Couple with three sons abort twin boys conceived with IVF

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
The baby should have no say?
We're not talking about babies. Babies are born.

Nonetheless, any organism unconsensually occupying the body of a person, forcibly respirating and metaboizing from that person's bloodstream and injecting that person with hormones and waste does not and should not have a say in whether or not it can continue to violate that person in such a manner.
 

Mike Gayner

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2007
6,175
3
0
We're not talking about babies. Babies are born.

Nonetheless, any organism unconsensually occupying the body of a person, forcibly respirating and metaboizing from that person's bloodstream and injecting that person with hormones and waste does not and should not have a say in whether or not it can continue to violate that person in such a manner.

So you support 8.5 month abortions then?
 

PieIsAwesome

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2007
4,054
1
0
It doesn't matter which side of the abortion argument you sit on, their actions are still morally abhorrent in my view.

Why? What moral principle is in violation?

I know some of you can "feel" that this is wrong, but can anyone explain why it is actually wrong?

If you are in favor of abortion in some form, why would you be against abortion being used for the reason used by the couple in the article?
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
So you support 8.5 month abortions then?
In principle, yes; in practice, no.

Late term abortions introduce additional legal and practical complexities. It can be argued that by that time the fetus has acquired "squatter's rights," meaning, briefly, that the mother had ample opportunity to be reasonably aware of the violations perpetrated on her and to take action against them. That she did not choose to exercise her rights in such a way approaches implicit consent.

Moreover, the procedures for a termination of pregnancy in such a late term are not significantly less traumatic than birth itself, and it is likely at the point of "8.5 months" the fetus is viable. Late term abortions, therefore, should only be conducted under the advisement of a qualified physician, and reviewed by a panel of accredited physicians.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,090
136
Nonetheless, any organism unconsensually occupying the body of a person, forcibly respirating and metaboizing from that person's bloodstream and injecting that person with hormones and waste does not and should not have a say in whether or not it can continue to violate that person in such a manner.

This is a joke, yes?
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
This is a joke, yes?
Absolutely not.

With which part do you disagree? Are you saying you do not believe you have a right to defend yourself from an invader occupying your body against your will, leeching off of your body and injecting you with hormones and waste?

I can quite assure you, you do enjoy that right whether you believe you do or not, and I'm quite thankful that we all do.

Your mileage may vary, I guess.... :rolleyes:
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,090
136
Absolutely not.

With which part do you disagree? Are you saying you do not believe you have a right to defend yourself from an invader occupying your body against your will, leeching off of your body and injecting you with hormones and waste?

I can quite assure you, you do enjoy that right whether you believe you do or not, and I'm quite thankful that we all do.

Your mileage may vary, I guess.... :rolleyes:

I'm going to assume you're laying the sarcasm on thickly, and carry on.
 

Dumac

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,391
1
0
Who are you telling to mind their own fucking business?

You think abortions based on sex of the child are just peachy? Ever think maybe mommy and daddy wanted a girl and yet got you instead?

If you have a problem with people aborting their child due to a reason such as not liking the sex, then you obviously think something with abortion is WRONG (i.e. murder).

Therefore, you should believe that you should not abort for ANY reason.

I don't see any reason to say "oh x reason is okay to abort but y reason isn't". Be thorough with your opinion. Either abortion is murder and wrong, or it is simply the extermination of cells that are not yet considered as life.
 

Dumac

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,391
1
0
It doesn't matter which side of the abortion argument you sit on, their actions are still morally abhorrent in my view.

Oh, that is nice to know. Have anything useful to say?

Anyone could say that about anything.

"Eating ice cream is still morally abhorrent in my view."

The statement adds no substance to the discussion. Put more effort into your posts :p
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
Preposterous. The US Constitution already sets forth the scope of its protections in the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States..."

You're referring to citizenship. This has nothing to do with citizenship. The basic human rights of illegal immigrants are recognized. Inalienable rights are yours regardless of whether-or-not you are a US citizen.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Well, that's the whole "my body, my choice" argument (still arguable because the destroyed tissue can be a body too).

The baby should have no say?

This is where you are either trolling or simply insane.

Also in any debate on this topic, it's usually customary to focus on a trimester.

You seem to think at conception (which is where the sperm and egg unite in case you are thinking that means birth) is where one becomes both an American and one with rights.

The constitution was never directed at pre-born anyone...pretty much not even children for the most part.

This topic has become intermixed with the other abortion one.

IMHO if the couple is terminated pregancies at conception or shortly thereafter in the first trimester there is absolutely no cause for alarm. All the risks are on the woman in this.

What is amazing though is an embryo at that level is much less 'human' than a dog or cat yet many of those behind making life based on something so primitive have no problems wishing death on pets.

Personally I think it's some kind of psychological defect that maybe they didn't get enough attention or found out they would have been aborted or whatever.

As far as choice, man / woman...that is complicated. Again in most of these discussions people aren't defining the situation.

If you have someone that deliberately caused pregnancy (purposedly sabotaging birth control, lying about sterilization, rape, etc) then that is a different class than two people that just did what they should have and lost the baby lottery.

In the latter situation it's complicated, esp when you have large differences in social class/incomes. Also if one cannot keep the child day to day vs the other with a more open schedule. This isn't fair either, just because it's convenient on paper.

I think in the end in these situations it comes down to while abortion or not is decided by both, if the person willing to keep the child wants to do so eliminating any responsibility of the other; it should be allowed. There also would probably be grayish areas where the court may decide that the non-parent party still has to contribute a token amount each month. The worst thing a court could do is force someone to be a parent though...
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,816
952
126
It might not be a big deal when it's just a handful of people but if there's a large preference one way or the other, it could be a problem in the future. Better to nip it the bud now.
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
Also in any debate on this topic, it's usually customary to focus on a trimester.
I'm not interested in that debate. I specifically said I don't want government to decide when I'm entitled to my rights. It's just giving the government more power than the founders meant for it to have.


You seem to think at conception (which is where the sperm and egg unite in case you are thinking that means birth) is where one becomes both an American and one with rights.
As I said, you can argue about trimesters forever. There's no precise point when it stops being a blob of cells and becomes a person, conception is the least arbitrary point you can choose. This is the point when a cell gains DNA that is uniquely different from the mother's and father's, then begins to self-replicate rapidly.

The constitution was never directed at pre-born anyone...pretty much not even children for the most part.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I don't think it says that you gain your rights when you are born. What about babies that are delivered via cesarean section? Could a desperate / failing government simply redefine "birth," claim the baby, and have it raised as a "disposable" military grunt? I guess they can because the baby isn't "born" under specific circumstances that grant basic rights. In the Declaration of Independence, founders used the specific term "created equal" for a reason. It was meant to clarify that you don't suddenly have your rights granted to you at some point after you were created. The founders knew that most governments would gradually take more and more power, so they tried to ensure that individuals retain the most basic human rights and and the government would not be able to decide when we are entitled to it. Likewise, individuals are supposed to have absolute authority over their own property and federal government should have the least control of all...but we're already a long way from that.

Going off on a tangent here...
Now we all seem to accept the idea that federal law can supersede law of sovereign states. The federal government is not supposed to have any power that is not specifically granted to it by the states. It still blows my mind that states allowed the federal government to come up with something like prohibition. The federal government should have NO control over that sort of thing. It should only deal with issues of inter-state commerce, international commerce, and national defense. Defense should be funded by taxing inter-state and international transactions (not individuals). This would encourage the country to actually produce goods for ourselves (rather than importing everything). As a side-effect, this would also increase exports. If our system still worked like it was originally intended, the legality of certain abortion practices would vary by state. The constitution clarifies your "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." You could simply choose to live the state that suits your ideals.

...
The worst thing a court could do is force someone to be a parent though...
Government didn't force irresponsible behavior that leads to most unwanted pregnancies. In cases of unwanted pregnancies that were the result of gross negligence, the mother and father should have to live with the consequences. Of course, there should be exceptions if the pregnancy was the result of rape or is an unusual risk to the mother. Even if you have a baby, the government can't force you to be a parent. You could allow an unwanted child to be adopted.

Do orphanages still exist?

OK, NOW I'm trolling.
 
Last edited:

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
You're referring to citizenship.
No, I'm referring to personhood.

This has nothing to do with citizenship. The basic human rights of illegal immigrants are recognized. Inalienable rights are yours regardless of whether-or-not you are a US citizen.
I agree. You have rights because you were born a person. All persons enjoy equal protection under the Constitution, and since I have the right to defend my body from being occupied against my will, since I have the right to defend with deadly force if necessary against the unwanted injection of hormones and waste, and since I have the right to refuse to be made an involuntary incubator against my will, so do pregnant women.

Sorry if this is not to your liking, but the rest of us not only enjoy our freedoms, but are interested in making sure that everyone else enjoys the same freedoms.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
I'm not interested in that debate. I specifically said I don't want government to decide when I'm entitled to my rights. It's just giving the government more power than the founders meant for it to have.
I have two words for you: Tough shit.


As I said, you can argue about trimesters forever. There's no precise point when it stops being a blob of cells and becomes a person
Yes, there is: birth.

conception is the least arbitrary point you can choose.
No, birth is.

This is the point when a cell gains DNA that is uniquely different from the mother's and father's, then begins to self-replicate rapidly.
Self-replicating human cells with unique DNA is created and destroyed in laboratories all over the world every day. Not everything which is human with unique DNA is a person, therefore. You're just arbitrarily saying that certain cells with unique DNA should be protected while others that match the same objective criteria are not.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I don't think it says that you gain your rights when you are born.
The equal protection of the constitution is distributed among all persons, and persons are born. It's right there in the 14th amendment.

What about people that are delivered via cesarean section?
What about them? Are they not born?

In the Declaration of Independence, founders used the specific term "created equal" for a reason.
The Declaration of Independence is not law.

{snip tangent}

Government didn't force irresponsible behavior that leads to most unwanted pregnancies. In cases of unwanted pregnancies that were the result of gross negligence
What is negligent about sex? Please, you really need to try to explain that one.

...the mother and father should have to live with the consequences.
You've not confronted the realities of the bodily violations entailed in pregnancy. Waivers of those bodily rights must be explicit.

{snip}
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
I'm going to assume you're laying the sarcasm on thickly, and carry on.
Translation: I don't like the facts, but I cannot refute them, so I'm just going to toss a few pot-shots and quickly exit the thread before I'm made to look foolish.
 

ShadowOfMyself

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2006
4,227
2
0
Lol at people getting touchy because of this... People should abort for whatever damn reason they want to, who cares?

Imagine my parents wanted a girl and decided to abort me, it just means I wouldnt be here right now, and I wouldnt even know about it because I was never born in the first place, big deal!

People harmed? Zero
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
... since I have the right to defend my body from being occupied against my will, since I have the right to defend with deadly force if necessary against the unwanted injection of hormones and waste, and since I have the right to refuse to be made an involuntary incubator against my will, so do pregnant women.

Sorry if this is not to your liking, but the rest of us not only enjoy our freedoms, but are interested in making sure that everyone else enjoys the same freedoms.

Could have used a rubber.

"against my will"

Exceptions, of course, for cases of rape. If the sex was consensual, you basically invited that "invader."
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
Also in any debate on this topic, it's usually customary to focus on a trimester.
I'm not interested in that debate. I specifically said I don't want government to decide when I'm entitled to my rights. It's just giving the government more power than the founders meant for it to have.
I have two words for you: Tough shit.

Translation:
You want to argue based on something that can never be settled.

Got it!

NEWS FLASH: I'm arguing a different point. Don't like it? "TOUGH SHIT!" (as you like to say)

You'll never satisfy everyone by saying that "it's a human after [x] trimester." Again, if the government is allowed to decide which trimester, then it's deciding when I'm entitled to my basic human rights. If we allow government to decide such a thing as which trimester grants human rights, then gov't can revise that decision at some point. It could say just as easily say that birth is the point where I gain rights. Then it could redefine birth to mean only a "natural" birth.


As I said, you can argue about trimesters forever. There's no precise point when it stops being a blob of cells and becomes a person,
Yes, there is: birth.
Hope you weren't delivered by cesarean section. The government might one day define that it's not technically "birth" and you don't have basic human rights.

conception is the least arbitrary point you can choose.

No, birth is.
That's quite a convincing argument! Let's see if I can out-do it:
No, conception is.

See what I did there?
 
Last edited: