So a legal contract determines whether the embryo/fetus is part of the egg donor's body or part of the carrier's body? Interesting.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
The Social Conservatives emboldened by the Dub's victory are hell bent to force their form on Censorship on all of AmericansCongressional talk of subjecting satellite and cable services to the same indecency rules broadcasters face has moved from the back rooms to the floor
WTF? This is a paid subscription, the government should have no say in what is broadcast just like they should have no say it what is broadcast on subscription Cable TV.
WTF? This is a paid subscription, the government should have no say in what is broadcast just like they should have no say it what is broadcast on subscription Cable TV.
Why, your desire to make a fetus a life is just as equally formulaic and arbitrary. You just don't want to know that life is utterly without meaning and that the thing that makes you sure there has to be meaning has nothing to do with some phony external code of ethics, natural or otherwise, but the fact that stripped of all your nonsense, you will discover that you are pure love. The Lover is the only Real Ethicist. The heart with which you love God is the same heart with which He loves you.
OK, so you think life is without meaning - that's fine. Do you then oppose laws forbidding killing of adults? After all, their life is completely without meaning, so why should we oppose wanton killing? Or are you opposed to all laws?
I would think that would be obvious. Okay, I guess I'll play your game. The one carrying the fetus is the biological mother, the one who donated the egg is the genetic mother. I would say the one carrying the fetus is more the "real" mother. Are you asking for a reason, or are we going to play 20 questions?
I would think by now CW, that we both realize we can enter into these threads with our preconceived notions of life/when it starts/how to define it, spew some rational reasons why we think that way, and yet in the end walk away with our minds not changed.
Honestly, I don't know why we (and I don't just mean you and I) continue to even have these discussions anymore...
I'm trying to make a point or two, and you're trying to guess what they are, unsuccessfully thus far.Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I would think that would be obvious. Okay, I guess I'll play your game. The one carrying the fetus is the biological mother, the one who donated the egg is the genetic mother. I would say the one carrying the fetus is more the "real" mother. Are you asking for a reason, or are we going to play 20 questions?
I would think by now CW, that we both realize we can enter into these threads with our preconceived notions of life/when it starts/how to define it, spew some rational reasons why we think that way, and yet in the end walk away with our minds not changed.
Honestly, I don't know why we (and I don't just mean you and I) continue to even have these discussions anymore...
1 - Can you claim that the baby within the 'real' mother is part of her body? You'll note that they are completely genetically distinct, so there is no real basis for this claim other than a physical attachment.
2 - I forgot. It'll come back to me.
Well, so long as it is attached to her via the umbilical cord, then yes.
Heh. What's going on?!? Where am I?!? Are we talking about liberal college professors?!?2 - I forgot. It'll come back to me.
So, then, if the right Siamese twin wanted to terminate the left one, it should have the right to do so because they're physically attached? You'll note that Siamese twins are more 'one entity' than this hypothetical mother-fetus pair, as the twins share genetic material.
Since the siamese twins are already born (I presume) and since they're not on life-support equipment (again, I presume as you didn't say), I would say no. If you refer back to my previous post wherein I define when a fetus acquires rights, then the siamese twins each receive all of the rights and benefits of a human being and therefore cannot terminate each other.
So the distinction is whether or not something is born, not whether it is a part of your body? I thought it was that you should have control to do with your body as you see fit?
I know well when a fetus acquires rights. What I'm searching for is any logical justification of this assignment.
Its two separate things: (1.) Yes, you should (as a woman or anyone) have control over your own body. So, while a fetus is inside you, yes you should have control over its fate. And then (2.) Once the fetus is born, it acquires rights/privileges that it didn't previously have as a fetus. So in your example with the Siamese twins, assuming they have been born, they cannot just be "killed" at the arbitrary whim of the other twin.
The only way your argument can be consistent is if you can tell me honestly that you would allow a mother to terminate her 'fetus' when it has been delivered but the umbilocal cord is still attached. At this moment, the fetus is still a 'part of the mother's body', since we have already established that a physical connection is all that is required, correct? Where is the logical distinction between a fetus in the womb of a woman, one halfway through the birth canal, and one outside the birth canal?
That sounds like an extremely unlikely event and I seriously doubt it ever happens. Are you trying to make a strictly theoretical point?
The situation (a 'fetus' being attached to the mother via the umbilocal cord when outside the womb) happens every time a baby is born. It's not very rare at all. So, would you condone the killing of such a 'fetus'?
Well, I believe you answered your own question considering the baby has been born. Of course I wouldn't condone it.
But it's still physically connected to the mother. Thus, you have a problem in your theory unless you can identify at what exact moment during the delivery 'birth' occurs? Why does a logical distinction exist at this juncture?
So you think because the fetus is connected to the mother that my theory allows her to abort it after delivery? First of all, if that was her intention why did she go through all 9 months, deliver the baby, and then kill it? That's never going to happen.
Second of all, if the fetus has been born and is viable, yet momentarily connected to the mother via the umbilical cord, that doesn't mean she can kill it as its already been born and therefore has the aforementioned rights as a baby. It's only a momentary condition before the cord is cut.
I think you're just nitpicking.
No, I'm trying to get you to define an exact moment when the 'fetus' becomes a 'baby' and actually receives rights. As of yet, you have failed to do so. It shouldn't be that difficult... If your position is logically sound.
So, is it once the baby starts to leave the womb, when it's halfway through the birth canal, 3/4 through, all the way through? What if it's a C-section? I'll submit that no such logical distinction exists, which is why the USSC had to fabricate one to allow abortion.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
No, I'm trying to get you to define an exact moment when the 'fetus' becomes a 'baby' and actually receives rights. As of yet, you have failed to do so. It shouldn't be that difficult... If your position is logically sound.
I'll submit that no such logical distinction exists, which is why the USSC had to fabricate one to allow abortion.
Oh well sure, it's all very arbitrary. What did the USSC decide?
They assigned a distinction at birth, since the 14th amendment states that 'All persons born or naturalized ' supposedly meant that rights were only assigned at birth, which is patently false (the amendment was passed with overwhelming support while all 50 states had abortion bans in place, so obviously this isn't what it meant - it was actually intended to allow blacks to have the same rights as everyone else after the Civil War). The point of the grueling exercise I put you through was to point out the obvious fabrication of this position. There is no logical distinction between a fetus inside the womb or outside the womb. Even in engineering we would just call this a translation of reference coordinates, which does not affect the solution to the problem.
Therefore, such a distinction cannot be used to assign or deny rights to any group, yet it is the only reason abortion is legal today.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
They assigned a distinction at birth, since the 14th amendment states that 'All persons born or naturalized ' supposedly meant that rights were only assigned at birth, which is patently false (the amendment was passed with overwhelming support while all 50 states had abortion bans in place, so obviously this isn't what it meant - it was actually intended to allow blacks to have the same rights as everyone else after the Civil War). The point of the grueling exercise I put you through was to point out the obvious fabrication of this position. There is no logical distinction between a fetus inside the womb or outside the womb. Even in engineering we would just call this a translation of reference coordinates, which does not affect the solution to the problem.
Actually a fetus inside the womb doens't breath air - it's lungs are filled with fluid. It also 'eats' through a tube.
While your point about the arbitrary nature of choosing a 'cutoff' point stands, your 'translation of reference' is quite badly overstated. The problem is babies develop continuously, not discretely, so choosing an exact moment that the fetus becomes a viable human being is clearly impossible. The best you can possibly do is choose an arbitrary point well within the range that you consider 'clearly not a person', and treat that as if it were a discrete change point, even though it's not.
There, you said it yourself: "The problem is babies develop continuously, not discretely, so choosing an exact moment that the fetus becomes a viable human being is clearly impossible. The best you can possibly do is choose an arbitrary point well within the range that you consider 'clearly not a person', and treat that as if it were a discrete change point, even though it's not." You admit that any point you select to deprive the unborn fetus of rights is arbitrary. This is ethically unacceptable, as rights differentiation may only occur on the basis of logically relevant difference due to the equal protection clause.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
I've never tried to avoid saying that, Sadly you still haven't proven anything - any point that we choose to give rights to an unborn fetus which is not fully demonstrably human is also arbitrary. Which means at some point we arbitrarily infringe on the right sof the woman. My thoguht process here says: the woman given information can make up her mind long before any arbitrary point we might defensibly choose to bestow 'personhood' on an unborn child. Therefore choose such a point, with the understanding that this does place an 'unethical' burden on the mother to choose sooner, but that this is the best solution to an unresolvable conflict of rights.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
-
Facebook
Twitter