If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   A panel of judges rules that Texas laws shutting down all but six clinics for women in the state "on its face does not impose an undue burden on the life and health of a woman"   (salon.com) divider line 170
    More: Fail, undue burden, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Texas, health crisis, speed limits, chemical abortion, appeals courts, reproductive rights  
•       •       •

596 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Mar 2014 at 8:58 AM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



170 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-28 02:48:21 PM

Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: They aren't bad or wrong, but they're certainly not modes of ethical or legal reasoning.

Because "life begins at conception because Jesus" is?

No.  Magic is anti-reason.

Well, at least you admit the anti-choice brigade has no ethical or legal reasoning behind their position.

The religious ones don't.

Oh please. Enlighten us with your ethical and/or legal reasoning on why abortion should be illegal.

As I said, I'm pro-abortion.  I don't think it should be illegal.  I think it should be fully subsidized, free to the consumer, with 24-hour service, no appointment necessary, come as you are, no questions asked, with cash and prizes given right there on the spot.


Are you saying then that you recognize no logical reason abortion rights should be curtailed? You didn't answer the question in any meaningful way.
 
2014-03-28 02:54:06 PM

Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: They aren't bad or wrong, but they're certainly not modes of ethical or legal reasoning.

Because "life begins at conception because Jesus" is?

No.  Magic is anti-reason.

Well, at least you admit the anti-choice brigade has no ethical or legal reasoning behind their position.

The religious ones don't.

Oh please. Enlighten us with your ethical and/or legal reasoning on why abortion should be illegal.

As I said, I'm pro-abortion.  I don't think it should be illegal.  I think it should be fully subsidized, free to the consumer, with 24-hour service, no appointment necessary, come as you are, no questions asked, with cash and prizes given right there on the spot.


So, you're pro-abortion in the way the strawman pro-choice people in your head are? Dripping sarcasm aside, I don't know anyone who actually holds that position.
 
2014-03-28 02:57:02 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: They aren't bad or wrong, but they're certainly not modes of ethical or legal reasoning.

Because "life begins at conception because Jesus" is?

No.  Magic is anti-reason.

Well, at least you admit the anti-choice brigade has no ethical or legal reasoning behind their position.

The religious ones don't.

Do you have a strictly logical reason fetuses should be granted primacy over the women carrying them? If so, I'd be interested to here what it is.


Life rights supersede liberty rights, which supersede property rights.  For example, trespassing is illegal, being a violation of property rights.  Also, a baseless detention or restraint is illegal, being a violation of one's liberty rights.  But unless the offender poses a risk of death or serious injury, merely being illegally detained, or the victim of a trespass (or even a theft), is not a justification for causing someone's death.  You don't get to kill the random child you find hiding in your tool shed, or decapitate the paparazzi when they stand in front of your car.  They are violating your rights, of course, but their rights to live are superior to your rights to be secure in your property and freedom of movement.

So, the issue in abortion is clearly the fetus's right to life.  I don't see why he/she wouldn't have a right to live, being an obviously living, obviously human, unique organism.

I don't see how these facts can be denied.  The fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus/whatever is expected to grow and develop and need economic support for the next 10-20 years is precisely the reason people want to kill it.  People don't go around amputating random cells from their body for no reason. I suppose they could, but they don't.  The whole point of elective abortion is to eliminate the expectation and prediction that the as-yet-unborn living, human organism who is growing inside the mother will eventually demand a huge claim on the parent's time and resources.

Unless the reason is that it is doomed to a short life of pain, in which case it's just a matter of euthanasia, which I affirmatively support.

Or the reason is a high-risk pregnancy that objectively threatens the mother's life, in which case it's a matter of self-defense, which I also firmly support.
 
2014-03-28 03:00:14 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: They aren't bad or wrong, but they're certainly not modes of ethical or legal reasoning.

Because "life begins at conception because Jesus" is?

No.  Magic is anti-reason.

Well, at least you admit the anti-choice brigade has no ethical or legal reasoning behind their position.

The religious ones don't.

Oh please. Enlighten us with your ethical and/or legal reasoning on why abortion should be illegal.

As I said, I'm pro-abortion.  I don't think it should be illegal.  I think it should be fully subsidized, free to the consumer, with 24-hour service, no appointment necessary, come as you are, no questions asked, with cash and prizes given right there on the spot.

Are you saying then that you recognize no logical reason abortion rights should be curtailed? You didn't answer the question in any meaningful way.


No, none.  I fully acknowledge that the abortion kills people, but I have no desire whatsoever to stop mothers who want to kill the offspring.  I am completely serious -- I want those people to have access.  I would be willing to pay for door-to-door, we-come-to-you mobile services.  The cash and prizes offer still stands, too.
 
2014-03-28 03:03:31 PM

Phinn: So, the issue in abortion is clearly the fetus's right to life.  I don't see why he/she wouldn't have a right to live, being an obviously living, obviously human, unique organism.


The question was legal and ethical reasoning, not your opinion. You don't get to ignore reams and reams of bioethics papers just because you disagree with them.
 
2014-03-28 03:08:11 PM

grumpfuff: Phinn: So, the issue in abortion is clearly the fetus's right to life.  I don't see why he/she wouldn't have a right to live, being an obviously living, obviously human, unique organism.

The question was legal and ethical reasoning, not your opinion. You don't get to ignore reams and reams of bioethics papers just because you disagree with them.


It's alive.  There's been one, long, continuous, unbroken chain of life, going back to the ooze.  Clearly, offspring are living.

It's human.  It's not lizard.

It's a discrete organism.  It has its own DNA.  It consumes food, grows, develops and reproduces, if given sufficient protection and nutrients.  You can water a brick all day long, but it won't grow into a house.  You can feed a sperm anything you can think of, but until it fuses with an egg, there's no way to call it an organism, any more than you can drip a spot of blood on the ground and name it Junior.

The fact that it's a discrete, self-organized entity is the reason mothers want to kill it.
 
2014-03-28 03:12:33 PM

Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: So, the issue in abortion is clearly the fetus's right to life.  I don't see why he/she wouldn't have a right to live, being an obviously living, obviously human, unique organism.

The question was legal and ethical reasoning, not your opinion. You don't get to ignore reams and reams of bioethics papers just because you disagree with them.

It's alive.  There's been one, long, continuous, unbroken chain of life, going back to the ooze.  Clearly, offspring are living.

It's human.  It's not lizard.

It's a discrete organism.  It has its own DNA.  It consumes food, grows, develops and reproduces, if given sufficient protection and nutrients.  You can water a brick all day long, but it won't grow into a house.  You can feed a sperm anything you can think of, but until it fuses with an egg, there's no way to call it an organism, any more than you can drip a spot of blood on the ground and name it Junior.

The fact that it's a discrete, self-organized entity is the reason mothers want to kill it.


You don't get to solve decades-old problems in bioethics by defining around them.

/by the way, discrete implies it can exist on its own
 
2014-03-28 03:20:06 PM

grumpfuff: You don't get to solve decades-old problems in bioethics by defining around them.

/by the way, discrete implies it can exist on its own


"Exist on its own" is defining around the problem.  Try leaving a newborn to its own devices and see how long it lives.  It's totally dependent on protection and sustenance.  Parents don't get to leave their 2 year-olds to their own devices because they can live on their own.

Parents clearly have a duty of protection and care.  The fact that an 8.5 month gestation unborn fetus needs more protection and care than a 2 month-old infant is not an ethical reason to deprive it of protection and sustenance.  It means you have to be MORE attentive.  Same thing all the way back to the beginning of the organism. There's no magic line, other than existence/non-existence itself, to rationally differentiate between the care needed by a 2-minute-old zygote versus a fetus 2 seconds away from birth.  It's only a matter of degree.
 
2014-03-28 03:23:46 PM

Phinn: grumpfuff: You don't get to solve decades-old problems in bioethics by defining around them.

/by the way, discrete implies it can exist on its own

"Exist on its own" is defining around the problem.  Try leaving a newborn to its own devices and see how long it lives.  It's totally dependent on protection and sustenance.  Parents don't get to leave their 2 year-olds to their own devices because they can live on their own.

Parents clearly have a duty of protection and care.  The fact that an 8.5 month gestation unborn fetus needs more protection and care than a 2 month-old infant is not an ethical reason to deprive it of protection and sustenance.  It means you have to be MORE attentive.  Same thing all the way back to the beginning of the organism. There's no magic line, other than existence/non-existence itself, to rationally differentiate between the care needed by a 2-minute-old zygote versus a fetus 2 seconds away from birth.  It's only a matter of degree.


Say you put the two year old down for a one hour nap and go watch tv in the other room. A pregnant woman takes the fetus out for an hour and goes to do whatever.

I bet the two year old will be in a lot better shape after that hour.

By the way, you still haven't actually provided any sound ethical or legal reasoning. Just your opinions.
 
2014-03-28 03:32:41 PM

grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: You don't get to solve decades-old problems in bioethics by defining around them.

/by the way, discrete implies it can exist on its own

"Exist on its own" is defining around the problem.  Try leaving a newborn to its own devices and see how long it lives.  It's totally dependent on protection and sustenance.  Parents don't get to leave their 2 year-olds to their own devices because they can live on their own.

Parents clearly have a duty of protection and care.  The fact that an 8.5 month gestation unborn fetus needs more protection and care than a 2 month-old infant is not an ethical reason to deprive it of protection and sustenance.  It means you have to be MORE attentive.  Same thing all the way back to the beginning of the organism. There's no magic line, other than existence/non-existence itself, to rationally differentiate between the care needed by a 2-minute-old zygote versus a fetus 2 seconds away from birth.  It's only a matter of degree.

Say you put the two year old down for a one hour nap and go watch tv in the other room. A pregnant woman takes the fetus out for an hour and goes to do whatever.

I bet the two year old will be in a lot better shape after that hour.

By the way, you still haven't actually provided any sound ethical or legal reasoning. Just your opinions.


Where's the rule of logic that says that one hour is the cutoff point for deciding who gets cared for and who dies?

Can you make any comment on this topic that doesn't rely on arbitrary distinctions?

If your child is drowning in the bathtub, it needs protection in 10 seconds. The fact that it can't protect itself or live on its own for another 5 minutes is not a justification for deciding it doesn't get to live. Remember the obligation to protect? It's binding on parents all the time, right up to the point of risking one's own life and safety.

The dependency of one's offspring is no justification for killing it. That's nonsense -- just another version of Might Makes Right.
 
2014-03-28 03:43:58 PM

Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: You don't get to solve decades-old problems in bioethics by defining around them.

/by the way, discrete implies it can exist on its own

"Exist on its own" is defining around the problem.  Try leaving a newborn to its own devices and see how long it lives.  It's totally dependent on protection and sustenance.  Parents don't get to leave their 2 year-olds to their own devices because they can live on their own.

Parents clearly have a duty of protection and care.  The fact that an 8.5 month gestation unborn fetus needs more protection and care than a 2 month-old infant is not an ethical reason to deprive it of protection and sustenance.  It means you have to be MORE attentive.  Same thing all the way back to the beginning of the organism. There's no magic line, other than existence/non-existence itself, to rationally differentiate between the care needed by a 2-minute-old zygote versus a fetus 2 seconds away from birth.  It's only a matter of degree.

Say you put the two year old down for a one hour nap and go watch tv in the other room. A pregnant woman takes the fetus out for an hour and goes to do whatever.

I bet the two year old will be in a lot better shape after that hour.

By the way, you still haven't actually provided any sound ethical or legal reasoning. Just your opinions.

Where's the rule of logic that says that one hour is the cutoff point for deciding who gets cared for and who dies?

Can you make any comment on this topic that doesn't rely on arbitrary distinctions?

If your child is drowning in the bathtub, it needs protection in 10 seconds. The fact that it can't protect itself or live on its own for another 5 minutes is not a justification for deciding it doesn't get to live. Remember the obligation to protect? It's binding on parents all the time, right up to the point of risking one's own life and safety.

The dependency of one's offspring is no justification for killing it. That's nonsense -- just another version o ...


Well, your entire argument is dependent on your assertion that a fetus is a person. Which you didn't bother to argue for, just asserted based on sketchy definitions.

So you'll have to forgive me for not taking the rest of your argument seriously.
 
2014-03-28 03:50:22 PM

Phinn: UrukHaiGuyz: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: They aren't bad or wrong, but they're certainly not modes of ethical or legal reasoning.

Because "life begins at conception because Jesus" is?

No.  Magic is anti-reason.

Well, at least you admit the anti-choice brigade has no ethical or legal reasoning behind their position.

The religious ones don't.

Do you have a strictly logical reason fetuses should be granted primacy over the women carrying them? If so, I'd be interested to here what it is.

Life rights supersede liberty rights, which supersede property rights.  For example, trespassing is illegal, being a violation of property rights.  Also, a baseless detention or restraint is illegal, being a violation of one's liberty rights.  But unless the offender poses a risk of death or serious injury, merely being illegally detained, or the victim of a trespass (or even a theft), is not a justification for causing someone's death.  You don't get to kill the random child you find hiding in your tool shed, or decapitate the paparazzi when they stand in front of your car.  They are violating your rights, of course, but their rights to live are superior to your rights to be secure in your property and freedom of movement.

So, the issue in abortion is clearly the fetus's right to life.  I don't see why he/she wouldn't have a right to live, being an obviously living, obviously human, unique organism.

I don't see how these facts can be denied.  The fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus/whatever is expected to grow and develop and need economic support for the next 10-20 years is precisely the reason people want to kill it.  People don't go around amputating random cells from their body for no reason. I suppose they could, but they don't.  The whole point of elective abortion is to eliminate the expectation and prediction that the as-yet-unborn living, human organism who is growing inside the mother will eventually demand a huge claim on the parent's time and resources.

Unless the reason is that it is doomed to a short life of pain, in which case it's just a matter of euthanasia, which I affirmatively support.

Or the reason is a high-risk pregnancy that objectively threatens the mother's life, in which case it's a matter of self-defense, which I also firmly support.


You are completely and utterly wrong.

A person has absolutely no duty to do anything to save another person's life. If you are in a boat and encounter a drowning person who tries to climb on your boat you can actually legally keep them off your boat because it is your property. Woman's right to control her own body would actually trump the fetus IF the fetus was considered a person - which it isn't.
 
2014-03-28 03:54:15 PM

grumpfuff: Well, your entire argument is dependent on your assertion that a fetus is a person. Which you didn't bother to argue for, just asserted based on sketchy definitions.

So you'll have to forgive me for not taking the rest of your argument seriously.


Your entire argument depends on your assertion that a fetus is not a person, which has no basis in biology or reason.  Like begets like.  The null hypothesis is that the organisms that are reproduced by organisms are another instance of the parent organism.  Give me a logical or scientific explanation as to why the offspring of persons are not persons, and I'll reconsider.

Arbitrary distinctions based on time, size and shape are invalid.  "Because I can kill it so easily" is not valid.

Go ahead.  Impress me.
 
2014-03-28 03:54:58 PM

madgonad: A person has absolutely no duty to do anything to save another person's life.


Except as to your offspring.
 
2014-03-28 04:04:27 PM

Phinn: grumpfuff: Well, your entire argument is dependent on your assertion that a fetus is a person. Which you didn't bother to argue for, just asserted based on sketchy definitions.

So you'll have to forgive me for not taking the rest of your argument seriously.

Your entire argument depends on your assertion that a fetus is not a person, which has no basis in biology or reason.  Like begets like.  The null hypothesis is that the organisms that are reproduced by organisms are another instance of the parent organism.  Give me a logical or scientific explanation as to why the offspring of persons are not persons, and I'll reconsider.

Arbitrary distinctions based on time, size and shape are invalid.  "Because I can kill it so easily" is not valid.

Go ahead.  Impress me.


So, instead of you defining what makes a fetus a person, now the burden is on me to prove it isn't?

Huh.

Anyway, since you seem to be in dire need of Bioethics 101, here's the wiki article on personhood. Start from there and see if you can come up with a better argument. The only difference between your position and a religious anti-choice position is instead of "Because Jesus," you use "Because I said so."

Meanwhile, in bioethics, the opinions on personhood/life range from "every sperm is sacred" to "infanticide is ok." I'm sure somewhere in that range you can find a position you agree with, and use actual arguments instead of "Because I said so."

Go ahead. Impress me.
 
2014-03-28 04:07:18 PM

Phinn: madgonad: A person has absolutely no duty to do anything to save another person's life.

Except as to your offspring.


Nope

No duty whatsoever.

That's freedom, baby!
 
2014-03-28 04:10:38 PM

grumpfuff: So, instead of you defining what makes a fetus a person, now the burden is on me to prove it isn't?


Yes.  The burden is on you.  A fetus is the offspring of a person, so the fetus is also a person until you show my why it isn't.

"Personhood" is an abstraction.  It's been denied to slaves, children, prisoners, foreigners and women, to name a few.  Until you can show me why the immature offspring of persons are not persons, merely because they are dependent on the very care and protection that all immature persons need and are entitled to, then "personhood" is just an empty, formalistic label for "I want to kill it, it's easy, and you can't stop me."
 
2014-03-28 04:11:30 PM

madgonad: Phinn: madgonad: A person has absolutely no duty to do anything to save another person's life.

Except as to your offspring.

Nope

No duty whatsoever.

That's freedom, baby!


Try leaving your starving 2 year-old in the middle of the living room, and see what the law and ethicists have to say about it.
 
2014-03-28 04:13:01 PM

Phinn: madgonad: A person has absolutely no duty to do anything to save another person's life.

Except as to your offspring.


It's not offspring before it's born.
 
2014-03-28 04:13:21 PM

Phinn: Yes.  The burden is on you.  A fetus is the offspring of a person, so the fetus is also a person until you show my why it isn't.


A fetus is the offspring of a person, but that does not automatically make the fetus a person until you show me why it does.

My statement has just as much epistemic integrity as yours. You haven't actually shown that a fetus is a person, you just claim it is. I can't refute something that hasn't been proven.
 
2014-03-28 04:13:33 PM

Phinn: madgonad: A person has absolutely no duty to do anything to save another person's life.

Except as to your offspring.


That's only true in a legal sense if the parent accepts responsibility for the care of the offspring, hence orphanages. If there is no absolute legal onus on the mother to care for a newborn until the age of majority, and she is free to relinquish care to the state, how does it make sense that that same onus should be placed on women carrying fetuses?
 
2014-03-28 04:15:17 PM

Dansker: Phinn: madgonad: A person has absolutely no duty to do anything to save another person's life.

Except as to your offspring.

It's not offspring before it's born.


Yes, it is.  It's made from two persons' biological material.  It's just a person inside another person.

Tough concept, I know, but try to wrap your head around it.  It might help if you keet up with the last 200 years of biology and medicine.
 
2014-03-28 04:22:12 PM

Phinn: Dansker: Phinn: madgonad: A person has absolutely no duty to do anything to save another person's life.

Except as to your offspring.

It's not offspring before it's born.

Yes, it is.


Only if you ignore etymology and common usage.

It's made from two persons' biological material. It's just a person inside another person.

In my opinion you have to have a personality to be a person, and that requires at least a functioning central nervous system, so it's not a person in the first trimester. After that it becomes kind of a grey area.
 
2014-03-28 04:22:14 PM

Phinn: Your entire argument depends on your assertion that a fetus is not a person, which has no basis in biology or reason.


When does it become a person?
 
2014-03-28 04:26:55 PM
Here's a nice picture of an oak tree for you, Phinn:

dingo.care2.com
 
2014-03-28 04:27:38 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: Phinn: madgonad: A person has absolutely no duty to do anything to save another person's life.

Except as to your offspring.

That's only true in a legal sense if the parent accepts responsibility for the care of the offspring, hence orphanages. If there is no absolute legal onus on the mother to care for a newborn until the age of majority, and she is free to relinquish care to the state, how does it make sense that that same onus should be placed on women carrying fetuses?


You can divest yourself of the obligations of parentage (care, protection, nutrients, sustaining life, etc.) only by confirming that someone else has assumed those obligations for you.

If technology existed for mothers to remove their offspring and place them with other caretakers, that would be the ethical obligation, just as with the orphanage/surrogate parent situation.  But they don't, so that means that, for now, depriving the fetus of maternal care is tantamount to death.
 
2014-03-28 04:27:44 PM

Phinn: grumpfuff: So, instead of you defining what makes a fetus a person, now the burden is on me to prove it isn't?

Yes.  The burden is on you.  A fetus is the offspring of a person, so the fetus is also a person until you show my why it isn't.

"Personhood" is an abstraction.  It's been denied to slaves, children, prisoners, foreigners and women, to name a few.  Until you can show me why the immature offspring of persons are not persons, merely because they are dependent on the very care and protection that all immature persons need and are entitled to, then "personhood" is just an empty, formalistic label for "I want to kill it, it's easy, and you can't stop me."


How can you prove a negative? Isn't the burden on you to prove to us that a fetus is a person?

/Debate 101
 
2014-03-28 04:31:05 PM
 
2014-03-28 04:32:58 PM

Mrtraveler01: Phinn: Your entire argument depends on your assertion that a fetus is not a person, which has no basis in biology or reason.

When does it become a person?


When it's a discrete, self-organized entity, reproduced from male and female human DNA.  Commonly called fertilization.

Epic Fap Session: Here's a nice picture of an oak tree for you, Phinn:

[dingo.care2.com image 392x260]


Yeah, pretty much.  That's just a different stage of the tree's life cycle.  Tadpoles are just frogs, too.  Caterpillars grow into butterflies.  Baby eagles inside their eggs don't look much like eagles, but they are, just very young.

I know that people with a low IQ people have trouble understanding the continuity of life, what with appearances that can change so much, but try to play along anyway.  It's all part of the wonder of nature.
 
2014-03-28 04:34:56 PM

Phinn:
You can divest yourself of the obligations of parentage (care, protection, nutrients, sustaining life, etc.) only by confirming that someone else has assumed those obligations for you.


There is no obligation to donate blood or organs to your children, even after they're born.
 
2014-03-28 04:37:10 PM

Phinn: When it's a discrete, self-organized entity, reproduced from male and female human DNA.  Commonly called fertilization.


So even though the debate is still out on whether or not life begins at conception, you know deep down that is the true answer because...
 
2014-03-28 04:39:23 PM

Phinn: Mrtraveler01: Phinn: Your entire argument depends on your assertion that a fetus is not a person, which has no basis in biology or reason.

When does it become a person?

When it's a discrete, self-organized entity, reproduced from male and female human DNA.  Commonly called fertilization.


So, a blastocyst is a person?
 
2014-03-28 04:39:39 PM

Phinn: UrukHaiGuyz: Phinn: madgonad: A person has absolutely no duty to do anything to save another person's life.

Except as to your offspring.

That's only true in a legal sense if the parent accepts responsibility for the care of the offspring, hence orphanages. If there is no absolute legal onus on the mother to care for a newborn until the age of majority, and she is free to relinquish care to the state, how does it make sense that that same onus should be placed on women carrying fetuses?

You can divest yourself of the obligations of parentage (care, protection, nutrients, sustaining life, etc.) only by confirming that someone else has assumed those obligations for you.

If technology existed for mothers to remove their offspring and place them with other caretakers, that would be the ethical obligation, just as with the orphanage/surrogate parent situation.  But they don't, so that means that, for now, depriving the fetus of maternal care is tantamount to death.


Here's where things get really tricky, because in seeking not to deprive the fetus, it is possible to trample all over the rights of the woman in question. For instance, if a woman decides to starve herself to force a miscarriage, has she committed murder? Would the state be within its rights to force-feed her?

If the answer to either is no, then there is no legal foundation to mandate that all women give birth to the fetuses they carry.
 
2014-03-28 04:40:18 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: Phinn: UrukHaiGuyz: Phinn: madgonad: A person has absolutely no duty to do anything to save another person's life.

Except as to your offspring.

That's only true in a legal sense if the parent accepts responsibility for the care of the offspring, hence orphanages. If there is no absolute legal onus on the mother to care for a newborn until the age of majority, and she is free to relinquish care to the state, how does it make sense that that same onus should be placed on women carrying fetuses?

You can divest yourself of the obligations of parentage (care, protection, nutrients, sustaining life, etc.) only by confirming that someone else has assumed those obligations for you.

If technology existed for mothers to remove their offspring and place them with other caretakers, that would be the ethical obligation, just as with the orphanage/surrogate parent situation.  But they don't, so that means that, for now, depriving the fetus of maternal care is tantamount to death.

Here's where things get really tricky, because in seeking not to deprive the fetus, it is possible to trample all over the rights of the woman in question. For instance, if a woman decides to starve herself to force a miscarriage, has she committed murder? Would the state be within its rights to force-feed her?

If the answer to either is no, then there is no legal foundation to mandate that all women give birth to the fetuses they carry.


...is in question.

/apparently only typed that last bit in my mind.
 
2014-03-28 04:42:07 PM

Phinn: Epic Fap Session: Here's a nice picture of an oak tree for you, Phinn:

[dingo.care2.com image 392x260]


Yeah, pretty much.  That's just a different stage of the tree's life cycle.  Tadpoles are just frogs, too.  Caterpillars grow into butterflies.  Baby eagles inside their eggs don't look much like eagles, but they are, just very young.

I know that people with a low IQ people have trouble understanding the continuity of life, what with appearances that can change so much, but try to play along anyway.  It's all part of the wonder of nature.


Why would you insult my intelligence? You're the one crowing about your ignorance.

In your world should a miscarriage result in an investigation of the female host?
 
2014-03-28 04:47:43 PM

Phinn: Mrtraveler01: Phinn: Your entire argument depends on your assertion that a fetus is not a person, which has no basis in biology or reason.

When does it become a person?

When it's a discrete, self-organized entity, reproduced from male and female human DNA.  Commonly called fertilization.


My DNA is reproduced from male and female DNA, so every copy of my DNA is obviously also reproduced from male and female DNA, which means my sperm are people. I've been killing them by the millions, and I will do it again.
 
2014-03-28 04:49:09 PM

Dansker: Phinn: Mrtraveler01: Phinn: Your entire argument depends on your assertion that a fetus is not a person, which has no basis in biology or reason.

When does it become a person?

When it's a discrete, self-organized entity, reproduced from male and female human DNA.  Commonly called fertilization.

My DNA is reproduced from male and female DNA, so every copy of my DNA is obviously also reproduced from male and female DNA, which means my sperm are people. I've been killing them by the millions, and I will do it again.


I just committed genocide a few hours ago.
 
2014-03-28 04:55:39 PM

Mrtraveler01: Dansker: Phinn: Mrtraveler01: Phinn: Your entire argument depends on your assertion that a fetus is not a person, which has no basis in biology or reason.

When does it become a person?

When it's a discrete, self-organized entity, reproduced from male and female human DNA.  Commonly called fertilization.

My DNA is reproduced from male and female DNA, so every copy of my DNA is obviously also reproduced from male and female DNA, which means my sperm are people. I've been killing them by the millions, and I will do it again.

I just committed genocide a few hours ago.


Also, all non-pregnant women kill at least 1 person a month.
 
2014-03-28 05:01:36 PM

Epic Fap Session: Why would you insult my intelligence?


Probably in response to your snide post about the acorn.

Dansker: My DNA is reproduced from male and female DNA, so every copy of my DNA is obviously also reproduced from male and female DNA, which means my sperm are people. I've been killing them by the millions, and I will do it again.


Your sperm aren't organisms, any more than your kidney is.  What you do with your sperm is your business, and probably best kept private.
 
2014-03-28 05:06:35 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: Here's where things get really tricky, because in seeking not to deprive the fetus, it is possible to trample all over the rights of the woman in question. For instance, if a woman decides to starve herself to force a miscarriage, has she committed murder? Would the state be within its rights to force-feed her?


What if you wanted to starve yourself and your children at the same time by not buying food?  You have the right not to buy food and die by suicide, but your kids will die before you do, probably.  It would be appropriate to trespass into your home and seize those children in order to protect them, which is otherwise (not in the presence of an existential threat to them) a wrongful act.

Fetuses can't be seized without killing them, at the moment, so saving the offspring could require offending the mother's liberty.  Again, life > liberty > property.
 
2014-03-28 05:08:33 PM

Phinn:
Your sperm aren't organisms, any more than your kidney is.  What you do with your sperm is your business, and probably best kept private.


They are discrete, self-organized entities, so by your definition they're people. And they are better at surviving outside a human body than most embryoblasts.
 
2014-03-28 05:09:13 PM

Phinn: Epic Fap Session: Why would you insult my intelligence?

Probably in response to your snide post about the acorn.


The snide remark that you agreed with right before insulting me?
 
2014-03-28 05:10:52 PM

Dansker: Phinn:
Your sperm aren't organisms, any more than your kidney is.  What you do with your sperm is your business, and probably best kept private.

They are discrete, self-organized entities, so by your definition they're people. And they are better at surviving outside a human body than most embryoblasts.


By self-organized, I mean an organism.  Biology has a set of meaningful criteria for what an organism is.  There are single-celled organisms, but sperm cells are not among them.
 
2014-03-28 05:13:33 PM

Epic Fap Session: Phinn: Epic Fap Session: Why would you insult my intelligence?

Probably in response to your snide post about the acorn.

The snide remark that you agreed with right before insulting me?


Yeah, that one.  You tried to make a point with your sarcasm, but it makes no sense, since your point is based on superficial appearances, and not meaningful biological criteria.

All sorts of organisms change radically over the course of their life cycle.  That growth, development and change is an integral part of the definition of "organism," so the fact that young offspring look a lot different from their parents is actually an argument in my favor, not yours.
 
2014-03-28 05:16:35 PM
This is why I think abortion shouldn't be a national issue or even a state issue, but a local issue.  The divide on this issue is too deep and very even.  It's also impossible to build a consensus.  Libtrolls won't go for it, and social conservatives won't agree to anything less than a total or near total ban. If it's a completely local issue, then the predominant opinion of the area would make the rules and those who support it get it in their area and those who don't want it get that in their area.  The level of biatching drops significantly, I have less of a headache and a much more pleasant attitude towards humanity in general.  A nation wide policy, or even a state wide policy, will not work on this issue.
 
2014-03-28 05:20:32 PM

Phinn: Dansker: Phinn:
Your sperm aren't organisms, any more than your kidney is.  What you do with your sperm is your business, and probably best kept private.

They are discrete, self-organized entities, so by your definition they're people. And they are better at surviving outside a human body than most embryoblasts.

By self-organized, I mean an organism.  Biology has a set of meaningful criteria for what an organism is.  There are single-celled organisms, but sperm cells are not among them.


By which criterium do they fail? They are mobile, carbon based life forms. Just because they're haploid, doesn't mean they're not organisms.
 
2014-03-28 05:25:05 PM

Phinn: UrukHaiGuyz: Here's where things get really tricky, because in seeking not to deprive the fetus, it is possible to trample all over the rights of the woman in question. For instance, if a woman decides to starve herself to force a miscarriage, has she committed murder? Would the state be within its rights to force-feed her?

What if you wanted to starve yourself and your children at the same time by not buying food?  You have the right not to buy food and die by suicide, but your kids will die before you do, probably.  It would be appropriate to trespass into your home and seize those children in order to protect them, which is otherwise (not in the presence of an existential threat to them) a wrongful act.


That didn't answer the question. I already know you see fetuses as perfectly analogous to children. Is the state within its rights to force-feed the woman? In your above scenario, the parent could starve themselves while still feeding their children. It doesn't exactly correlate.

Fetuses can't be seized without killing them, at the moment, so saving the offspring could require offending the mother's liberty.  Again, life > liberty > property.

Where are you getting this legal doctrine? Is it your personal opinion?
 
2014-03-28 05:26:44 PM

Dansker: Phinn: Dansker: Phinn:
Your sperm aren't organisms, any more than your kidney is.  What you do with your sperm is your business, and probably best kept private.

They are discrete, self-organized entities, so by your definition they're people. And they are better at surviving outside a human body than most embryoblasts.

By self-organized, I mean an organism.  Biology has a set of meaningful criteria for what an organism is.  There are single-celled organisms, but sperm cells are not among them.

By which criterium do they fail? They are mobile, carbon based life forms. Just because they're haploid, doesn't mean they're not organisms.


They're not capable of growth, development or reproduction (which sounds odd, since they are reproduction-specialty cells within some other organism).  They need to fuse with another cell in order to grow and develop.  On its own, even with ample nutrition and protection from the elements, it will always only ever be a sperm cell.
 
2014-03-28 05:29:18 PM

bobothemagnificent: This is why I think abortion shouldn't be a national issue or even a state issue, but a local issue.  The divide on this issue is too deep and very even.  It's also impossible to build a consensus.  Libtrolls won't go for it, and social conservatives won't agree to anything less than a total or near total ban. If it's a completely local issue, then the predominant opinion of the area would make the rules and those who support it get it in their area and those who don't want it get that in their area.  The level of biatching drops significantly, I have less of a headache and a much more pleasant attitude towards humanity in general.  A nation wide policy, or even a state wide policy, will not work on this issue.


Violates the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, so no dice. A constitutional amendment is about the least likely outcome on the issue.
 
2014-03-28 05:34:38 PM

Dansker: Phinn: Dansker: Phinn:
Your sperm aren't organisms, any more than your kidney is.  What you do with your sperm is your business, and probably best kept private.

They are discrete, self-organized entities, so by your definition they're people. And they are better at surviving outside a human body than most embryoblasts.

By self-organized, I mean an organism.  Biology has a set of meaningful criteria for what an organism is.  There are single-celled organisms, but sperm cells are not among them.

By which criterium do they fail? They are mobile, carbon based life forms. Just because they're haploid, doesn't mean they're not organisms.


I guess a white blood cell is also an organism?
 
Displayed 50 of 170 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report