| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/15/2012 11:22:05 PM · #926 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
These are ridiculous comparisons. It's not closer to either. |
Tell me why. I'm interested. I can see many ways in which they are similar and different. |
For one thing, they've both already been born. That's a big difference. They are breathing on their own outside of the mothers body. Early abortion involves cells at the earliest. Look, I'm not an advocate for late term abortion. I'd prefer it happened with chemicals when possible (the morning after pill, no different than a spontaneous abortion). But sometimes that's not possible. The point is you're trying to make this about something it's not. And what it's not is anybody's business other the person dealing with it. |
That last line is a bumper sticker not an argument. And you contradict yourself. You aren't an advocate for late term abortions, but your distinction is that the kitten and baby have been born. Why aren't you ok with late term abortion? The baby has not been born at that point, so what is the added distinction? That might be revealing to your position. |
We've already covered this ground, but my position is the same, if it can survive outside of the womb, it's a baby. Before that, it's a choice. It wasn't my choice, not one I needed to make. But it's my daughter's choice and my granddaughter's choice when it comes to that. If you want more than that, I'll pm you. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 12:26:23 AM · #927 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
if it can survive outside of the womb, it's a baby. Before that, it's a choice. |
The counter-argument to that belief is twofold.
On one hand even after a full term birth a child can not survive on it's own. Until roughly the age of three, a child is incapable of survival without constant attention. The ancient Greeks were the last western culture where "exposing" a newborn was not considered murder. So how is surgically removing a previable child any different than neglecting a newborn until it dies?
The second argument against late term abortions is that viability is constantly being lowered. The youngest surviving premature child is 21 weeks and five days, so survival minimum is now halfway through the second trimester. The fact that my now 18 year old daughter was born at 30 weeks and had no right by nature to survive, might bend my emotions away from my beliefs.
That said IMHO the whole question is complex enough that the state has no clear place in the decision, I just figured that I would jump in with the counter argument since Jason seems to be busy working or something frivolous like that. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 06:39:34 AM · #928 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Kelli:
if it can survive outside of the womb, it's a baby. Before that, it's a choice. |
The counter-argument to that belief is twofold.
On one hand even after a full term birth a child can not survive on it's own. Until roughly the age of three, a child is incapable of survival without constant attention. The ancient Greeks were the last western culture where "exposing" a newborn was not considered murder. So how is surgically removing a previable child any different than neglecting a newborn until it dies?
The second argument against late term abortions is that viability is constantly being lowered. The youngest surviving premature child is 21 weeks and five days, so survival minimum is now halfway through the second trimester. The fact that my now 18 year old daughter was born at 30 weeks and had no right by nature to survive, might bend my emotions away from my beliefs.
That said IMHO the whole question is complex enough that the state has no clear place in the decision, I just figured that I would jump in with the counter argument since Jason seems to be busy working or something frivolous like that. |
I covered way back, at the beginning of this thread somewhere, what my definition of survive outside the womb meant (with care, be it from doctors, mothers, fathers, whatever). If you want to abort after viability I'd be in favor of a C-section & adoption. I really don't know anyone that would choose to abort that late though. Everyone that I know that had an abortion did it before 10-12 weeks. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 10:38:00 AM · #929 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
For some people $10-$50 a month IS a lot of money. And Nullix said something really offensive like maybe they have bigger problems than sex. But the reality is, the people that CAN'T afford the pills, are the ones that need them the most. Can't afford a pill, probably can't afford a baby. |
I'm sorry that offends. You seem to thing sex is a right.
This isn't true; sex isn't necessary for survival. If $10 is too much, then maybe people should be focusing on improving their income before they have sex. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 10:51:26 AM · #930 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
You seem to thing sex is a right. |
Telling other people they shouldn't have sex is even less of a right. It's a wrong. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 12:24:14 PM · #931 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I'm sorry that offends. You seem to thing sex is a right.
This isn't true; sex isn't necessary for survival. If $10 is too much, then maybe people should be focusing on improving their income before they have sex. |
WHAT?! Are you suggesting that having sex is something other than a normal and biological part of human life? Are you suggesting that sex is a priviledge, and thus, one that can be denied by law?! Get real, Nullix. This is beyond the pale. What consenting adults do together is ABSOLUTELY none of anyone else's concern or business. SEX IS NOT EQUAL TO BIRTH CONTROL. Let's go over that again: Birth control is NOT the same as SEX. Birth control is preventative care of a woman's body. Why are you so fixated on SEX? Can you not see that birth control has many health benefits for women and thus many benefits for the healthcare system and society as a whole? Why do you need to make this about sex? Its extremely puritanical and utterly illogical. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 01:12:49 PM · #932 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We would make it illegal because we, as a society, would say, "This activity is not acceptable to us. We value the rights of the unborn person too much." If we don't think that as a society, then I don't think we should make it illegal. |
Elective abortion is not illegal up to viability, so haven't we already decided this question? |
Yes, we have decided. Currently. This can change if we decide to include fetuses as person members of society. The writers of Roe v. Wade, I think, were careful to allow for this possibility. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 01:35:21 PM · #933 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Kelli:
if it can survive outside of the womb, it's a baby. Before that, it's a choice. |
The counter-argument to that belief is twofold.
On one hand even after a full term birth a child can not survive on it's own. Until roughly the age of three, a child is incapable of survival without constant attention. The ancient Greeks were the last western culture where "exposing" a newborn was not considered murder. So how is surgically removing a previable child any different than neglecting a newborn until it dies?
The second argument against late term abortions is that viability is constantly being lowered. The youngest surviving premature child is 21 weeks and five days, so survival minimum is now halfway through the second trimester. The fact that my now 18 year old daughter was born at 30 weeks and had no right by nature to survive, might bend my emotions away from my beliefs.
That said IMHO the whole question is complex enough that the state has no clear place in the decision, I just figured that I would jump in with the counter argument since Jason seems to be busy working or something frivolous like that. |
Thanks for filling in. Viability is, in my view, the next strongest argument for when the grant personhood. I'll outline my issues though which will reveal why I ultimately favor fertilization.
The weaker argument is the one Brennan described. The point of viability is getting lower and lower. At Roe v. Wade it was about 28 weeks, now it's around 23 weeks with rare exceptions down to 21-22 weeks. Practically speaking we are unlikely to continue to lower this date substantially without a large breakthrough. A baby's lungs are the last organ to develop fully and this is the specific limiting factor to viability at this age. We would need a new and superior way to oxygenate the baby if we expect the age of viability to drop substantially.
The stronger argument, to me, is that it seems to work "backward". The point of viability is generally determined to be good because of the burden on the woman before this time. She is the only and exclusive person that can keep the baby alive up to that point. To me that seems like a results-driven conclusion. We want to grant personhood at this point because of how it affects the mother. Way back in this discussion I tried to illustrate the point by prentending we had the technology to grow the baby in an artificial womb. At 23 weeks the baby could be removed from this artificial device and put in an incubator much like we see in our hospitals. If this were the state of things, why would this point of transition seem like an obvious point to grant human rights? To me, it isn't.
I know of no other instance where human rights are dependent on the status of another individual. We can further illustrate the counterintuitive nature of this by constructing a scenario where an adult is entirely dependent on one person for care to live. My sense is we would not say that the caregiver now has complete control over whether or not to give or quit that care. The right to life might be strong enough to morally compel the caregiver to provide care.
Again, compare these issues with the simplicity and intuitive nature of considering all humans have human rights.
That's what goes through my head and that's what makes sense to me.
Message edited by author 2012-03-16 13:37:44. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 01:49:47 PM · #934 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by nullix:
sex isn't necessary for survival. If $10 is too much, then maybe people should be focusing on improving their income before they have sex. |
Can you not see that birth control has many health benefits for women and thus many benefits for the healthcare system and society as a whole? |
Great, then it's worth the $10 isn't it? You pay for it, don't make me pay for it.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2012 01:51:29 PM · #935 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I know of no other instance where human rights are dependent on the status of another individual. |
A murderer's "rights" are determined by the status of their victim.
If you grant "personhood" at fertilization, at what point do you start prosecuting women who miscarry for homicide?
I expect advances in the relatively near future in both sensing technology and data analysis, which should allow us to determine when fetal brainwaves indicate self-awareness and something beyond autonomic nervous system function -- that would seem to me to be at least a somewhat rational basis for deciding when someone is a "person." We use a similar evaluation at the other end, when we use EEG data to determine when someone is legally dead before allowing the still metabolically-active body to be donated for organ transplantation. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 01:51:52 PM · #936 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by nullix:
sex isn't necessary for survival. If $10 is too much, then maybe people should be focusing on improving their income before they have sex. |
Can you not see that birth control has many health benefits for women and thus many benefits for the healthcare system and society as a whole? |
Great, then it's worth the $10 isn't it? You pay for it, don't make me pay for it. |
How is it that anyone has suggested that you (as a taxpayer) are paying for it? Insurance companies are, just like they pay for myriad other prescription meds. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 01:59:48 PM · #937 |
Originally posted by frisca:
How is it that anyone has suggested that you (as a taxpayer) are paying for it? Insurance companies are, just like they pay for myriad other prescription meds. |
Wow, are we going to rehash this? Let's try it again.
There exists insurance companies that specifically place restrictions on birth control and anything related to abortion. Companies use these insurance companies because they fit within their beliefs.
Now, those same insurance companies are forced (by the government) to allow for these.
That's the problem. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 02:05:38 PM · #938 |
| Posted on a male friends FB today... Republicans seem to want poor women to have a lot of babies. I think maybe they're trying to create a slave labor force to build a pyramid. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 02:12:39 PM · #939 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by frisca:
How is it that anyone has suggested that you (as a taxpayer) are paying for it? Insurance companies are, just like they pay for myriad other prescription meds. |
Wow, are we going to rehash this? Let's try it again.
There exists insurance companies that specifically place restrictions on birth control and anything related to abortion. Companies use these insurance companies because they fit within their beliefs.
Now, those same insurance companies are forced (by the government) to allow for these.
That's the problem. |
Its NOT a problem. Its a manufactured problem. I just illustrated how "birth control" is used to help many other health problems in women unrelated to preventing pregnancy. And this benefits society, so its AS ARTIFICIAL to to restrict birth control on "religious belief" grounds as it is to restrict access to medication for severe acne, or back pain, or anything else. Birth control is not related to abortion -- it PREVENTS a pregnancy from occurring, so even if fertilization is your standard for personhood, birth control is not abortion. This is how its manufactured, but I sense you will not be persuaded by logic, science or fact. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 02:15:23 PM · #940 |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 02:17:14 PM · #941 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I ultimately favor fertilization.
all humans have human rights.
That's what goes through my head and that's what makes sense to me. |
If this is what you believe, how can you state in post 902:
"I am not against birth control. I do not think it's morally wrong. I have weighed in on protecting religious freedom for sects like the Catholics, but that is about paying for it and I know that birth control is readily and cheaply available. Still, hear me loud and clear. Birth control is helpful in my book."
Fertilization MAY occur and birth control methods MAY prevent the implantation of that egg, so it looks like your beliefs are just like Nullix's
On the issue of trying to prevent women from using birth control, I read this news article:
//hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONTRACEPTION_WORKERS?SITE=NYPLA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
"Other states that have considered legislation this year to broaden their opt-out provisions on required coverage for contraceptives include Missouri and New Hampshire. Bills in those two states remain alive but appear to have stalled.
The Arizona bill would also erase a law that bans religion-based employers from punishing or firing workers who get contraceptives from a source other than through their employers' health plans."
In other words if a women pays for her own birth control, she could still be fired.
Talk about forcing your beliefs on another Person! I'm stunned!
Message edited by author 2012-03-16 14:18:54. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 02:19:21 PM · #942 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I know of no other instance where human rights are dependent on the status of another individual. |
A murderer's "rights" are determined by the status of their victim.
If you grant "personhood" at fertilization, at what point do you start prosecuting women who miscarry for homicide?
I expect advances in the relatively near future in both sensing technology and data analysis, which should allow us to determine when fetal brainwaves indicate self-awareness and something beyond autonomic nervous system function -- that would seem to me to be at least a somewhat rational basis for deciding when someone is a "person." We use a similar evaluation at the other end, when we use EEG data to determine when someone is legally dead before allowing the still metabolically-active body to be donated for organ transplantation. |
You've asked that question before, but it's non-sensical. homicide generally denotes intent. So you would never start prosecuting a woman for an unintentional miscarriage. Plus, as mentioned, I don't have a lot of interest in debating the nuance of the law. The law would shape to reflect the reality of the status of the fetus.
Self-awareness is a point I haven't heard before, but I'm speculating that actually would come far after actual birth. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 02:27:40 PM · #943 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Fertilization MAY occur and birth control methods MAY prevent the implantation of that egg, so it looks like your beliefs are just like Nullix's |
An interesting question and one that would have to be grappled with. There may always be quandries at the exact interface of when rights are granted. You should have actually posted that I even said that I could possibly live with limited abortions. LEGAL issues can, at times, be choosing the lesser of two evils. Let's say the use of birth control in this country causes 10,000 abortions but prevents 500,000. I'm ok with that.
Originally posted by CJinCA:
"Other states that have considered legislation this year to broaden their opt-out provisions on required coverage for contraceptives include Missouri and New Hampshire. Bills in those two states remain alive but appear to have stalled.
The Arizona bill would also erase a law that bans religion-based employers from punishing or firing workers who get contraceptives from a source other than through their employers' health plans."
In other words if a women pays for her own birth control, she could still be fired.
Talk about forcing your beliefs on another Person! I'm stunned! |
Actually, the issue is Arizona is an "at-will" employment state. There are very few limitations to why you can't fire someone in a state like that (and AZ is not alone). I'm suspicious about the law mentioned that says "religion-based employers" are prevented from firing for using birth control because you'd think all employers would be covered. Unless a law explicitly bans it, a secular employer could fire someone for using birth control if they wanted. The law mentioned would be unconstitutional to single out religion-based employers and keep them from this ability. unless you can cite that specific law, I bet it doesn't even exist.
EDIT: I should be clear. I do know about the new law and am personally plus/minus about it. I think the concerns are overblown and are typical hyperbole. Yes, one could technically get fired for this reason, but I think one can already get fired for this reason. The news that there is a current law preventing such activity is new to me and, like I said, the way it's phrased makes me think there is a fair chance it is incorrect.
Message edited by author 2012-03-16 14:54:59. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 02:38:50 PM · #944 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I just illustrated how "birth control" is used to help many other health problems in women unrelated to preventing pregnancy. And this benefits society, so its AS ARTIFICIAL to to restrict birth control on "religious belief" grounds as it is to restrict access to medication for severe acne, or back pain, or anything else. |
That's not birth control then. Those are perscriptions for health problems that have a side effect of preventing pregnancy. Those insurance companies I mentioned before, will pay for these medications.
Originally posted by frisca:
Birth control is not related to abortion -- it PREVENTS a pregnancy from occurring, so even if fertilization is your standard for personhood, birth control is not abortion. This is how its manufactured, but I sense you will not be persuaded by logic, science or fact. |
That's wrong. Birth control prevents pregnancy when it works. When it doesn't work, abortion is used (See my findings from the Guttmacher Institute).
There's also a very small percentage of fertilized eggs that are chemically aborted through the use of the birth control pill. It's a very small number, but if you take the number of women using the pill and having sex, multiply that times the number of eggs they produce, that very small number becomes more significant. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 02:41:37 PM · #945 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I know of no other instance where human rights are dependent on the status of another individual. |
A murderer's "rights" are determined by the status of their victim.
If you grant "personhood" at fertilization, at what point do you start prosecuting women who miscarry for homicide?
I expect advances in the relatively near future in both sensing technology and data analysis, which should allow us to determine when fetal brainwaves indicate self-awareness and something beyond autonomic nervous system function -- that would seem to me to be at least a somewhat rational basis for deciding when someone is a "person." We use a similar evaluation at the other end, when we use EEG data to determine when someone is legally dead before allowing the still metabolically-active body to be donated for organ transplantation. |
You've asked that question before, but it's non-sensical. homicide generally denotes intent. So you would never start prosecuting a woman for an unintentional miscarriage. Plus, as mentioned, I don't have a lot of interest in debating the nuance of the law. The law would shape to reflect the reality of the status of the fetus.
Self-awareness is a point I haven't heard before, but I'm speculating that actually would come far after actual birth. |
Says the person that loves to counter-argue same-sex marriage with slippery slope arguments like "what if they want to marry animals" and such nonsense. You really are a special kind of person :P |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 02:47:41 PM · #946 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Says the person that loves to counter-argue same-sex marriage with slippery slope arguments like "what if they want to marry animals" and such nonsense. You really are a special kind of person :P |
And it's a special site where same-sex marriage is the comeback for each and every argument posted about every and all topics... ;)
I will go on the record and say that if legalized same-sex marriage in every state would magically end abortions, I would take it any day of the week. how's that?
Message edited by author 2012-03-16 14:51:29. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 02:56:47 PM · #947 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Says the person that loves to counter-argue same-sex marriage with slippery slope arguments like "what if they want to marry animals" and such nonsense. You really are a special kind of person :P |
And it's a special site where same-sex marriage is the comeback for each and every argument posted about every and all topics... ;)
I will go on the record and say that if legalized same-sex marriage in every state would magically end abortions, I would take it any day of the week. how's that? |
Nice try. Same-sex marriage isn't my comeback, it's the bizarre way you argue that is my comeback. You use arguments when they suit you, but when arguments of the same ilk are against you, you just completely disregard them. I don't care one whit if you are personally for or against anything, but if you use an argument that something is non-sensical in one area, while using a non-sensical argument in another, it's just, non-sensical! :D You can't believe that humanity is completely stupid in one breath, while saying that humanity isn't completely stupid in another. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 02:59:52 PM · #948 |
OMG Jason! I post an article from a reputable AP reporter quoting a part of that article paraphrasing an important change in an AZ law that is receiving major attention and you doubt there IS such a law????
Well here you go you doubting Thomas! :-D
Text of House Bill 2625
Z. Notwithstanding subsection Y of this section, a religious employer whose religious tenets prohibit the use of prescribed contraceptive methods may require that the corporation provide a contract without coverage for all United States food and drug administration approved contraceptive methods.� A religious employer shall submit a written affidavit to the corporation stating that it is a religious employer.� On receipt of the affidavit, the corporation shall issue to the religious employer a contract that excludes coverage of prescription contraceptive methods.� The corporation shall retain the affidavit for the duration of the contract and any renewals of the contract. Before enrollment in the plan, every religious employer that invokes this exemption shall provide prospective subscribers written notice that the religious employer refuses to cover all United States food and drug administration approved contraceptive methods for religious reasons.� This subsection shall not exclude coverage for prescription contraceptive methods ordered by a health care provider with prescriptive authority for medical indications other than to prevent an unintended pregnancy.� A corporation may require the subscriber to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the corporation along with evidence that the prescription is for a noncontraceptive purpose.� A corporation may charge an administrative fee for handling these claims.� A religious employer shall not discriminate against an employee who independently chooses to obtain insurance coverage or prescriptions for contraceptives from another source.
Z. Notwithstanding subsection y of this section, a contract does not fail to meet the requirements of subsection Y of this section if the contract's failure to provide coverage of specific items or services required under subsection Y of this section is because providing or paying for coverage of the specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs of the employer, sponsor, issuer, corporation or other entity offering the plan or is because the coverage is contrary to the religious beliefs of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.� If an objection triggers this subsection, a written affidavit shall be filed with the corporation stating the objection.� The corporation shall retain the affidavit for the duration of the contract and any renewals of the contract. This subsection shall not exclude coverage for prescription contraceptive methods ordered by a health care provider WITH prescriptive authority for medical indications other than for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes.� A corporation, employer, sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan may state religious beliefs or moral convictions in its affidavit that require the subscriber to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the corporation along with evidence that the prescription is not in whole or in part for a purpose covered by the objection.� A corporation may charge an administrative fee for handling these claims.
Formatting lost in copy but I bolded the important part.
It's already passed the AZ House and the AZ Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-2 Monday to endorse the bill.
As I said, I'm stunned. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 03:16:26 PM · #949 |
What, I'm confused. You are quoting the bill up for vote right? The text of your article sounds like there is ALREADY a bill that prevents such discrimination. Is the crossed out section another bill or is the new verbage an amendment to the bill?
I doubt a lot of things, but I will believe if you show me. You can count on that.
EDIT: So if I understand correctly, the vote is about an amendment to a current bill which included the language that "religious employers shall not discriminate..." (and would be removed under the amendment).
If that's the case, I was wrong. I still think such a clause is unconstitutional because it singles out religious employers and prevents them from doing something everybody else can do in an "at-will" state. The new amendment would, in essense, restore this right to the religious groups on an equal basis as everybody else.
Personally I think it would be wrong to fire someone for that reason. Personally I think it's rarely or never going to happen.
Message edited by author 2012-03-16 15:23:04. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 03:25:35 PM · #950 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Says the person that loves to counter-argue same-sex marriage with slippery slope arguments like "what if they want to marry animals" and such nonsense. You really are a special kind of person :P |
And it's a special site where same-sex marriage is the comeback for each and every argument posted about every and all topics... ;)
I will go on the record and say that if legalized same-sex marriage in every state would magically end abortions, I would take it any day of the week. how's that? |
Nice try. Same-sex marriage isn't my comeback, it's the bizarre way you argue that is my comeback. You use arguments when they suit you, but when arguments of the same ilk are against you, you just completely disregard them. I don't care one whit if you are personally for or against anything, but if you use an argument that something is non-sensical in one area, while using a non-sensical argument in another, it's just, non-sensical! :D You can't believe that humanity is completely stupid in one breath, while saying that humanity isn't completely stupid in another. |
Whatever your thoughts I'm only pointing out an obvious. "homicide", a legal term, always denotes intent or at the least neglect (if we include things like involuntary manslaughter). A miscarriage, we all know, is nothing of the sort, so why even ask the question? It is non-sensical.
Message edited by author 2012-03-16 15:26:12. |
|
