Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,839 Year: 4,096/9,624 Month: 967/974 Week: 294/286 Day: 15/40 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Limits on Abortion
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 20 of 230 (387028)
02-25-2007 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by tudwell
02-24-2007 7:11 PM


Who is ...
In this thread I want to analyze the minutiae and practicalities of these limits on abortion. Regarding rape, for example: Does a woman merely have to claim she was raped to get an abortion? Does she need to file a police report? Must a doctor inspect her for any evidence of rape? Should the abortion wait until the rapist is convicted?
What - really - is rape?
No webpage found at provided URL: rape -noun
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
-verb (used with object)
6. to force to have sexual intercourse.
7. to plunder (a place); despoil.
8. to seize, take, or carry off by force.
-verb (used without object)
9. to commit rape.
One could argue that - in an unwanted pregnancy - the fetus is forcing an unwanted sexual relationship on a woman.
Just a different perspective.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tudwell, posted 02-24-2007 7:11 PM tudwell has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-27-2007 11:50 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 33 of 230 (387329)
02-27-2007 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by macaroniandcheese
02-27-2007 11:50 AM


Re: Who is ...
this is not the thread to discuss the justifications of abortion.
Message 1
In this thread I want to analyze the minutiae and practicalities of these limits on abortion. Regarding rape, for example:
Rape can also include the forced penetration of the vagina (or other orifice) by an object.
An unwanted fetus forces itself upon the woman, and rather relentlessly.
All I am doing is drawing the parallel between "classic" rape and the forced penetration and co-opting of a woman's sexual organs by an unwanted fetus for it's gratification.
also, i noticed your definition doesn't allow for men being raped.
Agreed. That makes the definition incomplete, so we should include fetus rape too eh?
(Traditionally men don't have abortions either ... )
Edited by RAZD, : agreed

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-27-2007 11:50 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-27-2007 11:29 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-28-2007 3:44 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 54 of 230 (387490)
02-28-2007 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Hyroglyphx
02-28-2007 3:44 PM


Re: Who is ...
An unwanted fetus forces itself upon the woman, and rather relentlessly.
An unwanted fetus forces itself upon the woman? Are you being jocular?
That you don't see or consider the validity of this argument is very telling.
You think it must be a {joke} rather than confront the reality of the situation.
Of course that also means that maternity clothes are a big scam as women don't really need them eh? All the stuff you hear about "morning sickness" is also a put on yes?
It's all in the head isn't it NJ?
Are you really that clueless?

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-28-2007 3:44 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-01-2007 9:55 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 113 of 230 (387825)
03-02-2007 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Hyroglyphx
03-01-2007 9:55 PM


Re: Who is ...
Please quote correctly:
The issue is that you claimed a fetus "forces" itself inside its mother.
is NOT the same as
quote:
An unwanted fetus forces itself upon the woman, and rather relentlessly.
The fetus is a product of cell division that occurs rather relentlessly whether the woman wants it to or not.
And perhaps its escaped your attention that this is how you got your start in life.
You are comparing a caring and wanting family making a decision to have children with a woman that does not want to have a child - especially one that did not engage in sex for the purpose of having a child, and most especially one that did not willingly engage in sex.
Remember I said an "unwanted fetus". This is rather like the difference between having a chosen life partner live with you and having a stranger move in and take over, asking you to cloth and feed them and pay their living expenses while they sit around and watch tv.
One is wanted the other has forced itself on you.
The original comparison was between the forced participation in sex with an unwanted partner - rape - and the forced participation in the growth of the unwanted fetus.
Seriously, what in the world are you talking about?
The fact that the fetus grows whether the woman wants it to or not, and in the process it changes the hormones and other chemicals in her body and robbing her of nutrients and energy, and that this and the increased size and weight impinges on her ability to carry on life in a way that she desires to live.
Lets see, I believe that upon conception that a brand new human being is procreated.
That's great IF that is what you want to accomplish, but you are asking someone to accept your definitions whether they want that result or not.
You must realize that no life was "created" - two living elements sometimes combine (when an egg is fertilized) following sex, but they were not "dead" before. All that has happened is that some DNA has combined. DNA is not a person.
The probability that the result will be a healthy (breathing, functioning heart, functioning brain) baby is small. Often there is no contact between sperm and egg or sperm fails to penetrate the egg. Even after forming a zygote (the combined egg and sperm) most do not attach to the wall of the uterus but pass out to expire - naturally, and functionally no different than single - or even groups of - cells lost from the surface of your skin.
Of the 45% of the zygotes that form and then choose to stay - the zygote chooses whether to attach to the uterus or not - some 15% expire or are rejected by the woman's body leaving only a 33% success rate of zygotes becoming a fetus.
From Message 45:
quote:
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):
day 7 - 9: Blastocyst implants in wall of uterus (55% of Zygotes never reach this stage.)
{and further down:} 15 % of pregnancies miscarry during weeks 4-12
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.
By the time you've reached full term the percentage is down even more, and then there is the success rate of births that result in healthy (breathing, functioning heart, functioning brain) babies. You're probably into low single digits percentage wise of results in a healthy baby due to having sex.
This fetus, the product of a zygote that chooses to stay, grows relentlessly, whether the woman wants it to or not. It forces changes in hormones and dimensions and health on the woman whether she wants it to or not: while this may be tolerated by a woman that wants a child, an unwanted fetus forces itself on the woman, forces her to participate in it's continued growth and domination of her body.
Lastly: "If its not a baby, then you aren't pregnant."
If it's a baby and it's still in the womb then it is dead.
Babies require access to atmosphere to breath - that is one of the things that makes a baby fundamentally different from a fetus.
quote:
WordNet
baby - noun
1. a very young child (birth to 1 year) who has not yet begun to walk or talk; "isn't she too young to have a baby?"
2. (slang) sometimes used as a term of address for attractive young women
3. a very young mammal; "baby rabbits"
4. the youngest member of a group (not necessarily young); "the baby of the family"; "the baby of the Supreme Court"
5. an immature childish person; "he remained a child in practical matters as long as he lived"; "stop being a baby!" [syn: child]
6. a project of personal concern to someone; "this project is his baby"
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary
ba·by - noun
Inflected Form: plural babies
1 : an extremely young child; especially : INFANT ”see BLUE BABY
2 : an extremely young animal ”baby adjective ”ba·by·hood /-bE-"hud/ noun
American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary
ba·by - n.
A very young child; an infant.
Even after being born - becoming a baby - one can argue that it is still not a fully functioning human being:
http://www.genefaith.org/...bases/resources/humdevchart.html
quote:
child 8 - 11 yrs Capable of independent survival
And you would be closer to the truth than calling a zygote a baby - or a human being.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : partner

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-01-2007 9:55 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-04-2007 12:25 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 130 of 230 (387872)
03-03-2007 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by iano
03-02-2007 7:37 PM


Re: Oh, and I should add....
Which is not something we can speak of when it comes to defining personhood. Let's agree that the harm part of the proceedings is established in any case.
If there is no {person} there is no harm to any {person}.
Would you say that the natural loss of living skin cells (several hundred a day per person) is {harm}? There is no {person} harmed by such loss. Do we need to consider the skin cell?
What is the difference between a living skin cell that is lost and a natural miscarriage of cells? Functionally there is no difference.
On occasion there is need to dispense with more than a normal loss of skin cells for the health and well-being of a {person}, up to and including the removal of organs and limbs and the like.
Do we need to consider the {harm} done to these organs and limbs and the like?
What is the difference between an organ or limb or the like that is removed from the body of a {person} and an abortion of a group of cells? Functionally there is no difference.
Some people hold to certain religious beliefs regarding medical practice where they chose not to have operations involving the removal of an organ or a limb or the like because it is against their religious beliefs, even when such a choice may kill them.
That is their legal choice.
Some people hold to certain religious beliefs regarding medical practice where they chose not to have operations involving the removal of an organ or a limb or the like performed on their living and breathing children because it is against their religious beliefs, even when such a choice may kill them.
That too is their legal choice.
Legally and ethically and morally and logically it is reasonable to allow people to make choices based on their religious belief, so long as they do not harm other {persons} in the process.
Legally and ethically and morally and logically it is NOT reasonable to force people to make choices based on religious beliefs that they do NOT hold, as that DOES harm {people}.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by iano, posted 03-02-2007 7:37 PM iano has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 148 of 230 (387931)
03-03-2007 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Straggler
03-03-2007 4:59 PM


Re: Answering the detractors
I personally would say that a baby capable of independent existence is a person too. However that is an arbitary definition that I happen to be comfortable with.
A child is not capable of independent existence until 8 to 11 years.
http://www.genefaith.org/...bases/resources/humdevchart.html
There are people that are mentally handicapped, who are put in homes and cared for by trained staff because they are not capable of independent existence. They are not accorded "the much coveted title, rank, and rights of a human being" as their rights are restricted to match their ability (in a good home anyway).
Personally I am happy with the definitions from Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion for determining human life and personhood:
quote:
(Life)
UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF LIFE
1. [Determination of Life.] An individual who has sustained either:
(1) irreversible instigation of circulator and respiratory functions, and
(2) irreversible instigation of any functions of the (entire) brain, including the brain stem, is alive.
A determination of life should be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.
(Personhood)
Some philosophers and scientists have argued that the whole-brain standard does not go far enough. Several leading authors on the subject have advocated a higher-brain standard, according to which death is the irreversible cessation of the capacity for consciousness. This standard is often met prior to whole-brain death, which includes death of the brainstem -- that part of the brain which allows spontaneous respiration and heartbeat but is insufficient for consciousness. Thus, a patient in a permanent coma or permanent vegetative state (PVS) meets the higher-brain, but not the whole-brain, standard of death.
It is firmly established, both in case law and in medical ethics, that competent adult patients have the right to refuse life-supporting medical treatments, even artificial nutrition and hydration. By the same token, an appropriate surrogate can refuse life-supports on behalf of the legally incompetent if there is sufficient reason to believe the patient would have refused treatment in the present circumstances. Because of this broad legal and moral right to refuse treatment, life-supports that are unwanted or are considered unhelpful -- including life-supports for permanently unconscious patients -- can be terminated without first declaring the patient dead.

This allows fundamentalist christians to apply their interpretation in their lives.
Enjoy

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 4:59 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 5:55 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 173 by anastasia, posted 03-04-2007 12:44 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 165 of 230 (388013)
03-04-2007 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by anastasia
03-03-2007 9:54 PM


Re: Obvious Examples
It did not just come alive by accident.
It also did not "just come alive" by intent. It also did not "just come alive" by action. It did not "just come alive" at all - there is no life from non-life here: both sperm and egg are already alive. You have "living" cell matter before and you have "living" cell matter after.
They are no different than a cell of "living" cell matter that you can scrape off your arm.
And just as likely to survive on it's own to keep living.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by anastasia, posted 03-03-2007 9:54 PM anastasia has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 219 of 230 (389087)
03-10-2007 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by anastasia
03-04-2007 12:44 PM


staggering back to the topic, maybe ...
I see we have wandered from the topic. again. The issue is whether rape is sufficient cause compared to other causes for abortion.
Personally I don't think you can allow rape as a cause and not allow any other cause to be equally valid. It is not a difference in kind but one in degree.

And does a baby count as someone legally incompetant?
A minor child counts as someone legally incompetent. This could be a child of 10 years old for instance. It would also apply to any person who functions at a 10 year level regardless of calendar age.
This is why - morally and ethically - the legal system has historically left this level of decision up to the families.
There is nothing to prevent people acting on their individual beliefs when this is the case. Conversely legal restrictions on choice Do infringe on the traditional rights of the families involved.
So, would it be ok, according to this, to disconnect all babies in neo-natal care from their oxygen supplies? Just curious about how you feel.
IF it was the wishes of the family that no heroic measures were to be undertaken. This is an established legal right and protects the beliefs of families that feel ANY medical treatment contravenes their beliefs. It is ironic to me that essentially religious views contradicts themselves here.
The issue comes down to personal choice, followed by family choice. If you think rape is sufficient cause then you don't think there is anything special involved.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : to get back to the topic

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by anastasia, posted 03-04-2007 12:44 PM anastasia has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 220 of 230 (389089)
03-10-2007 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Hyroglyphx
03-04-2007 12:25 PM


new topic needed
You say this as if a fetus has some malevolent intentions or as if it is some sort of aberration that a fetus is dependent upon its mother for survival. You do realize that this trend continues long after birth, I presume?
You are missing the point Nem, but this is too off-topic to go into further here. We can start another topic to discuss this issue. AdminPD has spoken.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-04-2007 12:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Straggler, posted 03-10-2007 7:44 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024