ParanoiA Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Hmmm....what I think. I generally believe that life does begin before birth and I think Samuel's story moves many to agree with that. I am not particularly fixated on a particular point in time so I am interested in the opinion of others. I try to see all points of view and therefore play devil's advocate against many to highlight aspects that I think should be considered in the debate. I do not believe in forcing a woman that has been raped to further forfeit her rights by being forced to carry a resulting pregnancy to term. At the same time I do believe children in the womb are deserving of some rights and I'm interested in finding out what others think. Ultimately I believe it is an issue that should be decided by the representative branch of the people and not the judicial branch which, should be limited to interpreting law. As such I believe there is ultimately a greater agreement to be reached by bringing the topic up for discussion and bringing up valid points of opposition to get more people to consider all points of view and not just their own so that their representatives might do so as well. Very thoughtful. I can somewhat relate in that my personal judgement is entirely separate from my political one. I advocate rights of the mother superceding the child, only as a matter of law and because at least at this point, it seems only proper the decision be left a personal one. But my personal judgement is a moving target from day to day. I see that slide show on Samuel's story, I see pictures and hear stories that prove some degree of personhood, or startling resemblence of it, and I just can't nail down a sense of right or wrong. Well, I guess that's not true, because my gut tells me it's wrong. I could not kill that child and I'm thankful my wife and I have never been in that situation.
iNow Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Well, god in school, law, and elsewhere is clearly helpful if your standard includes that belief in god and behaving according to christian morality is good. The problem you have is an inability to see things from their point of view No, actually. The problem I have is that I DON'T agree with those beliefs, yet my stance is being ignored despite it's protection in our laws. Big difference. I have NO problem seeing their point of view, but I vehemently disagree with it, and argue that it has NO valid basis in our laws. Also, see my example above about me throwing my son into a pit of poisonous vipers because "my value system" suggests that this is clearly helpful. It's ludicrous that I even need to clarify this point. Believing something true does not make it so, and the sincerity of that belief is hardly enough to make it universal or law in our governing system. However, consider if a Christian said that homosexuality is clearly a sin since that is what the Bible says. Assuming the Bible is true is as much begging the question as rejecting the Bible's value system and thereby concluding that those values are worthless. Whenever you can prove what the true value system is, then that argument will hold water. Yeah, good luck with that. Again, not at all relevant. If your "truth" isn't also a truth in other parts of the world where other religions are practiced, then it's not a truth at all. For example, we don't have "christian math" and "islam math," or "buddhist physics" and "hindu physics." We just have math and physics. Same with truth and law. If it's truth quotient is lost when applied to another group with differing beliefs, then it can hardly be called a truth at all. It is a worldview, and is not relevant to every other citizen who chooses not to accept it. 1
doG Posted February 20, 2009 Author Posted February 20, 2009 I advocate rights of the mother superceding the child, only as a matter of law and because at least at this point, it seems only proper the decision be left a personal one. And, if that's the case then that is what the representatives of the people should write into law. It is my opinion that the law should ultimately determine whose rights are whose and not the courts. For that to happen requires that the people engage each other on this issue and communicate their desires to their representatives so that they may do their jobs instead of the courts doing it for them.
Mr Skeptic Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 So in one fell swoop, they banned the pill and intrauterine devices and abortion? No. The pill and intrauterine devices would prevent a fertilized egg. They only extended rights to the egg after it is fertilized, not before. Well, according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill#Mechanism_of_action Other secondary mechanisms have been hypothesized. One example is endometrial effects that prevent implantation of an embryo in the uterus. Pro-life groups consider such a mechanism to be abortifacient, and the existence of postfertilization mechanisms is a controversial topic. Some scientists point out that the possibility of fertilization during COCP use is very small. From this, they conclude that endometrial changes are unlikely to play an important role, if any, in the observed effectiveness of COCPs.[60] Others make more complex arguments against the existence of these mechanisms ,[61] while yet other scientists argue the existing data supports such mechanisms.[62] The controversy is currently unresolved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrauterine_device#Effectiveness_and_mechanism_of_contraception A copper IUD may also be used as emergency contraception. If an IUD is inserted within five days of unprotected intercourse, a woman's chance of pregnancy is reduced to that of ongoing IUD users.[39] The presence of a device in the uterus prompts the release of leukocytes and prostaglandins by the endometrium. These substances are hostile to both sperm and eggs; the presence of copper increases this spermicidal effect.[41][42] The current medical consensus is that spermicidal and ovicidal mechanisms are the only way in which IUDs work.[36] Still, a few physicians have suggested they may have a secondary effect of interfering with the development of pre-implanted embryos;[43] this secondary effect is considered more plausible when the IUD is used as emergency contraception.[44] Controversially, the possibility of this secondary effect has led some to consider the IUD an abortifacient. It seems that I was largely misinformed about both of those, but there may be a kernel of truth to what I said. Actually, wiki might not be a reliable source for this type of stuff, but good enough for me.
padren Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Well, with regards to the OP: The House voted 51-41 this afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person. Lets say for a second that a fertilized egg has the rights of a person. If this law is applied to prevent an abortion, does that mean I can break into a woman's house and start eating her food and start mooching off her? What rights does that woman have to prevent me from doing such? If she can legally have me kicked out of her house, why can't she have a fetus kicked out of her womb? If the fetus has the same rights as I do, then she should be able to call the cops and have the uninvited squatter dragged off to jail. They can talk all they want about a fetus having the same rights as a person, but it will still completely miss the mark because those aren't the issues that cause the controversy. Secondarily, while they can rule a fertilized egg will be treated as having all the rights of a person, that is not the same as claiming a fertilized egg is a person. The law and the claim may coincide, but aren't necessarily the same thing. In either case I think the debate about this topic (not abortion in general, but rights at conception) that interests me is on what grounds was this considered merited? Scientific research? Legal precedent? What new information came to light that actually demonstrated that - in fact - a cluster of cells is a person? Regardless of whether the end result of the law is good or bad, accurate or wrong, how we go about making laws is very important. I see no difference between this legal declaration that a fertilized egg has rights, and a legal declaration that sex before marriage does tangible harm to the institution of marriage, or that homosexuality is a mental illness and sin, or serving pork endangers the diner's health... or any other law put on the books with no rational foundation. Maybe a rational foundation exists for fetus rights and can one day be demonstrated - but it is not being used here, and until it is this should not be law.
tvp45 Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Growing up in rural America, I've eaten many a fertlized egg with a small dark spot in the yolk. It never tasted remotely like chicken. There is a dividing line. We just don't agree on where it is.
DrDNA Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 You do realize that none of this answered the question that was asked. I'll rephrase it in case there was a misunderstanding. The proposed legislation would give a fertilized egg the same rights as a born human, including those fertilized eggs which occur as a result of rape. Should the women hosting them be allowed to abort these fertilized eggs with the MOrning After Pill in spite of the rights conveyed to those eggs under the proposed legislation? Sorry. I thought I did here: In 2000, 1.31 million abortions took place.There are about 13,000 abortions each year following rape or incest. Source: Guttmacher Institute,"Induced Abortion Facts in Brief" (2002) ......a "pro-choice" group BTW. That is slightly less than 1%. How can one base a premise on a nearly insignificant percentage of the overall number? Scientists (at least not me or anyone I know) don't normally rely on such figures to base their arguments. So, I simply will not base anything, including my position on this subject, on a nearly insignificant value (<1%). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.htmlBy legalizing abortion, countries can help reduce or eliminate the need for unsafe abortion. This, in turn, will significantly lessen the number of deaths related to abortion, reduce the likelihood of complications and improve women's subsequent health. For example, when Romania legalized abortion in 1990, its abortion-related mortality rate fell to one-third of its peak level—reached only one year before—of 142 deaths for every 100,000 live births. <...> At the same time, and also consistent with the worldwide picture, abortion is extremely safe in this country—far safer than it was prior to Roe v. Wade, when the procedure was illegal in many states. Before Roe, women's choices, and experiences, were similar to those of women in developing countries today Romania? They had to go to 1990 Romania to "substantiate" their statement? Do you feel that this is a valid comparison? I had a coworker from Romania and friends that adopted a pair of children from Romania. I'm no expert on Romania, but from what they communicated to me, and from what I have read, I don't believe that the conditions there, especially in 1990, were/are anywhere near the conditions in the US. 'Guttmacher.org' is a well known pro choice group. So, accepting a statement from Guttmacher on abortion at face value is akin to accepting the shape of the earth from the 'Flat Earth Society'. http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm If we go to an antiabortion web site, like the Confederation of Catholic Bishops, what kind of statement on the matter do we expect? http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/index.shtml In this regard, understanding that the legal status of abortion correlates much more with its safety than with its incidence is critical. One need only look at the experience in many developing countries—with their high rates of maternal death and disability related to illegal, unsafe abortions—for a powerful reminder of the social and medical costs routinely borne by women when access to safe abortion is denied. ........... Again, an unsubstantiated statement from a pro choice group. And I can not accept that there is much of a correlation between what goes on in "developing countries" and the US.
Dudde Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 I don't see why that less than 1% figure of people, which is to say several thousand people anyway, cannot have an abortion due to rape/low survival chance/etc. just because there are so many other abortions illegally performed that don't kill or maim the subject. You also say that >1% is nearly insignificant - now look at the number itself, that 13,000, those are peoply by the way - who cares where it came from, how small do you think we can keep these numbers when we outlaw abortions in the United States? I don't see any practical purpose for outlawing abortion - regulating and placing restrictions of course, but not outlawing.
visceral Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 I kind of agree with Mokele. An organism who uses the nourishment and sustenance from another in order to live and grow, while not really adding benefit from the host in any way? I'm not going to call an eventual child a parasite - but if the mother doesn't want the child to begin with, there's little else to compare to. I thought they already tried outlawing abortions in some places? It usually ends up in a dirty back alley with a wire coat hanger somewhere - safer to keep it available at a sterile facility? I agree. It is in many ways equivalent to a parasite. It is something in your body that you don't want, taking nutrients from your bloodstream. It usually ends up in a dirty back alley with a wire coat hanger somewhere There are worse things than wires...in Singapore they have masseurs known as hilots who crush the fetus by digging their thumb and fingers into the woman's abdomen, and squeezing. http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKMAN29804620070905 As for when the viscous blob gains 'human being' status? I would say when it is sentient. Can it think? Can it feel? If yes, it's a person.
iNow Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Romania?They had to go to 1990 Romania to "substantiate" their statement? Uhmmm... No. You might want to look at references before you call something unsubstantiated. Henshaw SK, Unintended pregnancy in the United States, Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 30(1):24-29 & 46. Henshaw SK, Abortion incidence and servcies in the United States, 1995-1996, Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 30(6):263-270 & 287. Again, an unsubstantiated statement Seriously, I don't think that word means what you think it means. Henshaw SK, Unintended pregnancy in the United States, Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 30(1):24-29 & 46. Henshaw SK, Abortion incidence and servcies in the United States, 1995-1996, Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 30(6):263-270 & 287.
DrDNA Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Stanley Henshaw joined the Guttmacher Institute as a Senior Research Associate in 1979 and is currently a Senior Fellow with the Institute. Dr. Henshaw has authored or co-authored over 60 articles and publications on abortion utilization in the United States and internationally, abortion policies and services, teenage pregnancy, unintended pregnancy and family planning. With colleagues at Guttmacher, he conducted two cross-national studies of family planning services and teenage reproductive behavior. Dr. Henshaw has served as expert witness in numerous legal proceedings involving abortion restrictions. For six years, he served as member of the board of directors of the National Abortion Federation (NAF) and received the Christopher Tietze Humanitarian Award from that organization, and in 2005, he joined the board of directors of the Abortion Access Project. Dr. Henshaw holds a Ph.D. in sociology from Columbia University.
iNow Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Stanley Henshaw joined the Guttmacher Institute as a Senior Research Associate in 1979 and is currently a Senior Fellow with the Institute. Dr. Henshaw has authored or co-authored over 60 articles and publications on abortion utilization in the United States and internationally, abortion policies and services, teenage pregnancy, unintended pregnancy and family planning. With colleagues at Guttmacher, he conducted two cross-national studies of family planning services and teenage reproductive behavior. Dr. Henshaw has served as expert witness in numerous legal proceedings involving abortion restrictions. For six years, he served as member of the board of directors of the National Abortion Federation (NAF) and received the Christopher Tietze Humanitarian Award from that organization, and in 2005, he joined the board of directors of the Abortion Access Project. Dr. Henshaw holds a Ph.D. in sociology from Columbia University. That's nice, dear. Now, what part of the studies they referenced are you calling into question? A simple attempt to discredit the author of said studies by listing groups in which he's participated ain't gonna cut it on this one.
DrDNA Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 (edited) I did not say I was calling any particular study into question. What I was pointing out is that all (your) roads lead to the Guttmacher Institute...including Dr Henshaw and his pay check. In much that same manner that most of the noise that you will ever hear about the earth being flat these days lead to 'The Flat Earth Society' And what I am STILL calling into question are these particular statements from the Guttmacher Inst that you cited and how they apply to anything in these United States of America: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.htmlBy legalizing abortion, countries can help reduce or eliminate the need for unsafe abortion. This, in turn, will significantly lessen the number of deaths related to abortion, reduce the likelihood of complications and improve women's subsequent health. For example, when Romania legalized abortion in 1990, its abortion-related mortality rate fell to one-third of its peak level—reached only one year before—of 142 deaths for every 100,000 live births. <...> At the same time, and also consistent with the worldwide picture, abortion is extremely safe in this country—far safer than it was prior to Roe v. Wade, when the procedure was illegal in many states. Before Roe, women's choices, and experiences, were similar to those of women in developing countries today In this regard, understanding that the legal status of abortion correlates much more with its safety than with its incidence is critical. One need only look at the experience in many developing countries—with their high rates of maternal death and disability related to illegal, unsafe abortions—for a powerful reminder of the social and medical costs routinely borne by women when access to safe abortion is denied. ........... Edited February 21, 2009 by DrDNA
iNow Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 (edited) "[in the US,] before Roe [v. Wade], women's choices, and experiences, were similar to those of women in developing countries today." Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNobody has yet answered my questions. Since it's illegal, will the woman go to jail for murder after having an abortion? Will she be executed? Will the woman be charged with involuntary manslaughter if she has a miscarriage? If she goes to jail, how long should she be sentenced? Surely, the guidelines should match those of murder, and she be imprisoned for life w/o parole. Execution is on the table here in Texas. Should we fry women who have abortions? What if the female having the abortion is under the age of 18? Should she be sentenced as a child would? What will/should the punishment be for breaking a law like this? Edited February 21, 2009 by iNow Consecutive posts merged.
DrDNA Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 "[in the US,] before Roe [v. Wade], women's choices, and experiences, were similar to those of women in developing countries today." I looked up the references. That statement is NOT from or based on either of them. So it is nothing more than that. A statement. If it is, I missed it (I may have in my hast), so please point it out to me.
iNow Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 I think perhaps you did read too quickly. They did not make that statement, I agree. However, the statement is supported by the study data itself, where they compare numbers across different time frames. The data from the time frame prior to Roe v. Wade aligns with the data we have today for developing countries. Now, back to the questions I asked...
Dudde Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 far safer than it was prior to Roe v. Wade, when the procedure was illegal in many states. Before Roe, women's choices, and experiences, were similar to those of women in developing countries today. It was in the Guttmacher article posted earlier. I haven't had the chance to read the article you posted earlier, I'll check it out after work
doG Posted February 21, 2009 Author Posted February 21, 2009 So, I simply will not base anything, including my position on this subject, on a nearly insignificant value (<1%). I didn't ask you about your position on the subject as a whole, only about raped women that get pregnant. FWIW raped women that get pregnant represent 100% of the raped women that get pregnant, not some insignificant value. What is your position regarding this specific group? What do you think about their rights?
Mokele Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Well, this thread has utterly failed to do anything but further degenerate in the given 24 hours. Closed.
Recommended Posts