Republican 2012 Nomination Thread

[southsider2k5]

Biological, not technological. What exists at 6 or 8 weeks is not recognizably human, nor does it really perform many functions necessary to sustain life.

 

The argument has been that if extraordinary measures can be taken to keep it alive, then it is a life. At least that is how I am understanding it.

 

So it stands to reason that something that couldn't be kept alive 30 years ago, such as a 1 pound pre-me, wouldn't have been considered a life then, but today it would, because they can be kept alive, and nursed into a relative level of a normal life. Who knows what that level will be in another 30 years? Maybe an eight week old baby will be able to be kept alive then.

 

Then again the biggest hole in this argument is that no fetus needs any extraordinary measures to be kept alive. All they have to do is to not be terminated by the mother, and they will, in all great probablity, live. (yes there are the obvious health exceptions in rare cases, etc)

 

Again, an interesting spin on a debate I haven't really though about this way before.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks,

 

You just are not reading my posts that carefully. Ive clearly stated that before something is born and after are 2 different situations. In the case of the person in a vegetative they were once alive. Thus they are entitled to more rights than something that never existed.

 

If you want heartbeat and brain activity is when something is alive, thats just looking at the facts differently. But then I assume you have no problem with abortion before heartbeat and brain activity?

 

I just don't see why being alive before or after means anything. You're either alive or you're not. If you're not, there's not many rights that are worth a damn. If you are, it's a whole new bag.

 

And I wouldn't say that I "have no problem" with abortion before a heartbeat or brain activity occurs, but it's much more acceptable than after that point in time. And that time occurs well before the acceptable 28 (or 24) weeks where abortions are allowed.

[StrangeSox]

I dunno that an 8 week old embryo (not a fetus and not a baby) can ever be kept alive. You'd essentially have to keep growing the embryo in a vat. It's not anything close to a living thing at that point.

 

But "if you never abort, it'll eventually be viable!" isn't a hole in the argument, it's circular reasoning to deny a woman a right to control her own body.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

I dunno that an 8 week old embryo (not a fetus and not a baby) can ever be kept alive. You'd essentially have to keep growing the embryo in a vat. It's not anything close to a living thing at that point.

 

But "if you never abort, it'll eventually be viable!" isn't a hole in the argument, it's circular reasoning to deny a woman a right to control her own body.

 

I think somewhere the old saying about the right to swing your fists ending at someone's nose comes into play. If a life gets defined where Badger is talking about, it is pretty inevitable that technology is going to push that earlier and earlier in the pregnancy. Who knows where technology will push that to? I don't think it is much of a stretch that when Roe V Wade actually happened, basically no one would have thought it possible to keep a baby literally of ounces alive and viable.

[Soxbadger]

SS2k,

 

So it stands to reason that something that couldn't be kept alive 30 years ago, such as a 1 pound pre-me, wouldn't have been considered a life then, but today it would, because they can be kept alive, and nursed into a relative level of a normal life. Who knows what that level will be in another 30 years? Maybe an eight week old baby will be able to be kept alive then.

 

In my opinion, yes. Part of the reason abortion is legal is that a woman shouldnt have to carry to term a child she doesnt want to. Thus, if science allows for the fetus to survive without harming the mother, I dont really see why youd need abortion. Youd just have a different procedure, the fetus survives, the mother doesnt have to carry it. The problem is right now we arent there. In the past the "quickening" (when mother first feels babies movement) was used as the measuring stick for when something was deserving of protection. But to me that seems to imprecise, the same way 1st/2nd term seems to be. So Id rather come up with a rule that revolves around when the fetus can survive and that is dependent on science. And that naturally would keep shortening the time when abortion would be legal. The other procedure,well call it Cesarean adoption, would obviously be legal.

 

Jenks,

 

Well I do see why being born does matter. Once you are born, you have rights. Before you are born, you dont have rights. Not to mention if something is brain dead a guardian can pull the plug (ie the equivalent of abortion). So as a society we already partially recognize that something can be alive but at the same time dead.

 

So what is your belief? Havent really seen you put that out there.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

If someone miscarries at 3 weeks (basically when it's a clumb of undifferentiated cells), has a person died? How about at 8 weeks, when there's some neural activity but no brain or other vital organs? How about a 25 week still born? What about an infant who dies shortly after birth? Culturally and emotionally we already distinguish between these cases, but we choose to ignore it when it comes to abortion and "life begins as conception"

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks,

 

Well I do see why being born does matter. Once you are born, you have rights. Before you are born, you dont have rights. Not to mention if something is brain dead a guardian can pull the plug (ie the equivalent of abortion). So as a society we already partially recognize that something can be alive but at the same time dead.

 

So what is your belief? Havent really seen you put that out there.

 

Well, I disagree that before you're born you have no rights. I don't think some fluid and skin blocking you from the air makes you any less deserving of protection. And of course the main difference between an unborn fetus and someone who is alive but brain dead is that one is being kept alive artificially while the other is not.

 

My belief of what? Abortion? I've said it already. I think abortion in general is abhorrent, regardless of when/why/how it's done. But I think it's acceptable certainly where the health of the mother is an issue, and also in cases of rape/incest (since that's the only legitimate "i wanted no part of this" scenario). After that...obviously I wouldn't promote abortion as a solution, but it's certainly more acceptable prior to when the fetus is alive. And I consider "alive" to mean there's a heartbeat. So, 9-11 weeks? Certainly well before what Roe v Wade set.

[Soxbadger]

So is a baby in a nicu being kept alive artificially less deserving of protection than a baby in a womb? Not sure why artificial would play any role in that discussion. As for the term born, was being lazy and using it interchangeably with alive.

 

Is using the pill abhorrent, or contraception, or masturbating?

 

Each of them destroys potential life at different stages.

[StrangeSox]

Why would "heartbeat" make you alive? Wouldn't sentience be a better measure?

 

And, more importantly, this is still ignoring a woman's right over her own body and the biological processes occurring within.

[StrangeSox]

So is a baby in a nicu being kept alive artificially less deserving of protection than a baby in a womb? Not sure why artificial would play any role in that discussion. As for the term born, was being lazy and using it interchangeably with alive.

 

Is using the pill abhorrent, or contraception, or masturbating?

 

Each of them destroys potential life at different stages.

 

Something like 50% of fertilized eggs simply don't implant. 15% of those that do still miscarry within the first few weeks. Some mammals simply reabsorb an embryo if food resources are too scarce. Biology doesn't seem to give a preference to an egg/sperm/embryo/fetus over a mother.

[Jenksismyhero]

If someone miscarries at 3 weeks (basically when it's a clumb of undifferentiated cells), has a person died? How about at 8 weeks, when there's some neural activity but no brain or other vital organs? How about a 25 week still born? What about an infant who dies shortly after birth? Culturally and emotionally we already distinguish between these cases, but we choose to ignore it when it comes to abortion and "life begins as conception"

 

Because it's not being done by choice but other natural causes. The same reason we distinguish dying of old age versus dying from being murdered.

[southsider2k5]

Something like 50% of fertilized eggs simply don't implant. 15% of those that do still miscarry within the first few weeks. Some mammals simply reabsorb an embryo if food resources are too scarce. Biology doesn't seem to give a preference to an egg/sperm/embryo/fetus over a mother.

 

There are also ones that will kill their babies if they are sick or a burden. I don't think that is a great standard to go off of.

[StrangeSox]

To clarify a bit, that's 50% of fertilized human eggs. If life "begins at conception," that means over 50% of humans die within the first three weeks. We should be holding mass funerals pretty much all the time.

[vandy125]

I dunno that an 8 week old embryo (not a fetus and not a baby) can ever be kept alive. You'd essentially have to keep growing the embryo in a vat. It's not anything close to a living thing at that point.

 

But "if you never abort, it'll eventually be viable!" isn't a hole in the argument, it's circular reasoning to deny a woman a right to control her own body.

 

In most cases, couldn't some body control have been thought of well before the question got to this point of when life begins? I'm not talking about just a woman, but a man as well. Put something on, take birth control, whatever, there was a point of control before we even get to the question of when life begins.

 

I really dislike that we are trying to determine where life begins. To me it is just a sad question to have to ask, but it is reality. In my very humble opinion as just a guy on a message board, there has to be some accountability about the control they used in getting pregnant. You just have to realize that if I do this without taking any precautions or even with precautions in place, there is a chance that nature will take its course. That is reality and to me that is where the decision was made as to what precautions were taken if any at all for an unwanted pregnancy (most of the time). After that happens, they should have to deal with the consequences of that choice. I'm not at all saying that abortion is an easy choice or consequence. IMO, I just don't think the sacrificing of life or potential life should be an option for those who are going to have a harder road in life because of their choice.

 

Of course that is all JMHO on this and I realize that it is not an easy thing to deal with at all. I also know that there are bad situations that come up that really muddy this water too so that it is not always look black and white. An unwanted pregnancy is just really a sad situation all around, but we seem to in many cases be missing accountability for what brought up that sad situation, and it really bothers me that we sacrifice the life or potential life at the altar of convenience.

[Jenksismyhero]

Why would "heartbeat" make you alive? Wouldn't sentience be a better measure?

 

And, more importantly, this is still ignoring a woman's right over her own body and the biological processes occurring within.

 

Because nothing dead has a heartbeat. That's how we measure death. And I dunno that sentience is very measurably that early, unless you're aware of a way it can be done.

 

And while I see your point about a woman's right, she chose to be in the position to get pregnant (absent the exceptions i've noted). Not sure why her rights trump those of her baby (except for health reasons).

[StrangeSox]

Because it's not being done by choice but other natural causes. The same reason we distinguish dying of old age versus dying from being murdered.

 

You've missed the point and the comparison doesn't work.

 

A woman's emotional reaction to a miscarriage at 3 weeks is likely "ugh, cramps" because they won't even be aware. We don't treat or view this as "human life" in any other circumstances. A woman's emotional reaction to a miscarriage at 4 months is going to be a lot more sorrowful than either 3 weeks or even 2 months. A stillborn in the 3rd trimester will be worse yet. Culturally or innately/biologically, we separate these into different categories. We don't view a smear of blood as a lost child and grieve over it as we would a dead infant.

 

Conversely, if my father dies of a heartattack at 95 or is shot at 95, he was still a sentient human being and is now dead. The manner of his death doesn't change who or what he was, just as an abortion doesn't magically transform an embryo into a dead person while a natural miscarriage does not. We distinguish between murder and natural death in order to enact some form of justice, not to reclassify life itself.

[StrangeSox]

Because nothing dead has a heartbeat. That's how we measure death. And I dunno that sentience is very measurably that early, unless you're aware of a way it can be done.

 

We can be sure that where you've seemingly set the line, very preliminary neural activity, there is no sentience because there's no nervous system or brain.

 

And while I see your point about a woman's right, she chose to be in the position to get pregnant (absent the exceptions i've noted). Not sure why her rights trump those of her baby (except for health reasons).

 

This enforces a penalty on women that men never have to face and removes agency over their own bodies. You've assumed your conclusion by calling it a baby and assigning it rights. You've given women less control over themselves than men and children.

 

[southsider2k5]

We can be sure that where you've seemingly set the line, very preliminary neural activity, there is no sentience because there's no nervous system or brain.

 

 

 

This enforces a penalty on women that men never have to face and removes agency over their own bodies. You've assumed your conclusion by calling it a baby and assigning it rights. You've given women less control over themselves than men and children.

 

So because men don't have the ability to get pregnant, not allowing abortions is sexist? That is another one I haven't heard before.

[StrangeSox]

You haven't heard the "pro-life" arguments deconstructed on sexist lines before?

[southsider2k5]

You haven't heard the "pro-life" arguments deconstructed on sexist lines before?

 

No, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the extreme turns it into an -ism. Usually what I have read revolves around "life".

[Soxbadger]

Jenks,

 

Because nothing dead has a heartbeat

 

Thats not entirely true. Some one who is brain dead is technically considered dead, even if their heart is fine.

 

http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/news/720341...0-accident.html

 

Foster’s family has decided to keep him on life support so his organs can be donated.

 

So under your definition, the firefighter isnt dead, yet his family is harvesting his organs. Would you consider them murderers?

 

Vandy,

 

I agree that its sad regardless. But I just dont see why the govt should get involved until its alive. Its a personal decision, if it happened to you, youd obviously be allowed to keep your child. But if it happens to someone else, should they not have some sort of choice?

 

I guess I dont see how the govt can tell a woman what to do in this situation, until its clear that there is actually something to save. The situation that keeps playing in my mind is that a girl wants an abortion. Shes completely healthy. The govt says no, she is forced to carry the child to term. On the table she hemorrhages and dies, the baby dies as well.

 

Who did the govt protect?

[StrangeSox]

No, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the extreme turns it into an -ism. Usually what I have read revolves around "life".

 

Which ignores the woman and focuses on the fetus, which is part of the sexist problem. It's not an extreme position, either, but a fundamental part of a lot of pro-choice movement. What do you think "women's rights" in the abortion discussion are about?

 

eta this doesn't make everything about pro-life sexist or every pro-life person a sexist.

Edited August 25, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Vandy,

 

I agree that its sad regardless. But I just dont see why the govt should get involved until its alive. Its a personal decision, if it happened to you, youd obviously be allowed to keep your child. But if it happens to someone else, should they not have some sort of choice?

 

I guess I dont see how the govt can tell a woman what to do in this situation, until its clear that there is actually something to save. The situation that keeps playing in my mind is that a girl wants an abortion. Shes completely healthy. The govt says no, she is forced to carry the child to term. On the table she hemorrhages and dies, the baby dies as well.

 

Who did the govt protect?

 

The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion

[southsider2k5]

Which ignores the woman and focuses on the fetus, which is part of the sexist problem. It's not an extreme position, either, but a fundamental part of a lot of pro-choice movement. What do you think "women's rights" in the abortion discussion are about?

 

I believe it is an extreme point of view because I don't think you can turn biology into an -ism. There are certain things that only men or women can do. It is a biological fact. It would be like saying passing a tall gene on to someone is anti-dwarf.

[Jenksismyhero]

You've missed the point and the comparison doesn't work.

 

A woman's emotional reaction to a miscarriage at 3 weeks is likely "ugh, cramps" because they won't even be aware. We don't treat or view this as "human life" in any other circumstances. A woman's emotional reaction to a miscarriage at 4 months is going to be a lot more sorrowful than either 3 weeks or even 2 months. A stillborn in the 3rd trimester will be worse yet. Culturally or innately/biologically, we separate these into different categories. We don't view a smear of blood as a lost child and grieve over it as we would a dead infant.

 

Conversely, if my father dies of a heartattack at 95 or is shot at 95, he was still a sentient human being and is now dead. The manner of his death doesn't change who or what he was, just as an abortion doesn't magically transform an embryo into a dead person while a natural miscarriage does not. We distinguish between murder and natural death in order to enact some form of justice, not to reclassify life itself.

 

Sure, but that's why i'm creating the hard line that once the being is "alive" it has rights.