Saddleback point: At what point is a life a life?

[her209]

Somewhere in the good ol' USA, there is a gang of abortion doctors roaming the streets aborting pregnant women's unborn babies against their will.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
then the doctor can remove the fetus and sever the umbilical cord. There is no need to euthanize the fetus..

later-term abortions requiring a doctor's approval and perhaps even the approval of a medical review board in extremely late-term cases.

Since the fetus has no rights by law and is considered part of the woman's body by law, how would a doctor or medical group establish "imminent domain" to go into her body against her will and do what they please with what they remove, at any point during the pregnancy up to and including 1 second before birth?

So if a tapeworm grows to a certain size/age inside her stomach, then it gains rights to remain there and/or be removed without being killed? A squatter is a person occupying another person's territory. Are you saying that a fetus should be granted personhood at a certain size/age? How about the tapeworm?

They are not taking anything out of her body against her will. She is asking for it to be removed. The only question is what is done to the fetus before it is removed. I really don't have a dog in this hunt. I am not religious so I don't believe in a "soul" and I really don't have an answer to the question "when should a fetus/baby be considered a person". With that said, your comparisons are apples and oranges. Comparing a tapeworm to a human being is absurd and you have the right to remove the squatter from your property but, unless you are in imminent danger, most people would agree you don't have the right to kill him.

There is no good answer to the question at hand. I lean towards the middle ground. Once the fetus reaches the point that it can viably survive outside of the mothers body (actually has a chance to survive long term) that abortion should probably not be allowed. It seems like the best compromise (GASP) position.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
then the doctor can remove the fetus and sever the umbilical cord. There is no need to euthanize the fetus..

later-term abortions requiring a doctor's approval and perhaps even the approval of a medical review board in extremely late-term cases.

Since the fetus has no rights by law and is considered part of the woman's body by law, how would a doctor or medical group establish "imminent domain" to go into her body against her will and do what they please with what they remove, at any point during the pregnancy up to and including 1 second before birth?

What in the world are you talking about? No woman is ever required to abort her pregnancy against her will.

So if a tapeworm grows to a certain size/age inside her stomach, then it gains rights to remain there and/or be removed without being killed? A squatter is a person occupying another person's territory. Are you saying that a fetus should be granted personhood at a certain size/age? How about the tapeworm?

You can seriously be this obtuse. Is this how disconnected from reality one needs to be to hold the positions you hold? It would figure.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

What in the world are you talking about?

You just said that "later-term abortions requiring a xyz's approval". How does xyz establish "imminent domain" to force her to seek approval?

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
You can seriously be this obtuse. Is this how disconnected from reality one needs to be to hold the positions you hold? It would figure.

You are being evasive and insulting. Can we have an intelligent debate?

Simply answer the questions. What is the difference between a tapeworm, a tumor, and a fetus? None have personhood, all are considered to be the woman's property with which she can remove/terminate at her leisure, and yet you arbitrarily say that after a certain size/age the fetus cannot be terminated without explaining your reasoning.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Vic
I just want to jump in and say that this is not a medical or scientific question, but a legal one. From a medical standpoint, life begins at conception. From a scientific standpoint, life began some 3.5 billion years ago (DNA is seemingly immortal), and each individual is not new life but the propagation of life.
From a legal standpoint, interested in protecting the rights of individual life, the question is a bit more clouded. It comes down to: whose individual rights are more important? The mother's or the fetus'? This is why a person who murders a pregnant woman at the doorstep of an abortion clinic would be charged with 2 counts of murder. His rights are not at issue here. But so long as the fetus is incapable of surviving outside the mother's womb, then the mother's rights are of issue here. So I believe that it will be legally determined that life begins at the point where the fetus is able to survive outside the mother's womb on its own.
This is why I applaud Obama in supporting the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, while simultaneously recognizing the right of a woman to choose -- up to a point.
And also why I frown upon McCain for abusing science to forward his own ideological agenda even when it trounces upon the legal rights of pregnant women. Obviously, he could spout out his response without thinking. That's because he didn't think.

I thought he voted against it?

?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

What in the world are you talking about?

You just said that "later-term abortions requiring a xyz's approval". How does xyz establish "imminent domain" to force her to seek approval?

Already covered. Due to the increasing probability of viability of the fetus and her ample opportunity to exercise her right to become unpregnant in earlier stages of pregnancy, the counsel of a medical review board should be required.

Strictly speaking, she has a right to become unpregnant at ANY point of her pregnancy, but for the reasons given above, I think the requirement of third-party approval is reasonable, and consistent with a number of other legal principles.

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
You can seriously be this obtuse. Is this how disconnected from reality one needs to be to hold the positions you hold? It would figure.

You are being evasive and insulting. Can we have an intelligent debate?

That depends entirely on you. So far, things are not looking positive.

Simply answer the questions. What is the difference between a tapeworm, a tumor, and a fetus?

Well, tapeworms are not human, and tumors are not potential persons.

None have personhood, all are considered to be the woman's property with which she can remove/terminate at her leisure, and yet you arbitrarily say that after a certain size/age the fetus cannot be terminated without explaining your reasoning.

If you want lines drawn at all, they have to be drawn somewhere. As stated above, after a certain reasonable period, likely after a certain point of probable viability, the fetus can be argued to have earned "squatter's rights," and the necessity of euthanization of the fetus diminishes significantly.

Basically speaking, if the fetus can be safely extracted from it's mother's womb without further and unnecessarily violating the rights of the mother, there is no strict necessity to euthanize the fetus. As far as I know, that is rather difficult to do until late 2nd and 3rd trimesters.

Please, do us all a favor and read the thread before you continue to ask questions that already have answers.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
then the doctor can remove the fetus and sever the umbilical cord. There is no need to euthanize the fetus..

later-term abortions requiring a doctor's approval and perhaps even the approval of a medical review board in extremely late-term cases.

Since the fetus has no rights by law and is considered part of the woman's body by law, how would a doctor or medical group establish "imminent domain" to go into her body against her will and do what they please with what they remove, at any point during the pregnancy up to and including 1 second before birth?[/b]

I'm not defending Cerpin's statement that as long as the fetus is still inside the mother, an abortion is okay. But your own statement is absurd. You're somehow arguing that if a fetus has no rights, a woman can be forced to have an abortion, and are then linking that nonsensical point to the general abortion debate. That's utterly illogical.

A woman herself has rights, regardless of whether a fetus has rights, and therefore no one can force her to receive a medical procedure unless there's some overwhelming greater good (for example, a psychotic woman imagining that her fetus is the devil's spawn and refusing treatment that would save the child - in this case, someone with power of attorney could make decisions for her).

So if a tapeworm grows to a certain size/age inside her stomach, then it gains rights to remain there and/or be removed without being killed? A squatter is a person occupying another person's territory. Are you saying that a fetus should be granted personhood at a certain size/age? How about the tapeworm?

You've answered your own question by pointing out that a squatter is a person. Tapeworms aren't people, so a tapeworm can't have squatters' rights.

Seriously, your arguments sound like you're on some sort of mind-altering drug. They're that irrational.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
viability of the fetus

Can I get abortion limitations tied to fetus viability in writing, a.k.a. bipartisan federal legislation?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
viability of the fetus

Can I get abortion limitations tied to fetus viability in writing, a.k.a. bipartisan federal legislation?

It's already in writing. Read Roe v Wade. Here's a relevant passage from that decision:

Full text of Roe v Wade

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: shira

It's already in writing..

If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability

This is simply a court statement, and is neither federal legislation nor limiting.

Again, can we get federal bipartisan legislation limiting abortions tied to viability of the fetus?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: shira

It's already in writing..

If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability

This is simply a court statement, and is neither federal legislation nor limiting.

Again, can we get federal bipartisan legislation limiting abortions tied to viability of the fetus?

You can't get such federal legislation. Because the states, not the federal government, write their own laws governing abortion, subject to court rulings. Roe v Wade says what sort of abortion laws can or cannot be enacted, but those laws are the province of the states, not the federal government.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Corbett
I think no matter how hard the Obama water boys here @ ATP&N try to spin it, this is the most damning evidence that Obama is just another hardcore liberal. I dont understand how ANYONE who says they oppose abortion "personally" can vote to have a LIVING BABY OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB KILLED.

Absolutely disgusting.

Don't believe the dishonest description of the bill presented in this hatchet-job article. Read the bill for yourself (go back a couple of pages in the thread) and you'll discover it doesn't "simply prohibit the killing of a baby born alive."

The fact that you accept on faith the grossly inaccurate characterizations made in this article, without tracking down the actual text of the bill and determining for yourself what the bill actually says, is a pretty damning indictment of your intellectual prowess.

Newsflash. A living fetus outside of the womb is not a fetus. Its a human being.

What in the world makes you think that's the argument here? Because some political hack with a vested interest in convincing you of something told you so? For God's sake, think for yourself once in a while. Bills are complex pieces of legislature that often contain dozens of different aspects, any one of which a reasonable person might use as a reason to reject the bill even if they don't disagree with ALL of the bill. Trying to spin this as "Obama votes to have a living baby killed" is stupid, but not as stupid as you buying the argument.

Try to follow along ....

Originally posted by: shira

So lets analyze:

This bill defines any living fetus outside the womb, at any stage of development, a person.

That statement alone makes it clear why this bill is totally unacceptable to anyone who is pro-choice: If a fetus (even a one-week-old fetus) happens to survive extraction from the womb, then killing the fetus thereafter is murder. And if the fetus cannot be killed absent fear of prosecution for murder, that means it's the abortion clinic's responsibility to fight to keep the fetus alive. regardless of cost.

wait. you mean one week after fetal stage? or one week after conception? one week after conception, the embryo is barely at blastula stage. it sure as shit isn't a fetus. it isn't even a fully-formed ball of cells. You probably couldn't even see the damn thing. Besides, this is when most naturally occurring spontaneous abortions occur. Women abort embryos quite frequently, actually; without even knowing they were pregnant.

I hope you mean the latter...or this is just another case of those not knowing anything about the issues that they try to cram down everyone else's throats.

I used the words "fetus" loosely, to refer to the post-conception "entity" carried by the mother. I realize that "fetus" when used formally refers to that entity at the end of the 8th week post-conception. The bill does is NOT restricted to fetuses. It's actual words are:

As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles

From information I found after my original post on the bill, it looks like 22 days post-conception (that is, when the heart begins to beat) is the earliest that, under the terms of the bill, the "member of the species homo sapiens" could be considered "born alive."

Note that the very earliest abortions are performed 5 to 7 days after the first missed period (earliest abortions) and that a woman can easily be fertile 11 days after her last menstruation (17 days before the missed period). Thus, in practice, even the earliest possible abortion can be dealing with a 22-day-old "member". That is, there's no way for abortion providers to know with confidence that the "member of the species homo sapiens" they're about to remove is LESS than 22 days old.

Thus, every, single abortion performed would be affected by this bill. And since early abortions are performed by sucking the lining of the uterus into a tube, it's very likely that the "member" in the sucked-out material would have a heartbeat. Thus, when the "member" died shortly thereafter, that would be murder.

That's why I call this bill a complete fraud. Its proponents disguise it as an effort to protect aborted third-trimester babies that have a chance to live full lives, but the reality is that the bill makes even the EARLIEST abortions - as typically performed - illegal.

oh my...that is indeed quite ridiculous.

 

[eilute]

Originally posted by: ConkyAt what point does a baby get human rights?

At age 18.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
Why is abortion such a big deal to some people?

It's less about abortion itself and more about a desire to control other people's lives and behavior.

 

[merlocka]

hey we should have a discussion about abortion and human rights on the internet. surely that will help get to the bottom of things.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: shira

It's already in writing..

If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability

This is simply a court statement, and is neither federal legislation nor limiting.

Wow, Scotus decisions are simply "court statements"? No, it's not legislation, it's the Opinion of the SC and therefore MORE POWERFUL than federal legislation. Only an amendment to the constitution (or a subsequent decision) can overturn a SC verdict.

And how is this not a limiting factor tied to viability? If a state so chooses, they can completely BAN abortion in the 3rd trimester except for the mother's health exception.

Again, can we get federal bipartisan legislation limiting abortions tied to viability of the fetus?

No, you can't, because SC has already ruled on the issue. Any limiting 'federal legislation' counter to the Court's opinion will be struck down.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
then the doctor can remove the fetus and sever the umbilical cord. There is no need to euthanize the fetus..

later-term abortions requiring a doctor's approval and perhaps even the approval of a medical review board in extremely late-term cases.

Since the fetus has no rights by law and is considered part of the woman's body by law, how would a doctor or medical group establish "imminent domain" to go into her body against her will and do what they please with what they remove, at any point during the pregnancy up to and including 1 second before birth?

So if a tapeworm grows to a certain size/age inside her stomach, then it gains rights to remain there and/or be removed without being killed? A squatter is a person occupying another person's territory. Are you saying that a fetus should be granted personhood at a certain size/age? How about the tapeworm?

Pennsilvania disagrees. http://www.peopleforlife.org/s45.html

SENATE BILL No. 45

Session of 1997


C) HOMICIDE. --WHEN THE OFFENSE IS HOMICIDE OR HOMICIDE OF AN UNBORN CHILD, EITHER THE DEATH OF THE VICTIM, INCLUDING AN UNBORN CHILD, OR THE BODILY IMPACT CAUSING DEATH CONSTITUTES A "RESULT," WITHIN THE MEANING OF PARAGRAPH (A) (1) OF THIS SECTION AND IF THE BODY OF A HOMICIDE VICTIM, INCLUDING AN UNBORN CHILD, IS FOUND WITHIN THIS COMMONWEALTH, IT IS PRESUMED THAT SUCH RESULT OCCURRED WITHIN THIS COMMONWEALTH.

As does Ohio: http://www.usatoday.com/news/n...2-15-cutts-trial_N.htm

CANTON, Ohio (AP) ? A former police officer who tearfully told jurors he accidentally killed his pregnant lover was convicted Friday of murdering her and their unborn child.


And Kentucky: http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?s=8767078

WILLIAMSBURG, Ky. (AP) -- A jury in southeastern Kentucky has convicted an Anderson County man of murder in the traffic deaths of two people and an unborn child.





Google fetal homicide

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: ConkyAt what point does a baby get human rights?

When a mother gives birth? A baby gets human rights when we (as a society) decide they do. Right now that is after birth.

Conception is the process that may, if millions/billions of things don't go wrong, leads to life. There is no 'exact' moment when life begins, that is radically over simplifying a complicated issue. The heart beat begins around 22 days, but neurological development that is significant enough to sustain life is not prepared until around 6-7 months.Babies are not self-aware (able to recognize themselves in a mirror) for a very long time even after birth.



Unrelated, but I saw a funny bumper sticker the other day. Vote Democrat...because life doesn't end at birth.