Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion

I can't speak for Sweden but I am aware of what it's like in Denmark. Usually people criticize those countries (after finding out how well off the people in those countries are) by stating that they have such high tax rates. The fact is they have good salaries to match and so the tax ends up not really being a burden.It is only in a theoretical sense that one has "lost what one is making", with the benefit of having lots of benefits one "never has to pay for".Indeed I always find it funny that people in the US think their system saves them money, when they are forced into paying high out of pocket prices for health services, and end up needing insurance policies anyway which is... socialized medicine, except most of the money gets diverted away from actual medicine!In the end people in the US would spend more in healthcare rather than those paying taxes in the socialist systems.I tells ya, it was sweet! I do like capitalism and free markets in general (basic production and services), but for major routine and essential services it just makes sense (not to mention dollars and sense) to have socialized programs.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

There's no need for such a justification. Whether or not the baby is human we have right to force her to continue to act as an incubator against her wishes. People have the right to change their minds. Whether protection was sought, used, ignored or failed makes no difference - we have no right to force a women to act as an incubator against her wishes.

You obviously didn't read my first reply, I will put it again, for the last time. And there is the Holy Grail.
There's your stupid plank..It's just so retarded.

Um, yes, and now you are a liar as well.
Thank you.

His definition of "personess" is being able to ask the person. Last time I checked, its hard to communicate with a developing human.

Again, it's not a strawman if you say it is.
My arguements are 100% accurate, and reprsent the truth.You are basing all this on false premises. Your whole arguement or essay is a strawman, not my rebutal. So if the person on life support could recieve new lungs, and that would save his life, should we still pull the plug legally?Answer that... That's a strawman. They have exactly what they need to be a functioning human being in the stage that they are in.You keep comparing mechnical life support to natural human dvelopment.
The 2 CANNOT be compared, its a strawman.Get over it, your wrong. If your essay made any sense at all, it would not upset people, and there would be now need ofr a "warning" Leave emotions out of it, if you don't want an emotional response. I said developing, stop mis-representing what I say. It's not logical. Are you sure your not retarded?
So nothing matters right? We all end up dead? Thats an arguement?
You call my arguements strawmen, yet this is what you come up with?No wonder you don't believe in God, the world has you by the balls.
The devil is so happy for you to be exactly where your at.
I hope and pray that you will see the light one day, and it will give you peace. So then, lets use your logic. 2/3rds of all people never make it past 75 (or whatever) are they not humans as well?
Can we just kill them at will now? That has nothing to do with what I said. If you remove a zygote from the womb, you are the cause for the sustained injury.

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}}}

I figured just saying 'incubator' would save a few words, but you are quite correct.

From #78 Huh? Perhaps more than two exclamatory sentences would make your argument stronger. His statement (in context of his essay) made logical sense.If you are saying you are attempting to refute the logic of that section you quoted, that's fine, but you have thuse far done a poor job of it. I do not seen a rebuttal which accurately attacks that argument within its proper context.It was not simply using that fact of law alone to make his case. You will note that he makes the statement that it is in conjunction with "personhood". Okay, what did I say you should be doing with your life?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mi/mi_worldregn.aspYou an try this website of stats from the UN. It lists regions rather than countries.

I know you have a lot to respond to with me, RAZD, and holmes. Thank you for at least this small reply to know that my messages are not just wasted bits.Respectfully though, It does not seem that you read my original message (Message 55). Can you at least let me know that you read the original? I say this because you seemed to address a point that I did not make in either of my posts.I never said, nor do I recall RAZD saying, anything about being able to communicate as part of any definition of "personness". My post was about a compromise that, while insufficient for both sides, would give value to the argument to restrict partial birth/late term abortions.It just seems that you are missing the part about RAZD's argument that could actually mandate protecting unborn children in later stages of development (2nd and 3rd trimester). I am on your side here. I think we do need SOME restrictions against late term abortions.I repeat my questions to you. Must it be all or nothing? If so why given that some children might be saved?If all you do is let me know that you read my initial post (Message 55) then any other failure to answer my questions will be tolerable.

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}}}

I agree up to a point. It’s not a particularly good solution, and I’m sure it would be preferable to the people concerned to not have to do it. But it cannot be ignored that in some cases it may be the only realistic solution. I’ve never proclaimed it to be a pleasant thing, but sometimes it may be a necessary thing, regardless of the health (or lack of) of the fetus. Yes, aborting a healthy fetus may be viewed differently to an unhealthy one as the reasons are probably different, but this is where it is important to have established criteria based on reasonable and informed thought, that states when life is considered to begin. This is what I am advocating here. Prior to this point, the baby as you call it, is not a baby. It is merely a cluster of cells forming the foundation of what may one day become a person. At this stage there is no mind, no person. It should be considered to be a part of the woman’s body, and nobody else other than the woman should be able to decide what to do with her own body. I don’t see where this comparison is relevant the point I was making, this seems to be in relation to the health-of-the-fetus aspect. Please explain if I am reading it wrongly. Yes, it is a problem. However, out there in the real world it will continue to happen. It doesn’t matter how much morality is preached, or how much people are educated, or how much contraception is available. There will always be people who get pregnant because they are careless or irresponsible, or genuinely by accident. Should we say tough luck, you’ve got yourself a kid.? Having a child is a major life-changing event, and cannot be done half-heartedly. What if someone does not want to have a child at the time, yet is irresponsible and doesn’t take precautions against pregnancy? Are they fit and ready to be responsible parents? Maybe, or maybe not. Or, say someone did take all reasonable precautions and still gets pregnant by accident. In either situation, indeed whatever the reason may be, the raising of an unwanted child should not be forced upon them.In summary, have your opinion. You have the right to it, and you have earned it. But the right of choice cannot be taken from others who don't share your views, whatever the health of the fetus may be.

As an aside...This from message 6 and then this from message 65 How did these quotes come from the same person???riverrat, are you sure you wrote both of these? You sure someone else didn’t sneak in and use your login while you weren’t looking??