Fertilization-Assigned Personhood [FAP]

I would say yes... not to mention attempted homicide, assault with a deadly weapon, battery, etc.

As I said, if you will grant me the same respect and quit trying to apply demeaning and insulting labels to me, I shall give you the same respect.

Intriguing... you keep using the word myth...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And again with the colorful insults...

Start saying what you actually mean then. If you would quit with the irrational tirade long enough to look at the facts, you would realize that I am actually in favor of women having safe and affordable access to all health care options.

I never said she was solely responsible. However, she does have to accept some responsibility for it... after all, as I've said, except in cases of rape or coercion, it takes two to tango. Doing the nasty on your own would be like having mac and cheese without the mac...

Ideally? Nothing. Personhood should only be granted once the fetus has reached a stage at which it would be capable of life outside the womb. As you are so quick to point out, abortion at that stage is exceedingly rare already. If things were done correctly, it would never need to happen at that late stage; a woman who does not wish to have a child would be able to have an abortion much, much sooner, saving her time, money, and complications in the long run.

Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world - instead of trying to tackle this problem as a whole, we (as a species) insist on focusing in on tiny little points of it... we can't see the forest for the mitochondria of the cell of the leaf of the tree we are micro-examining.

You keep saying it is woo... and yet every time you have been asked to "prove it", you have failed to do so. I won't deny that there is a level of uncertainty there... of course we can't be completely sure it 'feels pain' the way we think of pain. However, it shows a direct response to harmful stimuli... I'd rather not risk that we are, in fact, torturing it. In fact, further supporting evidence of this (since one of the arguments against fetal pain is that they are not conscious) is right here: People who are in a coma can react to pain.

So... at this point, claiming a fetus with a developed nervous system, pain receptors, and a brain activity cannot feel pain merely because it is not 'conscious' as we are is a blithe lie.

Well, that WOULD be a definitive answer, would it not?

Polish a turd, it's still a turd. Just because one piece of shit smells better than another, it doesn't mean it isn't still a piece of shit.

Actually, both sites have provided links to, and quoted, scientific studies to back up their opinions... that's the great thing about taking things out of context - even mathematical statistics can be made to lie.

Hey, you are the one that said it is the womans choice... if that is true, then you shouldn't blame the man for what the woman does... unless you wish to hold this to a double standard?

You might not be... but considering how some abortion methods work, knowing the orientation of the fetus (or fetuses) could be useful... not to mention an ultrasound could show other potential problems that may be laying in wait... I would reckon a properly understood ultrasound or x-ray could have saved you a lot of pain and suffering with your delivery, would it not?

And this is one of the many reasons I do not agree with, nor identify with, the pro-life nutters. Admittedly, a woman on the poverty line should probably consider her situation BEFORE getting pregnant... but if she does, and she wants to keep the baby, should she not be given access to every possible resource to ensure the health and well being of herself and her child to be? Likewise, if she decides she cannot afford to have a child, shouldn't she have access to every possible resource to help her out, ranging from financial assistance to adoption and even abortion?

Admittedly, I think there comes a point in financial planning where you should be able to look at your situation and realize having a child isn't appropriate right now... trust me, I should know; my wife and I are there, right now. We had expected to be able to have a family by now... but doing so is impractical. We REFUSE to have a child knowing we could not properly support and care for one... ironically enough, if we were to have a child, we could, quite possibly, qualify for government assistance... yet because we are responsible adults and have NOT had a child we could not readily support, we are considered to be "making too much" for support. A delicious, if bitter, irony.

So how do you decide which scientists to believe? When it is convenient for your case? When they support your cause? How do you decide which is "truth"?

Indeed... you should not be surprised. After all, the pursuit of the truth is the only thing I have ever been after.

Indeed... much the same as STD's... I still don't want one.

Interesting... do you carefully screen your sources to make sure they only support your point? Or do you occasionally post sources that contradict your views as well, as a show that you recognize science is eternally ongoing?

Again, why should it matter the source so long as they have provided sources and citations?

There are always synthetic feathers (it is amazing what one can do with plastic fibers nowadays, especially with plant-based plastics)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Little jerks and the FAPping issue

I knew you'd love it.

Who's trying to kill her, and how? Can you answer that question?

So, why do you think that low incidence is reason not to have a law regarding it? There are fewer murders in Australia every year than babies aborted in the 3rd trimester. So perhaps Australia doesn't need laws against murder. After all, people are rational people, aren't they? I'm sure the urge to commit murder isn't undertaken lightly; so why regulate it? It's just silly.

Ah! So it should be killed, even if it could be removed safely. Of course. I think most states in which SYG laws are used do require some kind of warning first, you know.

Wait - I should kill them, right? I mean, who the hell would trade off a little discomfort against a human life? Or maybe I could just kick his ass a little, you know, for being an asshole. But, in line with your parallel, how can I tell if a fetus is being an asshole? You seem more experienced than me in these social interactions: what are the warning signs that my unborn baby is a dick? What should I look for? Maybe he keeps the wife up at night with his relentless physiological activity, as if he had some kind of a fucking right to it. Tchuh!

So how do I end up in all your little stories, Bells? Every time I turn around, there's a new Geoff Tale leaning on its kilter. Why me, specifically? I think someone has a cruuu-uush!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please, Bells, I'm married with an asshole baby on the way.

This is the point I started to laugh. So the unborn - and apparently feral - fetus is now apparently trying to break my marriage up, I see.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And what's worse, he's a fucking Republican!

And a fetus capable of independent life requires no such connection either. Are you implying that the mother should physically attack it? I mean, surgery takes longer, but the little womb thief is attached now! This is truly the ultimate example of the changing pace of modern society.

Err: I don't know how biology proceeds in your family, but it's not really biologically so up here. What a strange place Australia is!

Well how odd - because earlier, you said you had this unflinching respect for those that did. For shame, Bells, to see you marching in lockstep with Dawkins just because it's trendy.

As I read, I do find that there are some providers of 3rd-term abortions who extend the notion of medical need to include mothers with mental health issues. So, you could be right.

I can see you're sundowning, so I'll let you off here.

With appropriate medical supervision for LTA, yes.

A bit dishonest there: why do you feel the need to comment on his gender?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well I was only going for some light humor. Animus, if I understand how its being used, is not the same as "life force" since it cannot function on any resource not provided by the host mother. It cannot breathe the air, it cannot provide any life function outside of what is provided by the mother's body.

Out of curiosity Geoff how does a woman having an abortion affect you personally? Outside of it bothering your personal principles how does it actually affect you. We can argue about "personhood" all we want but its really just an imposition of opinion since a lot of how we look at a fetus is based on culture. An Orthodox Jew won't even masturbate because it means "spilling" their seed. A muslim believes god blows the soul into a fetus in its third month. Many christians believe life begins at conception and so a fetus is a person and yet others say a fetus is only a person once its born. Science doesn't answer the question of personhood so its not a scientific debate. You believe what you believe and I'm not trying to change that. I just want to know how it infringes on you if a woman has an abortion. Is it fair to say that since you can never build social consensus (this is not a monolithic culture) around the notion of "personhood" you will always inflict an arbitrary belief on someone else who doesn't share that belief. Choice doesn't force any belief on anyone but those who oppose abortion does.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Many countries outside of North Korea have created child welfare agencies that are authorized to deny parental custody to woman and men whose actions are deemed a threat to their children. Why wouldn’t it be appropriate to apply a similar standard to a fetus of a qualified gestational condition?

I would hope that women who are in a position to conceive would have sense enough to either prevent it or appropriately arrest it when their life circumstances aren’t amenable to ensuring a reasonably safe prenatal and postnatal environment. But unfortunately people can’t always be trusted to behave responsibly, that’s when the state ideally, and hopefully reasonably steps in to take up the slack. In the case of the state of Alabama, I think that their fetal rights standards are too stringent for my tastes, and unless they can prove that your negligent behavior caused harm to a viable fetus, they have no grounds to levy harsh punishment.

Like I said earlier, it’s a shame that the prevailing ideology in Alabama didn’t offer Amanda Kimbrough a way out of her predicament.

The irony in this case is that under the Dry Foot policy, her questionably viable 25 week old fetus was a person, thereby qualifying as a victim under the law.

Hopefully she’ll have better luck with the review of her appeal.

 

Sorry if I sounded dire. I have a flu coming on. It waits to pounce.

At 27 weeks, it can. If we took dependence as a strict reason to deny personhood, we could as easily kill of masses of people on ventilators, or anyone who relies on another.

Well, how does a woman being raped two counties over affect me? Answer: it doesn't, outside my own principles.

Well, the seed argument is stupid for a start. But as to culture: a rationally-derived limit is our cultural prerogative in this matter, no worse than any other selection and probably miles better. Do we know the answer to personhood? I don't know that. I don't know that we can formulate it: how do I, humble scribe, know what anyone else experiences? How do I really know anyone else is a person at all, sentient and cognisant? I can't, probably. The best I can do is infer from the available evidence whether or not someone is a person. Evidence of that spark in the embryo suggests the onset of this state later in the third trimester, and that seems likely to me. I think there is as strong a social consensus around this point as one can expect in the Western world and that, for me, suggests they may be on to something.

I know you see limitations on abortion rights as force; maybe it is. But how is it different from any of the force that the rest of law applies? One does not do entirely as one wishes, for reasons that are often in greater evidence. It is the same here: one does not do entirely as one wishes, for reasons that are more obscure but no less compelling.

Thank you for your excellent post.

 

Thing is, I never have. I have never done anything out of hatred towards women:

Yeah... I do not hate women. As my wife could tell you that I'm actually rather violently inclined towards those that harm women, especially out of violence. It is my personal belief that one should never raise his hand to a woman in anger, and that the bare minimum of force should be used should the need to defend yourself from one arise.

Except that is exactly what the conflict is - they have proven the pain receptors are there, proven that the brain is developed enough to recognize pain, they have even proven that the pain centers of the brain activate when a fetus is subjected to a noxious input... their big question is, in essence, two fold: Is pain a physical (reflexive) response, or is it an emotional response, and is the fetus "conscious" enough to form an emotional response. To the first, I would say pain is a physical response to damaging stimuli, not an emotional response. To the second, I can't answer that - I would think the sense of "self" isn't developed enough for an emotional response... but they have shown in coma patients that the pain centers light up just the same.

See above.

The only thing I'm offended about is the twisting and spindoctoring of facts that keeps happening.

I simply believe that if she has waited that long, and allowed the fetus to develop and grow for that length of time... perhaps she should have a reason for the sudden desire to terminate it, especially knowing how much more dangerous and complicated it is.

Simply - with logic and reason. Up until the point of personhood, the mother has every right to abort without needing to provide justification. After that point (which, IMHO, isn't until the 7th or 8th month) a simple reason should be given, and the alternatives at least explained. If it is a medical reason (danger to the mother, fetus unlikely to survive, etc) then yeah, do the abortion without any further questions. If it's a matter of being able to afford to raise a child, provide information on the various assistance programs that exist as well as the option of adoption. At that point, if she is still insistent upon having an abortion, make sure she is fully aware of the potential risks, but if she wishes do it. If it's a simple matter of "I don't want it"... as much as I would claim, at that point, that there is an air of irresponsibility (both for waiting that long and for getting pregnant when you didn't want a child in the first place), do the same as if it is a financial concern - provide the alternatives, explain the risks. If she still insists... fine, do it.

It isn't so much that I want to ban it altogether... I just feel it is unnecessary in a lot of cases where better alternatives exist.

The mothers personhood must still be given consideration, but so should the baby. As above, I don't feel that, after that point, abortion is necessarily the best "go to" option, especially given the alternatives. I will concede though that, so long as she is making an educated decision and has considered the alternatives, then it is, ultimately, her choice. However, I don't like that so many people seem intent to "pressure" people, especially young teens, into abortion.

See above.

To me it isn't just a matter of viability (as you say, this is possible at 24 weeks, possibly sooner given medical technology such as artificial incubators and such). I still believe, based on what I have seen, that the fetus can, in fact feel pain. Not only that, but this late in the game the chance of the abortion failing, especially if an extraction technique is not used (it did rather surprise me to learn there were abortion techniques that, basically, simply caused a stillbirth to occur) and causing severe deformation and other complications upon birth. Comparing those risks with, say, simply putting the child up for adoption... it seems to me like it would make more sense to carry to term, give birth, and give the child up, assuming there are no medical issues at play.

I have to ask, though, why would it be so? As far as I can tell, the primary reasons for a late term abortion seem to be among those less financially stable coming to realize they cannot afford a child... in which case, wouldn't adoption be a better option?

And this is what I meant above - we are trying to define pain. To me, pain is the physical aspect of it... the emotional response is just that, an emotional response. The immediate desire to remove ones self from the source of the pain is an instinctive and autonomous action. The emotive response is what you learn from it, the thing that keeps you (or tries to keep you) from repeating the action that caused you pain.

How do you figure? Is it because of the action of being forced through the birth canal? While I have no links readily available (I will see if I can find some), I recall reading before that during childbirth, fetal heartrate and other vital statistics taken during and immediately after birth indicate the possibility that the child does feel pain as it travels through the birth canal. The interesting thing is, though, that these same changes in vital signs have been noted in fetus's still within the womb.

There will likely never be any actual "proof" on it either way, simply because, as stated, something like this can only be measured through non-definitive means. We KNOW the pain centers of the brain react... but because of how little we understand consciousness, we don't know if the baby can "feel" it, if it is a purely reflexive action, or if it is something else entirely. My stance; since we know the pain receptors function, the nerves transmit, and the brain receives, I would prefer to err on the side of caution and say yes, the fetus DOES feel it.

Additional studies I have found on the matter:

http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/fetalpain/AnandPainReport.pdf

Note - Dr. Kanwaljeet S. Anand holds the following titles:
MBBS – Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, University of Indore, Indore, India
DPhil – Jesus College, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
FAAP – American Academy of Pediatrics, Elk Grove Village, IL
FRCPCH – Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, London, United Kingdom
FCCM – American College of Critical Care Medicine, Anaheim, California
Rather impressive all said and done.

I hope those are... official and unbiased enough representations for you, Bells?

Fine... if you wish to dismiss those, then see the above referenced scholarly articles.

Fair 'nuff

Uhm... okay?

Well, again, i don't think that doctors should be pressuring them either way... that isn't their place or what their job is there for.

How long does an ultrasound take? I don't understand how it forces a delay in anything to be honest... I mean, when I went with my mother when they had the ultrasound of my little brother done, the whole process took... I dunno, maybe an hour or two tops? Maybe I'm misunderstanding?

Again, though, wouldn't an ounce of prevention be worth more than the pound of "cure"?

Fair enough, but I expect you to do the same. On that vein, what is your response to the studies and citations above?

Fair enough - accepted and noted.

*smirks* Actually, it was inferred from my time practicing archery. Real feathers for fletching are... stupid expensive. Given that one of my favorite local dives (Neato Burrito) utilizes only plastic cups made entirely from plant-based plastics, and that I have seen carpets and other fibrous materials made using plastic, I figure making plastic-based feathers from plant matter is probably feasible.

Truth be told, I'm not sensitive enough for feathers to have much of an impact on me... much to Alerya's dismay

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Bells -

You cannot decry Kitta's use of insults against you when you start these things and justify it as "if you don't like it, stop acting like it". You are not the judge of his personality or behaviour on this forum. Nor can you pretend that you and Tiassa have been diligently at this problem of personhood and just can't put your finger on what the evidence for it is. This is a dodge. You can debate the evidence that's been presented; you cannot hide your head in the sand and pretend you haven't seen it. Ellen Wiebe, who you cite, is an abortion provider and so cannot really be said to be impartial either. This is to be expected, given your nearly constant misrepresentation of his stance; a series of deliberate falsifications of his points that exceeds any absurd notions on the viability of "political twists of the knife". You are making the discussion untenable - not because you have anything to say, but because you want nothing to be said. This is especially ironic given that the other members of this discussion are actually arguing for more liberal thresholds on the abortion deadline than presently exist almost anywhere. I would pity you, but not in context of the harm you are doing. Call that an analogy if you like; I couldn't care what staged response you might choose to play at now.

 

Oh yeah; forgot to mention...

In my haste, I completely forgot to dismantle the OP statement:

... must?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

To summarize the above evidence for fetal pain:

http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/fetalpain/AnandPainReport.pdf

Note - Dr. Kanwaljeet S. Anand holds the following titles:
MBBS – Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, University of Indore, Indore, India
DPhil – Jesus College, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
FAAP – American Academy of Pediatrics, Elk Grove Village, IL
FRCPCH – Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, London, United Kingdom
FCCM – American College of Critical Care Medicine, Anaheim, California
Rather impressive all said and done.

Further articles:

This one isn't so much related to prenatal as it is simply an astounding bit of information (well, astonishing to me)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08424.x/full

This last one is pretty telling... here are the references used in the full report, which came to the conclusion above:

That is a rather impressive list... I would say this is pretty well researched.

 

What abortion limitations would you like to see?

As for the rape analogy we can safely say there is a social and cultural consensus that rape is a crime whereas there that isn't the case with abortion. Interestingly enough I just learned of study that claims abortion rates are higher in countries where abortion is banned. I agree with you that fetal viability brings up a whole slew of arguments in LTA but that doesn't automatically grant a fetus in the third trimester "personhood". The US is on of four countries that allows for LTA and they have done so because the law doesn't recognize fetal viability to equate with personhood because if it did I imagine LTA would be considered murder. Instead what they decided during Roe vs. Wade is that the personhood of the mother outweighs the viability of the fetus. Roe vs Wade does protect the rights of a fetus after the point of viability, which occurs sometime after the 24th week of gestation. So LTA ARE restricted.

'In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional right to privacy extends to the decision of a woman, in consultation with her physician, to terminate a pregnancy. The Court also determined, however, that this right is not absolute and it must be balanced against the state’s legitimate interest in protecting both the health of the pregnant woman and the developing human life. Therefore, according to Roe, the state’s interest in protecting potential life becomes compelling at the point of fetal viability (when the fetus has the capacity for sustained survival outside the uterus). States are allowed to, and indeed have, severely restricted access to abortion in the third-trimester, except, as the Supreme Court has ruled, when necessary to preserve the woman’s life or health. In subsequent cases, the Court made clear that viability is a medical determination, which varies with each pregnancy, and that it is the responsibility of the attending physician to make that determination. The Supreme Court has held that even after fetal viability, states may not prohibit abortions “necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother;” “health” in this context includes both physical and mental health; only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define what constitutes“health” and when a fetus is viable; and states cannot require additional physicians to confirm the physician’s judgment that the woman’s life or health is at risk.' http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2009/06/02/lateterm-abortions-facts-stories-and-ways-help/

Viability of the fetus is a medical term not a legal one. This is how the law is defined in terms of LTA. What is it about the way the law is written that you find unsatisfactory? Its completely designed around the health of the mother.

 

Of course. That's inherent in the physical situation. Must it is.

So the failure to deal with the issue has direct bearing. The people who are trying to define a fertilized egg as a separate person due complete personal protection by the State are not dealing with the issue - they are pretending it does not exist, and thereby agreeing to abrogate the basic rights of the woman involved.

But you are not opposing the State pressuring them?

I'm counting at least three for four. An interesting, say revealing?, miscount on your part - the basis for the problem with this discussion, perhaps.

 

Except its most outdated research.

Two Working Party reports have been released by the RCOG (Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists), UK: 1. Fetal Awareness, and 2. Termination of Pregnancy of Fetal Abnormality. The first one updates the previous report published in 1997, while the second replaces the 1996 report.

Fetus Cannot Feel Pain Before 24 Weeks, Says Royal College Of Obstetricians And Gynaecologists, UK, 2010

To reflect both clinical practice breakthroughs and new research finding, both original documents were completely re-written. These two new reports contain data for clinicians (doctors), researchers and healthcare professionals and the report on Fetal Awareness includes a new chapter with practical information and advice to women and parents.

The main findings for Fetal Awareness include:

The fetus cannot feel pain before 24 weeks because the connections in the fetal brain are not mature enough.

While the fetus is in the chemical environment of the uterus (womb), it is in a state of induced sleep and is unconscious - according to evidence examined by the Working Party.

The Working Party concluded that because the 24 week-old fetus has no awareness nor can it feel pain, using analgesia is of no benefit.

As far as the short and long-term effects of the use of fetal analgesia post-24 weeks, more research is needed.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/193116.php

 

Good to know... but it seems like, once again, this almost seems to fall more to a redefinition of "pain" than it does the physical capacity for the fetus to feel and react to noxious stimuli... I dunno, I agree - more research is needed, but how do you "prove" something this subjective one way or another when the subject is incapable of providing answers themselves?

 

Don't have time to respond to everything right now (it's five after midnight), but...

Of course I understand that - and as I said, if you will give me the courtesy of not slinging labels and demeaning terms my way, I shall give you the same.
You REALLY need to check your sources. Because this is becoming an unacceptable joke.

NRLC stands for National Right to Life Committee.[/quote]

The source of the article is utterly irrelevant so long as the facts behind it are solid.

I sure hope you mean sites:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08424.x/abstract
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201429
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0387760400000899
http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/fetal-pain-the-evidence/4-documentation/#.U3LsfoZBnp5
http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/fetalpain/AnandPainReport.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=10814894
http://www.sfnmjournal.com/article/S1744-165X(06)00023-0/fulltext
http://www.emcap.eu/programme/speakers/dr-marc-van-de-velde.html
http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2e2723a74c71b210VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD


And a few others I can't spot in my history right now. So, yeah, one of the websites was the NRLC... and the man who wrote the report is a rather highly respected man in the field of medical science...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/magazine/10Fetal-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The wealth of evidence is rather large, even if you aren't exactly happy with the sites hosting it.

Dare I ask? I would presume a dropped arrow?

If you wished to try it again, I would recommend a compound bow (the wheel and lever system makes it much easier to hold the bow at full-draw without diminishing power) with a good nock point and arrow shelf. Depending on your personal arm strength, a good starting point would be a draw strength between 30 pounds and 45 pounds - this allows you to get the action of drawing the bow back to full-draw correct without risking damage to yourself or the bow.

After that, it's all about practice... my grandfather had a target set up in his back yard and he used to teach me... after his third bout with cancer, though, he just didn't have the strength to do it anymore. I still have his compound bow, and hope some day to learn how to shoot an English Longbow... but ultimately I would love to learn Kyudo, the Japanese art of archery utilizing a Yumi of the Rokusun-nobi style.

 

If you think anyone is justified in assuming a random late term abortion is being sought simply because a woman has "waited that long", you are living in a fantasy world.

A misogynistic one.

And since your entire body of posting in this thread, almost entirely off topic and oblivious as it is (compare all that verbiage about women's irresponsible promiscuity with the OP), seems to be founded in that fantasy world, how far do you expect to get with claims that those posts are legitimate opinions being disparaged only because they are the opinions of men?

No, you won't. You can't. You have had more than enough opportunity to restrain your natural tendencies, or even come to some kind of self awareness in this matter, and the evidence indicates you simply cannot.

Then find one that doesn't automatically cast doubt on those "facts", that a reasonable person can take as serious. The NRLC is a pack of liars with an ugly agenda. Almost nothing they present is factually solid.

Or better, omit the entire tangency and confront the OP issue. It's still sitting there, largely unaddressed. Which tends to grant the OP its point, no?

 

News interview with a woman who had a LTA at 29 weeks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4k427vn8xg

Geoff you may find it particularly interesting.

 

FAP threads; making a sticky mess of simple issues?

A meaningful biological limitation based on neural activity and pain sensation.

Exactly. This argument came up because of the proposition by some of our SF 'neighbours', as the phrase is, that the only moral or logical position is to have no limitations on abortion, making it a free-for-all. The natural response is to distrust such a scenario - laissez-faire is usually a bad idea, as history demonstrates.

That it is not.

'In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional right to privacy extends to the decision of a woman, in consultation with her physician, to terminate a pregnancy. The Court also determined, however, that this right is not absolute and it must be balanced against the state’s legitimate interest in protecting both the health of the pregnant woman and the developing human life. Therefore, according to Roe, the state’s interest in protecting potential life becomes compelling at the point of fetal viability (when the fetus has the capacity for sustained survival outside the uterus). States are allowed to, and indeed have, severely restricted access to abortion in the third-trimester, except, as the Supreme Court has ruled, when necessary to preserve the woman’s life or health. In subsequent cases, the Court made clear that viability is a medical determination, which varies with each pregnancy, and that it is the responsibility of the attending physician to make that determination. The Supreme Court has held that even after fetal viability, states may not prohibit abortions “necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother;” “health” in this context includes both physical and mental health; only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define what constitutes“health” and when a fetus is viable; and states cannot require additional physicians to confirm the physician’s judgment that the woman’s life or health is at risk.' ​

You know, I'd never actually read RvW before, or succeeding opinions, and amazingly I've arrived at nearly its exact definition. It's as though some kind of intelligent process guided my position. Crazy, right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Contrast that position to that of our DF-pusher neighbours, in which no limitation at all is demanded, or else one be called the oppressor and slayer of women; only when we can see and touch a baby with our own eyes - no sneaky ultrasounds, now - shall we declare a baby exists, as if they were some kind of huddle of primitive man, feral and slavering, staring and prodding with supernatural hysteria at a pregnant woman's swollen belly. It's not for nothing that one sees it as regressive - it's the child of anti-technological terror. Our neighbour, back on the original thread before he decided to cut-and-paste-and-uncomprehend my comments to this thread, opined that a biologically-informed opinion would "leave nothing for law"; there would be no overturning of RvW for DF; science might close doors that could not be opened again. And that was a thing that Could Not Be. I could comment here about the correlation of this new neo-Luddism with an affinity for the trappings of quiet theism, but naturally I will make no such comment. How rotten it is, through and through, for such a little life that it has had, this 'dry foot' dance, raging against the machinists on ghost feet.

Balance is better. More socialistic.

How fortunate it is that I am not they then. I agree with that premise, you see.

I'm lost as to why you would conclude such a thing, unless you conceive the entire situation as binary. Is this your stance? The above suggests this.

And where did you learn to count?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I might. But the essential fact remains - if performed for reasons of medical requirement or other mitigating circumstance, then it is moral. If not, not.

I await my impending crucifixion by iceaura. Do you need any lumber or metal hardware? There's a sale on today.

 

Well, if that is the case, then what is the problem with my proposed solution? Obviously, in your mind, everyone who is getting an LTA has a substantiated reason, so in effect, my proposal would not stop anyone from getting an abortion. Drinks all around!

Uh huh... not sure where you pulled that little nugget from, but it is suspiciously brown and mephitic...

Interesting... I wasn't aware you were in ANY sort of position to tell me what I "can and cannot do"... how do you come to the conclusion that you can do this?

So the fact that the NRLC is using the report immediately invalidates it as factual? Interesting... does this mean that the Nazis in WWII would have never developed the Atomic Bomb given time, since, you know, they were "evil" and had an "ugly agenda"... so obviously their research is inherently and intrinsically flawed. At least... that's the logic you are using.

I have already addressed it... if my count is correct, thrice so far in this thread. You just choose to ignore it so you can take pot shots at me instead of facing the argument... classic ad hominem and red herring tactics.