Oklahoma's anti-abortion bill

[daishi5]

If the law is unconstitutional there is indeed an issue.

Even if it is constitutional, it is still an issue. The government should not be a tool for forcing religious beliefs down other people's throats.

 

[zsdersw]

Even if it is constitutional, it is still an issue. The government should not be a tool for forcing religious beliefs down other people's throats.

You're preaching to the choir, my friend.

 

[Atreus21]

Even if it is constitutional, it is still an issue. The government should not be a tool for forcing religious beliefs down other people's throats.

It's hardly a religious belief that one is a human being prior to birth.

 

[zsdersw]

It's hardly a religious belief that one is a human being prior to birth.

When, prior to birth, does one become a human being? Who decides this as it relates to law?

 

[Atreus21]

When, prior to birth, does one become a human being? Who decides this as it relates to law?

I don't know, but it's reasonable to assume that a baby 5 seconds prior to birth is as human at that point as it will be in 6 seconds.

To assume otherwise seems ridiculous.

 

[blackangst1]

I don't know, but it's reasonable to assume that a baby 5 seconds prior to birth is as human at that point as it will be in 6 seconds.

To assume otherwise seems ridiculous.

Yep. and theres a news story out today about a botched abortion and the fetus, at 22 weeks, lived for two days afterwards. So at minimum its 22 weeks.

 

[zsdersw]

I don't know, but it's reasonable to assume that a baby 5 seconds prior to birth is as human at that point as it will be in 6 seconds.

To assume otherwise seems ridiculous.

You should've stopped with "I don't know".

 

[zsdersw]

Yep. and theres a news story out today about a botched abortion and the fetus, at 22 weeks, lived for two days afterwards. So at minimum its 22 weeks.

Many dependent things live for a brief period before dying. That doesn't mean they're fully capable of surviving on their own.

 

[Atreus21]

You should've stopped with "I don't know".

Okay, then I'll amend it. I don't know the exact point, but I know it happens 5 seconds prior to birth at the latest, or in extreme cases like blackangsts', 22 weeks.

You shouldn't be asking me to prove that the child is human. Frankly, it should be the exact reverse. If there is any chance that the unborn child is a human being, we ought to err on the side of extreme caution regarding abortion, not take advantage of the inherent ambiguity of the definition of human being.

 

[shira]

Abortion is a state's right's issue...well it should be anyway. Abortion is not one of Congress' enumerated powers.

But "liberty" is one of the stated rights of citizens, and that right trumps a state's freedom to force women to undergo medical procedures as a pre-condition for receiving abortions.

Or do you only read the portions of the Constitution that support your ideology?

 

[nakedfrog]

This sounds suspiciously like a "nanny state" measure...

 

[shira]

Don't like what the state legislature passes, you have two options...

1) Vote them out of office
2) Move to a competing state

Not really sure what the issue is here.

Yet another moronic Patranus post demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the role the Constitution plays in guaranteeing inalienable rights.

 

[blackangst1]

Many dependent things live for a brief period before dying. That doesn't mean they're fully capable of surviving on their own.

Ah. Then any and all life support functions should be withheld at birth...and may the fittest survive.

Got it.

 

[shira]

I don't know, but it's reasonable to assume that a baby 5 seconds prior to birth is as human at that point as it will be in 6 seconds.

To assume otherwise seems ridiculous.

But it's reasonable to assume that a 5-second-old zygote is NOT a person, even if it would be a person 39 weeks later.

To assume otherwise seems ridiculous.

 

[shira]

It's hardly a religious belief that one is a human being prior to birth.

As you well know, the issue isn't whether or not a fetus is a human being; it's whether or not the fetus is a person.

 

[Atreus21]

But it's reasonable to assume that a 5-second-old zygote is NOT a person, even if it would be a person 39 weeks later.

To assume otherwise seems ridiculous.

Fair enough. Somewhere between 5 seconds after conception and 5 seconds before birth, a child becomes human.

If we are responsible and humane, we ought to establish what point that is before we allow abortion.

 

[daishi5]

You're preaching to the choir, my friend.

I think the constitutional argument is fruitless, the authoritarians that argue that this is not in the constitution, so the state has power, will turn around and say that something else is not in the constitution therefore the state has no power tomorrow.

It's hardly a religious belief that one is a human being prior to birth.

I am sure you know the religious groups are the ones pushing this.

I don't know, but it's reasonable to assume that a baby 5 seconds prior to birth is as human at that point as it will be in 6 seconds.

To assume otherwise seems ridiculous.

Reasonable, I respect the viewpoint, but I can't agree with your conclusion. Women have rights, and they can conflict with the rights of the child, we have to make a decision regarding when each ones right's take precedence.

But it's reasonable to assume that a 5-second-old zygote is NOT a person, even if it would be a person 39 weeks later.

To assume otherwise seems ridiculous.

But when does it change from not a person to a person. If we are not allowed to terminate a person, then we have to have a clear definition of when a clump of cells achieves "personhood."

As you well know, the issue isn't whether or not a fetus is a human being; it's whether or not the fetus is a person.

Is he really wrong for thinking it is bad to kill a human being who is not yet a person?

 

[nakedfrog]

But when does it change from not a person to a person. If we are not allowed to terminate a person, then we have to have a clear definition of when a clump of cells achieves "personhood."

We are allowed to terminate people. Are you familiar with "pulling the plug" when someone is on life support?

 

[Atreus21]

I am sure you know the religious groups are the ones pushing this.

Sure, but there are secular reasons for supporting it too.

Reasonable, I respect the viewpoint, but I can't agree with your conclusion. Women have rights, and they can conflict with the rights of the child, we have to make a decision regarding when each ones right's take precedence.

Okay. My position is that a life cannot be ended without a good freaking reason. In my opinion, good freaking reasons are the following: If the mother's life is at stake, and in the case of rape and incest (although I'm conflicted on that reason).

 

[ch33zw1z]

Sure, but there are secular reasons for supporting it too.



Okay. My position is that a life cannot be ended without a good freaking reason. In my opinion, good freaking reasons are the following: If the mother's life is at stake, and in the case of rape and incest (although I'm conflicted on that reason).

You still haven't defined when a fetus becomes a person...I'd like to see reasons that are in truth secular if you performed a root cause analysis...Please indulge me.

 

[shira]

Fair enough. Somewhere between 5 seconds after conception and 5 seconds before birth, a child becomes human.

If we are responsible and humane, we ought to establish what point that is before we allow abortion.

Roe v Wade already made that decision, based on viability.

1st trimester (fetus not viable): Very few limits on abortion.
2nd trimester (fetus approaches viability): Moderate limits.
3rd trimester (fetus is viable): Significant limits.

 

[shira]

But when does it change from not a person to a person. If we are not allowed to terminate a person, then we have to have a clear definition of when a clump of cells achieves "personhood."

The usual standard used is viability. A fetus becomes a person when the fetus becomes viable. That occurs right around the end of the second trimester.

 

[Atreus21]

You still haven't defined when a fetus becomes a person...I'd like to see reasons that are in truth secular if you performed a root cause analysis...Please indulge me.

Well, as I said I don't know for certain. I'm not a scientist.

But I know it happens at SOME point prior to birth. Because as I said before, a child 5 seconds prior to birth has nothing less than the child 5 seconds after birth. So at SOME point in the womb, the child becomes a person.

Is that unreasonable?

 

[Atreus21]

Roe v Wade already made that decision, based on viability.

1st trimester (fetus not viable): Very few limits on abortion.
2nd trimester (fetus approaches viability): Moderate limits.
3rd trimester (fetus is viable): Significant limits.

Do you have a link to this?

Nevermind, found it.

Limits in the third trimester allow exceptions for the health of the mother. Which is so ambiguous as to not be a significant limit.

In my opinion.

 

[Throckmorton]

I'm with Atreus21 on this. A fetus becomes a human at some point before birth. Biologically it's a human as soon as has its own DNA. But early in pregnancy there is a high likelihood of natural miscarriage, so it seems unreasonable to consider it to be a human at that point.

I can tell you one thing... humanity has nothing to do with being in or out of the womb. How is it possible for a fetus that's 2 weeks away from birth to be less human than a baby born 2 weeks premature?