Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion

I never said it was. What I said was that the {basis\criteria} needs to be the same at each end to be morally consistent. Why do that when the main purpose I can see for late term abortion is that the fetus is not healthy? Even if you concede that late term abortion is valid for very unhealthy fetuses that still begs the question of what criteria is used for making that decision, criteria that is consistent and logical. Yes, if I know that something was forgotten in the batter and that they will not turn out to be edible, I'll take them out and put in another batch that is properly made.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

and welcome back to this issue. You may have noticed that many comments of yours have been incorporated in this version, as well as stuff we got into in the later posts (preemies, etc). But that is part of the argument. Likewise if you knew that the mother and the baby were going to be fully healthy it is unlikely that a late term abortion would be chosen either.And then there are cases where the patient will likely 'improve' over time but never regain a fraction of the personhood they had before. From vegetable to high functioning vegetable. Not my personal wish and not for many people (hence the "living wills" and all that they cover). It is the gray areas that are open to different levels of acceptability ... and the precedent from the choices allowed at the end of life is that those choices are left to those who are intimately connected - the "appropriate surrogates" Actually they are moving in the same direction (or is one getting younger? ). Yes, there is a (natural) tendency to view a fetus as being at the beginning of a wonderful life, but that is just not always the case. The comparison to a person on life support is valid regardless of age (and remember that a person on life support can be a child in a coma just as easily as some old geezer, preemies are on life support and the rational still applies) if you consider it like a trajectory: will they be able to reach an elevation above some rational criteria (such as the criteria for personhood).Remember that there are two lines that I draw here: the first one is before the "signature" elements of human life (as used by the definition of death) are developed (ie before the formation of the brain, seeing as the lungs are the last of these elements to develop).Notice that technically "fetus" refers to the last 6-7 months of development, preceded by the zygote to embryo stages (Human Development Chart), and that this is about where the life\death line is crossed as well. The chart also says (bold mine for emphasis): With just those two figures you are down to 75% of 45% = 33.75%, or a 1/3rd natural "success" to that point: 65% of zygotes never make it to week 12 normally.There is a point reached where a decision (conscious or unconscious) is made to continue or not: regardless of the planning (or the failure of precautions) a point is reached where awareness of the biological process is pretty inevitable, where a decision is made to have or not to have, and this point is at about the same stage of development.I do agree with riVeRrat that there is a decision involved with having sex, but I think it is a little more complex than just {{if pregnant then have child}}, and I also think that the issue should be discussed and agreed on before hand by both participants rather than wait for the point of no return.And as for my "10 years old" arbitrary criteria, the chart also has: But that is just an aside. The second line is the one of personhood and the quality of life question.To me this issue {can\should\must} be considered up to the point of birth, and is a much harder question to define, as it involves the "trajectory" calculation and differing levels of minimum value being placed by different people. Certain to my mind is that there would need to be a valid medical reason to remove support at this point: the health of the mother or the health of the fetus.From wikipedia on fetus (Fetus - Wikipedia): And we know that full potential development is dependant to some degree on birth weight (I would think weight at a specific week - like 24 - would be a better criteria?) - there are elements that may just not be within the control of the mother to provide.There are still valid and ethical reasons to terminate later pregnancies, and the criteria for personhood gives us a rational guide for those choices while allowing for a variety of beliefs, similar to the way the life support victims are considered.Enough for now.ps - love the new avatar. it is so ... you, so coy and innocent ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

thanks, it has been (and continues to be) honed by the constructive criticism I have received here and elsewhere. welcome back.

Good point. I will look into doing that. It did feel a little awkward there, and this should help clear it up. I think of those (young and old) who are on life support as being in limbo, with the direction they are "going" very uncertain -- it is the uncertainty that leads to the question of removing life support (with certainty there would be no question).The continued development of the "gestational being" depends on a number of environmental factors, including the health and behavior of the {biological life support system} woman: crack and other drugs almost ensure a subnormal result, but there is also starvation and pollution, things beyond the control of the {BLSS} woman. While a healthy and prosperous {BLSS} woman can be compared to a well run hospital, a lot of {BLSS} women are more like 3rd world hospitals with uncertain electricity and inadequate supplies. They may very well succeed in saving lives, but it would not be my choice for treatment. And the unhealth uncertain {BLSS} women are, imho, more likely to have an inadvertent, unchosen, unplanned, pregnancy and be in this position of choice. But that is just where I differ with riVeRrat -- I see no prerequisite for continuing a pregnancy caused by the mutual enjoyment of sex, I am just saying that the decision to continue or to end such a state should be agreed on by both parties before hand: it is the only honest thing to do on this matter.I will go further and say that any male that has not reached a mutual agreement on this with his sex partner has forfeited any rights to being included in any later decision process (it's too late to debate), and that any female that has not told her partner that she does not intend to have any abortion for any reason has forfeited any claim to support from that partner. People need to be responsible for their decisions, even those not explicitly stated but clearly a result of their actions. Think of having to sign a release form before hand (I used to have one, btw, it also stated that both people were of sufficient age ...).This is obviously something that people getting married should discuss and agree on beforehand, or you are in for a donnybrook disagreement.But people don't need to be married to be responsible for their actions.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The law describes the absence of life that can be described as human from a body still consisting of living cells, a body that could be kept "alive" through extraordinary medical measures involving intensive life support systems (but which would be pointless). But (1) -- I am not comparing a fetus to a legally dead body. I am comparing the level of development of a zygote, a blastocyst and an embryo to a legally dead body and asking what about them is the same: the lack of brain function and the absence of independently working lungs and circulation. As such, while they may be living cells they are not {a living human}.Notice that message #45 refers to a Human Development Chart and reaches this conclusion from the information given: And the logical conclusion of this is that a delineation of the difference between living cells and human life at 12 weeks would be 3 times more accurate than the standard of a fertilized egg cell. This makes the zygote just as bad an arbitrary standard as the {10 year old child} standard is (and was supposed to be).And (2) -- you are not leaving it alone you are leaving it in an {intensive care life support system}, and one where the {intensive care life support system} may be faulty or the supplies and equipment may not be adequate. Unfortunately for you, as noted several times in these posts, those two specific points are not being compared. The level of life to qualify as human is compared to the earlier stages of development and the fetus is compared to {currently living humans} on life support systems. This is another example of a misrepresentation of the argument in the essay used to argue against it, otherwise known as a strawman. This essay is about a logical basis for making decisions, not based on feelings. And the issue of determining what constitutes an unhealthy baby is very much a part of the issue indeed. The solution also needs to address the diversity of beliefs of people on this issue, and to let them live by their beliefs. You can do a number of tests, such as taste the remaining batter or watch to see if they "rise" properly, and if they fail the tests then you know they are not right. AND then, if what you really want is a good batch of cookies, it is better to cut the process short and start over with good batter. (1) This is pure anecdotal evidence and an appeal to emotionalism rather than a factual basis for making a decision, and(2) It ignores the counter arguments of people that had been told their babies would be healthy but aren't and they are lumbered with a heavy maintenance child -- can you imagine how they feel about their doctor (or anyone else who told them to continue, especially in the face of any evidence otherwise).Some people could argue that all people should be cyrogenically frozen just before death so that they could be revived and treated by {vastly superior future medicine} at some {fantasy} future date ... an argument as valid as claiming that a zygote is a human life.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

who is this guy, I'd like to meet him ... (oops BLUSH) love that show, the best most honest 'news' show in america ...Your comments are ON. thanks.

I agree, and I also feel that the first trimester is plenty of time for her to exercise her option in this regard. I don't think it is completely tangential, as this gives a rational basis for that decision: a zygote or a blastocyst does not meet the requirements for {a human life} as opposed to a {single\mass} of {living but not particularly special} cell{s}.Continuing beyond the point when you know you are pregnant is making a decision to continue. Further anyone engaging in protected sex should have all the equipment necessary for that protection on hand, whether it is night before protection or morning after protection, it should be there with the commitment to use it.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

agreed, but then ... I am a liberal heh.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I'll keep in mind that you keep asserting that but have yet to show any evidence of such. Yes, pick something else totally irrelevant to the argument. Another strawman. Except that you have yet to demonstrate that claim. You didn't address any legal issue, you just quoted an irrelevant definition for your latest strawman argument. And obviously then, both fail the test for working lungs and brain. No different from any still living mass of cells within the otherwise dead body, organs that can be transplanted to save other lives (but which are not themselves a human life), but not the elements crucial to a living human being. They are cells. Cells without what they need to be functioning human beings. Another bald assertion devoid of supporting evidence. Because it is about how to address an emotional issue logically and with a consistent basis. Knowing it will upset {you\others} because of your emotional views doesn't make it any less valid, but it is fair to give warning. It's not a baby until it is born. Stop misrepresenting the issue. One can also argue that we all end up dead. Obviously you don't know what a zygote is (no umbilical there). People do have operations where a lung or other organs are removed. More appeal to emotionalism rather than to logic. Abortion is legal, it is not breaking the law. With or without this definition.And with or without this definition I can compare a zygote and a blastocyst and an embryo to a living organ within a human body and see that while it has the elements of living cells it does not have the elements critical to a human life as agreed on by all the people that worked on the definition of legal death.And the fact that 2/3rds of zygotes never make it to week 12 naturally means that you cannot rationally consider them to be human, that this would be just as arbitrarily erroneous as stating that you aren't human until you are 10.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

pretty damning stats schraf: the US tops the lists (for the "rich nations" included in the study)with nearly twice the deaths than those socialist countries like sweden ...and of course it's because they have all that extra tax money to spend: Then there is the issue of how much is spent on health care not covered by taxes and add those to the tax figures to see what the difference is.do you have similar stats for less developed countries?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Actually it is more than just an incubator -- that is a passive participant, whereas the role of the female is very active in the production and develpment of the zygote to the fetus. Think about it, there is massive change going on that involves not only sufficient nutrients and a cosy environment (incubator) but monitoring and application of key hormones and a whole platform of support structures.One could argue that the woman provides 99.9% of the raw materials, provides all the {environmental\process} management, as well as {co-authors} the development process.I guess what I am saying is that I already assume that right to be self-evident.But yes, we have no right to force behavior on anyone.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

a little too "massaged" for me, and unuseable to compare as a result. here the rich countries are excluded. perhaps people don't want us rich elites to see everyone on the same list?might be too disturbing?
as if there are not people in the US with income under $1?

No, it is a strawman because it misrepresents the argument, whether I say it is or not. The issue is not the veracity of your arguments but whether they correctly portray - and address - the argument. They don't, and it is because they don't that it is a strawman argument. And that means that your argument is irrelevant because it does not address the issue. I believe that has been done. All that it means is that the respiratory system had not failed beyond the ability of modern medicine. On the other hand, if they received the lung transplant and still died, that would indicate such a failure.But also, if the person had undergone severe brain damage as a result of failure of the lungs to provide the brain with oxygen, so that the transplant would result in a mental vegetable, then I would say it was a total waste of time and effort and resources, for even though the result may pass the {life\death} test, there would be no person there.This issue of {life support} relates to the issue of {personhood} not to the {life\death} issue because life support is not provided to dead people.The first question is whether the cells qualify as having the elements that we regard as signature elements for human life.The second question is whether the human life has sufficient potential for personhood and if not, then to allow the withdrawal of life support for those who find that morally acceptable.You keep attacking the first question with arguments regarding the second question. Tell me again how a single cell zygote or a multicell blastocyst functions as a human? Perhaps we should reclassify all species with the same abilities as human? We don't put 8 year old children in college because they have exactly what they need to be a functioning college student or even because they have the potential to become a college student, we put them in school according to their current ability and knowledge and functionality.As noted (several times now) by the end of the 12th week 2/3rds of natural conceptions have naturally ended: how do they posses what is needed to be human? And you still do not know what a strawman argument is. What I said was "Cells without what they need to be functioning human beings" which makes no reference to life support, just to the fact that significant features that we deem necessary to be regarded as human are missing from early stage developments. I repeat: it is not a baby until it is born. And I further qualify that by adding that any attempt to link baby to fetus is misrepresenting the issue, and further that correcting that misuse is not misrepresentation. The proper words are zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus, and these words fully and adequately describe the stages and abilities in question.One could, with equal relevance, call all living people "developing corpses" as it is the same misuse of terminology. When in doubt throw in the atheist accusation, always a winner for the godly, no matter how false it is. It is also totally irrelevant to the issue. The standard that we need to address this issue must be as logical and rational for the atheist, the hindu, the whirling dervish and everyone else, because we are an eclectic society of many different beliefs. I could say the same about you, particularly as you seem to be more upset about this issue than I am. If you defined human life as only existing after age 75 you would have an argument, but we have already shown that 10 years old was a silly standard. The fact is that those people passed the test for brains, lungs and circulation systems. You said " If your going to use the law, you need to use the whole law, not just a few words from one specific law." so how is pointing out that abortion is currently legal not applicable to that statement?The question is whether the zygote qualifies as something of legal concern, and given that well over 2/3rds fail to become human beings naturally, with no legal ramifications in any way, I would have to conclude that the answer is {no}.And I repeat that the standard for judging human life needs to be consistent at both ends of the human life spectrum to be morally and ethically consistent.There must not only be solid reasons for making the judgment of {human life} and {NOT human life} at it's most fundamental level,but there must also be allowance for the wide variety of beliefs to exercise the full plurality of values on the question of {personhood\quality} in the same manner that we allow them to be exercised at the end of life.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

time? it's a dimension of the universe. in the quantum world there are things that can be viewed as happening in negative time.

Your (B) does not exclude your (A), as they can be set at different "(pick a stage of life)" points. Okay to remove zygote because it is not life, but not okay to use that for a fetus, for instance.What about the issues ofC: Is there a point at which life is sufficiently human that, after that point has been reached, that there should be compelling {medical\other} reasons for having an abortion?D: Is there a point at which human life is sufficiently developed that, even if there are compelling {medical\other} reasons for an abortion, that a premature C-section would be more appropriate, as it can possibly save both lives rather than just one {if that is desired}?Those points, when defined, need to be consistent with similar points defined for marking the end of life in terms of the standards used.I favor (C) and (D).and no, I won't restrict {compelling} to just medical reasons.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}