allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

Giving The Kids A Chance

Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:48 pm

Living the American Dream
 
sw733
Posts: 5302
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:19 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:04 pm

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 avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5367
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:08 pm

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.
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:21 pm



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 . . .
Living the American Dream
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5367
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:24 pm



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 avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19761
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:57 pm

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?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:12 pm

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 avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19761
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:16 pm



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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:24 pm

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 avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19761
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:43 pm



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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:54 pm



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
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:03 pm

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
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:16 pm



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
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:57 pm



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
 
Alias1024
Posts: 2231
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:07 pm

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.
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:26 am



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
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:34 am



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
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:49 am

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
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:13 am



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
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:21 am



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
 
Cadet57
Posts: 7174
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:02 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:24 am



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.
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:25 am



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
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:29 am



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?
Living the American Dream
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:29 am



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
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:13 am



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
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:07 am



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 24):
You earlier mentioned surviving without the benefit of sophisticated medical technology. That sort of implies survival beyond the first few minutes outside the womb.

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 aid of life support, then it cannot be considered a person in the eyes of the law.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
jcs17
Posts: 7376
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 11:13 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:20 am

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 in the first trimester, where nerve cells haven't been formed. That's an issue between the mother, the doctor, and God. I do have a problem with 2nd and 3rd term fetuses getting their head split open so an abortionist can suck their brains out. You want the kid or you don't, the very least you can do for your fetus is decide in the first or second month whether you want the kid or not.
America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19761
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:16 am



Quoting Mir (Reply 15):

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

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 care unit.

Your definition means that a 33-weeker, which needs a NICU to make it, is not a viable fetus. But really, a 33-weeker needs some tube feeds, some medicine, some observation, and they do fine.

I would draw the abortion line at 20 weeks. It leaves a 4-week grey zone, but having witnessed an abortion, I am not comfortable with elective terminations after 20 weeks. Now, a medically necessary termination is a different story. That should be permitted to 25 weeks, which is when the fetus could survive in an ICU.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 17):
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....?

All right, boys, sing along with me...

"Every sperm is sacred!
Every sperm is great!
If a sperm gets wasted
God gets quite irate..."

 duck 
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:50 pm



Quoting JCS17 (Reply 26):
I have no problem with abortion if it is done in the first trimester, where nerve cells haven't been formed. That's an issue between the mother, the doctor, and God. I do have a problem with 2nd and 3rd term fetuses getting their head split open so an abortionist can suck their brains out. You want the kid or you don't, the very least you can do for your fetus is decide in the first or second month whether you want the kid or not.

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 with would be considered murder, and thus be illegal.

If you want to ban 2nd and 3rd term abortions, then introduce bills to do that - don't take the ridiculously overreaching step of calling a fertilized embryo a person.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
Your definition means that a 33-weeker, which needs a NICU to make it, is not a viable fetus. But really, a 33-weeker needs some tube feeds, some medicine, some observation, and they do fine.

But they still need that stuff in order to survive, no? I'm not talking about when you can abort and when you can't - I'm talking about when a fetus in the womb should be considered a person. IMO, if a fetus is going to need the care of a NICU after birth in order to make it, they can't legally be considered a person (which is at least partially seperate from the question of whether an abortion should be able to be performed at that time or not).

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
lxa333
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:35 pm

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:58 pm

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 on can interfere in someone elses life and tell them what to do as long as what the person is doing is legit.

Ughh, Abortion.... how many times does it have to be discussed.....

Cheers
SWISSAIR-Worlds most refreshing airline
 
User avatar
OA260
Posts: 21029
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:50 pm

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:05 pm



Quoting Allstarflyer (Thread starter):
Good for them. thumbsup

Complete hypocrisy .
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:07 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
All right, boys, sing along with me...

Might as well include the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11803
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:18 pm



Quoting Mir (Reply 28):
But they still need that stuff in order to survive, no? I'm not talking about when you can abort and when you can't - I'm talking about when a fetus in the womb should be considered a person. IMO, if a fetus is going to need the care of a NICU after birth in order to make it, they can't legally be considered a person (which is at least partially seperate from the question of whether an abortion should be able to be performed at that time or not).

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 between "person status" based on whether they need medical attention.

Just the first thought that came to mind.

I generally support abortions early in a pregnancy (or in life-threatening situations or rape, etc). Although I haven't drawn any firm lines for my own beliefs, but I'd probably go along with what the Doc stated above.

With that in mind, back to the topic at hand: stupid North Dakota.

What is a fertilized egg anyway? Is it 2 cells? 10 cells? Seems a little ridiculous to call them full persons.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:28 pm



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 32):
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 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 I've made my opinion on that clear.

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 32):
What is a fertilized egg anyway? Is it 2 cells? 10 cells? Seems a little ridiculous to call them full persons.

 checkmark  Exactly.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:35 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
would draw the abortion line at 20 weeks.

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, it is a person.
Proud OOTSK member
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:43 pm

If you are gay you don't have to worry about it.....alls I'm sayin'.

UAL
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
Alias1024
Posts: 2231
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:00 am



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 34):
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, it is a person.

Children normally become adults but are still treated differently under the law.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
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 care unit.

This is where I'd draw the line if I were emperor.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:32 am



Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 36):

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 helping ensure they reach that adult stage, so your point sort of breaks down.
Proud OOTSK member
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:39 am



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 37):
Yes, children generally enjoy more protection than adults do.

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, the right to free speech in public schools, etc.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:58 am

They may lack a couple of protections, but they also lack most of the attendant responsibilities. On the balance, they enjoy far more protections.
Proud OOTSK member
 
Alias1024
Posts: 2231
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:58 am



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 37):
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 helping ensure they reach that adult stage, so your point sort of breaks down.

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 human being just because that's what it has the potential to be?

Children having more protection than adults is questionable as well.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
Fly2HMO
Posts: 7207
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:14 pm

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:10 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
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.

Exactly. Heck, the "plan B" pill, while not its main purpose, could theoretically cause an abortion, because a) it stops ovulation and b) eggs already in the uterus, or on their way to the uterus, wont attach to the uterine walls. So if sperm just so happen to fertilize an egg in said area, it wont attach to the wall, and will either die or be discarded in the next period.

At least that's what I remember from all the research I did when I had to get the pill for my ex, so please do correct me if I'm wrong Doc  

And I'm glad I didn't make that bitch reproduce after all   

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):

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 sure many would consider it so  

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):
This definition is clearly pushed by Christian political forces and that also makes me uncomfortable.

What bugs the hell out of me, and what is blatant hypocracy, is that many politicians in the US, be it left, middle or right, base their decisions on religious values. Yet we have declared war on "religious fundamentalists". Heck, we have enough of those in our own government as it is.   

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 13):
If it is alive but not a person, what is it?

This may sound cold, but to me a fetus is very similar, if not identical, to a parasite by definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasite

And yes I'm comfortable with calling myself a parasite in one point of my existence.

Quoting Mir (Reply 23):
Plenty of things are living, and we have no problem killing them.

Yeah really. I murdered lots of blades of grass today when walking across a field.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):


"Every sperm is sacred!
Every sperm is great!
If a sperm gets wasted
God gets quite irate..."

  

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 35):
If you are gay you don't have to worry about it.....alls I'm sayin'.

He is a Dr, I'm sure he's going to see plenty in his career.

[Edited 2009-02-19 22:12:11]
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19761
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:14 am



Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 41):

Exactly. Heck, the "plan B" pill, while not its main purpose, could theoretically cause an abortion, because a) it stops ovulation and b) eggs already in the uterus, or on their way to the uterus, wont attach to the uterine walls. So if sperm just so happen to fertilize an egg in said area, it wont attach to the wall, and will either die or be discarded in the next period.

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 has occurred and sperm enter the fallopian tube and fertilize the egg, Plan B will prevent that embryo from implanting. Some might consider that an abortion. But I cannot emphasize enough that simply having a fertilized egg inside you does not make you pregnant. You only become pregnant when that embryo implants.

Oh, and what is the "moment of conception?" Is it when the sperm encounters the zona pellucida? Is it when the acrosomal reaction starts? Is it when the sperm nucleus has entered the egg? How about when the nuclei migrate together? Or is it when the nuclei dissipate? Or when the new nucleus is formed? Conception is not a "moment." It's a process.

Quoting Mir (Reply 28):

But they still need that stuff in order to survive, no? I'm not talking about when you can abort and when you can't - I'm talking about when a fetus in the womb should be considered a person.

Needing food and air and medicine to survive should not rob you of personhood. I'm uncomfortable with your argument. What's to stop me from killing every baby in the NICU and getting off scot-free because I'm not killing people?

What about a full-term baby born with an infection who needs to be in the NICU on antibiotics? Is that a person?

Sorry, if you're born and you cry, you're a person.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:55 am



Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 41):
He is a Dr, I'm sure he's going to see plenty in his career.

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 that much of an issue unless you are female and are raped, but I don't want to get into that.

I was just trying to put stupid humor into a very "dense" thread.

UAL
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:03 am



Quoting Mir (Reply 25):
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 aid of life support, then it cannot be considered a person in the eyes of the law.

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 the remark "living fetus" - then the whole definition will change. And why should whether or not we're able to artificially support a human being be the determinant as to whether there is life or not?  eyebrow 

Quoting OA260 (Reply 30):
Quoting Allstarflyer (Thread starter):
Good for them. thumbsup

Complete hypocrisy .

Would care to try qualifying that and take your remark beyond a simple drive-by potshot?  eyebrow 
Living the American Dream
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:06 pm



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 44):
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 the remark "living fetus" - then the whole definition will change. And why should whether or not we're able to artificially support a human being be the determinant as to whether there is life or not?

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 things that we kill without a second thought.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 42):
What's to stop me from killing every baby in the NICU and getting off scot-free because I'm not killing people?

What about a full-term baby born with an infection who needs to be in the NICU on antibiotics? Is that a person?

Once you're born, you're a person. My definition was based upon the fetus still being inside the womb.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11803
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:31 pm



Quoting Mir (Reply 45):

Once you're born, you're a person. My definition was based upon the fetus still being inside the womb.

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 not a person?

To me, that's not a good enough argument. I can't really support killing something that could survive outside the womb, but simply hasn't been given the chance to do that.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:58 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
I would draw the abortion line at 20 weeks. It leaves a 4-week grey zone, but having witnessed an abortion, I am not comfortable with elective terminations after 20 weeks.

Is that "vacuuming" of the brain thing really how it goes? No anesthesia either?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 42):

What about a full-term baby born with an infection who needs to be in the NICU on antibiotics? Is that a person?

One of the best/most interesting approaches (and seems appropriate) I've ever read is that it's not about life, but about what define us as humans. What's the difference between us and other animals, which are killed all the time and most of us don't see a problem with? What separates us from them is our ability to reason. Thus, if you can't reason, it doesn't really matter what your DNA says. So you can draw the line on abortion where you think the fetus has developed that capability to reason, but not necessarily have used it yet. Then again if you haven't used it yet does it really matter? Legally it might, but I don't know.

The argument is consistent enough that you can also use it to argue in favor unplugging people in vegetative conditions from life-sustaining machines.

Would be interesting what a doctor has to say about it, though. Is it even possible to determine something like this?
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:14 pm



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 46):
I can't really support killing something that could survive outside the womb, but simply hasn't been given the chance to do that.

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 that point in time or not.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 47):
So you can draw the line on abortion where you think the fetus has developed that capability to reason, but not necessarily have used it yet.

Not a bad line to draw, but good luck finding it.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19761
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Giving The Kids A Chance

Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:53 am



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 47):

Would be interesting what a doctor has to say about it, though. Is it even possible to determine something like this?

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. (Which confirms a suspicion of mine).
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], WarRI1 and 13 guests