Roe v Wade is on deck

[Toni]

My view is fetuses are not babies. So abortion is not murder anytime during the pregnancy. In the womb is not murder, out of the womb usually murder.

If someone deliberately dies something to cause a pregnant woman to lose the pregnancy against her will: Say, slashes open her abdomen when she is 7 months pregnant and causes sufficient injury to the fetus that it dies, I would have a difficult time not calling that murder of the fetus. Obviously assault with intent to kill the woman.

Yes, that is inconsistent with my views of late term abortion.

Unfortunately, it is not a crazy, outrageous thing to suggest might happen. Pregnant women are at an increased risk of physical assault, injury and murder at the hands of an intimate partner. In fact, that is one of the greatest risks to a pregnant woman’s health and safety.

It is not inconsistent with your views of late term abortion. The unwanted/nonconsensual killing of a fetus should be crime. It is simply not the murder of a person.

The fact is that sometimes someone deliberate assaults a pregnant woman with the intent to cause her to lose the pregnancy. I find it hard to call that simple assault. For one thing, the woman or girl's life would be endangered. For the other, it is causing her to lose something she very much does not want to lose, in which she has invested a great deal of time and energy and something that is not replaceable, even if she survives the attack and her fertility remains intact.

 

[Elixir]

Nobody said anything about forcing people to fight duels.

Well, now they have!
Sounds like a great idea, too. Especially for whoever gets to force them to fight.
I think it recalls the principles of lawyering: incite two other people to strip for a fight, then run off with their clothes.

I’m sorry again Bomb… couldn’t resist.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

your line of argument implies two people have a joint bodily autonomy right to risk death at the other’s hands.

It's not the only thing it implies. So that's why I brought up the other thing involving refusal which is what you ignored.

If someone had been claiming a woman’s bodily autonomy meant a doctor had to accept her request for an abortion even if he didn’t want to perform one, then I would have needed to specify right of refusal too, but nobody here argued that, so I figured it went without saying.

There are probably certain specific reasons, related to what's already been discussed, as to why people may not argue that, which have been laid out countless times, but obviously, you ignore them. However, just because a doctor may refuse an abortion, doesn't necessarily mean we don't get to decide to charge them with negligent homicide under certain circumstances.

 

[Toni]

Of course.a doctor may refuse to perform an abortion. It’s happening now and women are dying because there was a detectable heartbeat in a fetus that was months before viability and whose foot was sticking out if the cervix, meaning the amniotic sac was ruptured meaning there was 0% chance of saving that fetus and 100% chance of infection—and similar cases where the doctor was hamstrung by state laws insisting if there was a heartbeat, the fetus must be viable/saved.

FWIW, if you know what you are doing, you can culture some cells taken from a fetal chick and get those cells to develop a heart beat. It will never grow into a chick, for many reasons but it is possible to do that.

In other words: the ‘standard’ is ridiculous and dangerous to the health and life of the woman. But baby, huh.

 

[Tigers!]

The union of a human egg with a human sperm starts the beginning of an entity that is surely human. We call human entitys persons.

You do. We don’t. And there’s the rub.

BTW, your view means a woman impregnated by a rapist who gets an abortion in a baby killer. In fact a woman using a morning after pill is a baby killer.

I do not recall ever saying that abortion is not permissible in any circumstance. If you could remind me where I said that I would be most obliged.

 

[Tigers!]

Sadly, many times people decide whether or not someone lives or dies. This is aside from criminals or our justice system. In mass emergencies, medical personnel triage patients according to severity of injuries and sometimes, who has injuries that are likely survivable. Doctors and families make decisions about whether to continue all sorts of medical treatment or whether to let the patient die.

You have not made a case for why a fetus, a potential new living human, takes precedence over an already living human beings

It is already a new living human.

 

[Tigers!]

The union of a human egg with a human sperm starts the beginning of an entity that is surely human. We call human entitys persons.

You do. We don’t. And there’s the rub.

BTW, your view means a woman impregnated by a rapist who gets an abortion in a baby killer. In fact a woman using a morning after pill is a baby killer.

And ignores that many many many fertilized eggs fail to implant and leave the body in menstrual flow, with no one ever knowing that an egg was ever fertilized.

Yes that happns.
But that is not the deliberate killing of a fetus.
They are not the same.

 

[Tigers!]

Why is the fetus, completely dependent on t upon the woman, considered to have its life presumed to take precedence over hers?

I really wish you and others would be honest about this interaction. Nobody is saying that that baby's life takes precedence over the mother's life (beyond the viability threshold, of course). I'm saying that the baby's life takes precedence over the mother's feelings from that point on. Not because a baby is more important than the mother, but because life is more important than feelings.

If there's a risk to the mother's life, then by all means the mother wins out. If there's no risk, however, I simply don't condone the murder of a baby.

Why are women not worthy of bodily autonomy?

Oh come on. Women are worthy of bodily autonomy... but bodily autonomy doesn't grant women the privilege to murder people.

There’s the major difference: I don’t consider having an abortion to be murder.

And there is the hinge of the whole discussion. It is ok to kill another human and when (and why)?

With respect to my own decision making, back when that was an issue, I have my own pretty sure it would be a definite yes ( or n) to having an abortion.

But: I also remember very well when I thought I opposed abortion, certainly fur myself, but them came a very brief amount of time when I was very much afraid I was pregnant and very much would NOT under any circumstances have continued the pregnancy even if it meant ending my own life to end the pregnancy: I just don’t judge. As best as possible and while I am very much a flawed human being, I keep that judgment to myself. I get to make choices and judgements about my own body, my own life. Not anybody else’s .

I’ve helped people obtain abortions when I really hoped they would not. Because I did not have to live with the consequences whatever they did. Looking back at those situations I realize that in fact, I would definitely have done as they did, although I was not at the time, certain it was the ‘right’ thing.

I’ve just learned not to judge. I’ve cried with women who lost babies in the third trimester, with women who buried toddlers and who buried teenagers. The first was not the same as the other situations. Not in the recovery or bounce back period.

The women who lost pregnancies really really wanted to have those babies. They were wanted, planned for pregnancies. They were heartbroken to lose their pregnancies. But they recovered in ways that women who lost their child as a young baby, a toddler, a teen never quite did. Even if they had other children.

That is not at all a scientific observation. But it was pretty obvious.

As I’ve said: I learned not to make judgements.

But you are judging. You have judged that the unborn can be disposable in many situations.

 

[Tigers!]

The union of a human egg with a human sperm starts the beginning of an entity that is surely human. We call human entitys persons.

Alright... I'm going to push back on this.

I understand your belief, and I respect it. But I also disagree with it.

At conception, that zygote has none of the components that we think of as a person, aside from genetic code. I don't think it's reasonable to think that two cells with some DNA in it is a human being - it has the potential to become a human, certainly, but it isn't really one yet.

As it develops, it gets closer to human, but it spends a while pretty much being a tadpole. At the earliest stage of development, all vertebrates look the same, and have the same developed parts - spinal cord, and the start of some organs. As it continues to develop, fish and birds and mammals start to diverge - preliminary limbs form that show differences by class.

Why is the discredited embryonic recapitulation still being thrown around?

At about 10 to 12 weeks of development, the fetus will look pretty distinctly human in form - head, eyes, hands and toes, fingernails, etc. At this point, it will look like a very large-headed baby. I could see an argument that the fetus is a human at this point, but prior to that it's a hard argument to make.

The foetus has been human since the union of the egg and sperm. At a different stage of its lifecycle, granted, but still human. You and am I (and everybody else.) were both at that stage once and were just as human then as we are now.

At this stage, however, there's no possibility of that fetus surviving outside the womb. The necessary organs, lungs, etc just haven't developed yet. While I would prefer and hope that most women would continue the pregnancy at this stage, I can't object on the grounds that I hold as values. I understand that you do.

For me, I can't see a defensible distinction between a baby that can survive and thrive outside of the womb as a premie, and one of the same developmental stage that is still inside the womb. But by that same token, I can't see a defensible distinction between a baby that is categorically incapable of surviving as a premie based on whether they're inside or outside the womb. In both cases, they're not capable of being independent.

 

[Tigers!]

My view is fetuses are not babies. So abortion is not murder anytime during the pregnancy. In the womb is not murder, out of the womb usually murder.

If someone deliberately dies something to cause a pregnant woman to lose the pregnancy against her will:

Another crux of the whole discussion.
If the mother wants to kill the foetus (with or within the help of others) that is considered permissible. But if some else wants to kill it or does kill the foetus that is not permissible.
When else in considered perrmissible to kill another just because you wish too?

Say, slashes open her abdomen when she is 7 months pregnant and causes sufficient injury to the fetus that it dies, I would have a difficult time not calling that murder of the fetus. Obviously assault with intent to kill the woman.

Yes, that is inconsistent with my views of late term abortion.

Cognitive dissonance?

Unfortunately, it is not a crazy, outrageous thing to suggest might happen. Pregnant women are at an increased risk of physical assault, injury and murder at the hands of an intimate partner. In fact, that is one of the greatest risks to a pregnant woman’s health and safety.

That is all too often true.
But is it not an excuse for abortion.

 

[Elixir]

When else in considered perrmissible to kill another just because you wish too?

I dunno about “else”, but any time another organism is living on my blood oxygen, I feel quite at liberty to get rid of it.
YMMV, and it would be the height of hubris for me to dictate or restrict others’ options in that regard.

 

[Bomb#20]

your line of argument implies two people have a joint bodily autonomy right to risk death at the other’s hands.

It's not the only thing it implies. So that's why I brought up the other thing involving refusal which is what you ignored.

If someone had been claiming a woman’s bodily autonomy meant a doctor had to accept her request for an abortion even if he didn’t want to perform one, then I would have needed to specify right of refusal too, but nobody here argued that, so I figured it went without saying.

There are probably certain specific reasons, related to what's already been discussed, as to why people may not argue that, which have been laid out countless times, but obviously, you ignore them.

Well, I admit I have generally been ignoring what people weren’t arguing. In my defense I can only plead lack of the telepathic powers it would take for me to anticipate which unargued ideas you’d have liked me to address.

However, just because a doctor may refuse an abortion, doesn't necessarily mean we don't get to decide to charge them with negligent homicide under certain circumstances.

In general doctors are federally protected from that sort of charge by the Church Amendment. But in any event we weren’t talking about abortions to save the mother’s life. This is the “bodily autonomy” subthread; the right to medically necessary abortions doesn’t depend on bodily autonomy.

 

[Bomb#20]

When else in considered perrmissible to kill another just because you wish too?

I dunno about “else”, but any time another organism is living on my blood oxygen, I feel quite at liberty to get rid of it.
YMMV, and it would be the height of hubris for me to dictate or restrict others’ options in that regard.

If you’re piloting a plane, your passengers are living on your blood oxygen.

 

[Toni]

Why is the fetus, completely dependent on t upon the woman, considered to have its life presumed to take precedence over hers?

I really wish you and others would be honest about this interaction. Nobody is saying that that baby's life takes precedence over the mother's life (beyond the viability threshold, of course). I'm saying that the baby's life takes precedence over the mother's feelings from that point on. Not because a baby is more important than the mother, but because life is more important than feelings.

If there's a risk to the mother's life, then by all means the mother wins out. If there's no risk, however, I simply don't condone the murder of a baby.

Why are women not worthy of bodily autonomy?

Oh come on. Women are worthy of bodily autonomy... but bodily autonomy doesn't grant women the privilege to murder people.

There’s the major difference: I don’t consider having an abortion to be murder.

And there is the hinge of the whole discussion. It is ok to kill another human and when (and why)?

With respect to my own decision making, back when that was an issue, I have my own pretty sure it would be a definite yes ( or n) to having an abortion.

But: I also remember very well when I thought I opposed abortion, certainly fur myself, but them came a very brief amount of time when I was very much afraid I was pregnant and very much would NOT under any circumstances have continued the pregnancy even if it meant ending my own life to end the pregnancy: I just don’t judge. As best as possible and while I am very much a flawed human being, I keep that judgment to myself. I get to make choices and judgements about my own body, my own life. Not anybody else’s .

I’ve helped people obtain abortions when I really hoped they would not. Because I did not have to live with the consequences whatever they did. Looking back at those situations I realize that in fact, I would definitely have done as they did, although I was not at the time, certain it was the ‘right’ thing.

I’ve just learned not to judge. I’ve cried with women who lost babies in the third trimester, with women who buried toddlers and who buried teenagers. The first was not the same as the other situations. Not in the recovery or bounce back period.

The women who lost pregnancies really really wanted to have those babies. They were wanted, planned for pregnancies. They were heartbroken to lose their pregnancies. But they recovered in ways that women who lost their child as a young baby, a toddler, a teen never quite did. Even if they had other children.

That is not at all a scientific observation. But it was pretty obvious.

As I’ve said: I learned not to make judgements.

But you are judging. You have judged that the unborn can be disposable in many situations.

You are judging as well.

You are placing the potential of a fully functioning human over the fact of a fully functional human female.

I suspect that it’s a female life at risk is part of your calculus.

 

[Bomb#20]

The union of a human egg with a human sperm starts the beginning of an entity that is surely human. We call human entitys persons.

Alright... I'm going to push back on this.

I understand your belief, and I respect it. But I also disagree with it.

At conception, that zygote has none of the components that we think of as a person, aside from genetic code. I don't think it's reasonable to think that two cells with some DNA in it is a human being - it has the potential to become a human, certainly, but it isn't really one yet.

As it develops, it gets closer to human, but it spends a while pretty much being a tadpole. At the earliest stage of development, all vertebrates look the same, and have the same developed parts - spinal cord, and the start of some organs. As it continues to develop, fish and birds and mammals start to diverge - preliminary limbs form that show differences by class.

Why is the discredited embryonic recapitulation still being thrown around?

It isn’t. Your own link doesn’t support you. Note the word “adult”.

At about 10 to 12 weeks of development, the fetus will look pretty distinctly human in form - head, eyes, hands and toes, fingernails, etc. At this point, it will look like a very large-headed baby. I could see an argument that the fetus is a human at this point, but prior to that it's a hard argument to make.

The foetus has been human since the union of the egg and sperm. At a different stage of its lifecycle, granted, but still human. You and am I (and everybody else.) were both at that stage once and were just as human then as we are now.

You’re committing an equivocation fallacy. She said “a human”, using the noun; you said “human”, the adjective. Not the same thing at all. A Petri dishfull of Henrietta Lacks’ cultured cancer tumor cells is human, but it isn’t a human.

 

[Bomb#20]

The union of a human egg with a human sperm starts the beginning of an entity that is surely human. We call human entitys persons.

You do. We don’t. And there’s the rub.

BTW, your view means a woman impregnated by a rapist who gets an abortion in a baby killer. In fact a woman using a morning after pill is a baby killer.

I do not recall ever saying that abortion is not permissible in any circumstance. If you could remind me where I said that I would be most obliged.

He didn’t say you said it was impermissible; he said your argument implies it’s baby-killing. Whether you consider baby-killing permissible under some circumstances has no bearing on whether an act is baby-killing.

 

[Tigers!]

The union of a human egg with a human sperm starts the beginning of an entity that is surely human. We call human entitys persons.

Alright... I'm going to push back on this.

I understand your belief, and I respect it. But I also disagree with it.

At conception, that zygote has none of the components that we think of as a person, aside from genetic code. I don't think it's reasonable to think that two cells with some DNA in it is a human being - it has the potential to become a human, certainly, but it isn't really one yet.

As it develops, it gets closer to human, but it spends a while pretty much being a tadpole. At the earliest stage of development, all vertebrates look the same, and have the same developed parts - spinal cord, and the start of some organs. As it continues to develop, fish and birds and mammals start to diverge - preliminary limbs form that show differences by class.

Why is the discredited embryonic recapitulation still being thrown around?

It isn’t. Your own link doesn’t support you. Note the word “adult”.

At about 10 to 12 weeks of development, the fetus will look pretty distinctly human in form - head, eyes, hands and toes, fingernails, etc. At this point, it will look like a very large-headed baby. I could see an argument that the fetus is a human at this point, but prior to that it's a hard argument to make.

The foetus has been human since the union of the egg and sperm. At a different stage of its lifecycle, granted, but still human. You and am I (and everybody else.) were both at that stage once and were just as human then as we are now.

You’re committing an equivocation fallacy. She said “a human”, using the noun; you said “human”, the adjective. Not the same thing at all. A Petri dishfull of Henrietta Lacks’ cultured cancer tumor cells is human, but it isn’t a human.

A human can be a noun and an adjective at the same time.
Yet you were once a 12 week foetus and you are, were, will be just as human then as when you reply to this message.

 

[Tigers!]

Why is the fetus, completely dependent on t upon the woman, considered to have its life presumed to take precedence over hers?

I really wish you and others would be honest about this interaction. Nobody is saying that that baby's life takes precedence over the mother's life (beyond the viability threshold, of course). I'm saying that the baby's life takes precedence over the mother's feelings from that point on. Not because a baby is more important than the mother, but because life is more important than feelings.

If there's a risk to the mother's life, then by all means the mother wins out. If there's no risk, however, I simply don't condone the murder of a baby.

Why are women not worthy of bodily autonomy?

Oh come on. Women are worthy of bodily autonomy... but bodily autonomy doesn't grant women the privilege to murder people.

There’s the major difference: I don’t consider having an abortion to be murder.

And there is the hinge of the whole discussion. It is ok to kill another human and when (and why)?

With respect to my own decision making, back when that was an issue, I have my own pretty sure it would be a definite yes ( or n) to having an abortion.

But: I also remember very well when I thought I opposed abortion, certainly fur myself, but them came a very brief amount of time when I was very much afraid I was pregnant and very much would NOT under any circumstances have continued the pregnancy even if it meant ending my own life to end the pregnancy: I just don’t judge. As best as possible and while I am very much a flawed human being, I keep that judgment to myself. I get to make choices and judgements about my own body, my own life. Not anybody else’s .

I’ve helped people obtain abortions when I really hoped they would not. Because I did not have to live with the consequences whatever they did. Looking back at those situations I realize that in fact, I would definitely have done as they did, although I was not at the time, certain it was the ‘right’ thing.

I’ve just learned not to judge. I’ve cried with women who lost babies in the third trimester, with women who buried toddlers and who buried teenagers. The first was not the same as the other situations. Not in the recovery or bounce back period.

The women who lost pregnancies really really wanted to have those babies. They were wanted, planned for pregnancies. They were heartbroken to lose their pregnancies. But they recovered in ways that women who lost their child as a young baby, a toddler, a teen never quite did. Even if they had other children.

That is not at all a scientific observation. But it was pretty obvious.

As I’ve said: I learned not to make judgements.

But you are judging. You have judged that the unborn can be disposable in many situations.

You are judging as well.

I have never claimed otherwise. You are the one who said you were not judging.

You are placing the potential of a fully functioning human over the fact of a fully functional human female.

The foetus is not a potential fully functioning human The foetus is already a fully functional human, albeit it is at a different stage of its lifecycle.

I suspect that it’s a female life at risk is part of your calculus.

The 2 humans involved are part of my calculus. The foetus is at risk too.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The foetus is not a potential fully functioning human The foetus is already a fully functional human, albeit it is at a different stage of its lifecycle.

Ok, this is just an absurd claim to make. Fully functional? Really?

 

[Elixir]

When else in considered perrmissible to kill another just because you wish too?

I dunno about “else”, but any time another organism is living on my blood oxygen, I feel quite at liberty to get rid of it.
YMMV, and it would be the height of hubris for me to dictate or restrict others’ options in that regard.

If you’re piloting a plane, your passengers are living on your blood oxygen.

If you’re piloting a plane, your passengers are NOT living on your blood oxygen in any meaningful sense. To be more precise (as you seem to demand, and I appreciate that) they are not using your blood or other tissues as a transport medium for oxygen, nutrients, hormones, and wastes or to otherwise fuel their biological functions. I think you know the qualitative difference, and that makes your response feel somewhat disingenuous.