at th
49 DocLightning : A newborn is a ball of reflexes. Can he reason? You can't answer that question. Then again, by your definition, George W. Bush was never a human. (Wh
50 PPVRA : Do we just not know how we are able to reason, giving us no way to determine when it happens? Maybe draw the line at a point the brain is developed e
51 Mir : Exactly. There's no doubt in my mind that someday we will be able to figure it out, but that day is certainly not now. And I wouldn't count on it arr
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What To Do When The Kids Annoy You posted Sun Feb 5 2006 12:33:54 by Cosec59
Let The Kids Earn Their Doughnuts...PC Stupidness posted Fri Aug 27 2004 10:43:12 by L-188
Dropping The Kids Off At The Museum. posted Fri Aug 16 2002 05:38:54 by ExitRow
Stupid Parents + Stupid Kids (at The Movies) posted Thu Jul 17 2008 14:46:13 by Springbok747
ACC Ref. Ron Cherry: "Giving Him The Business" posted Mon Nov 26 2007 20:45:24 by Dalb777
The First Electric Car That Has A Decent Chance posted Sat Sep 22 2007 16:38:10 by Alberchico
"Now Kids Don't Tease The Crocs" posted Sun Apr 22 2007 15:10:41 by ZANL188
And The Worst Place For Kids To Grow Up Is... posted Wed Feb 14 2007 19:15:32 by Thom@s
Chance Of Dodgers And Yankees In The World Series? posted Tue Jul 11 2006 06:31:51 by B737-112
Who Loves Kids In The Hall? posted Tue Jun 13 2006 04:44:38 by Planespotting