Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 345 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 140 of 232

Thread: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

  1. #106
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,660

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    I don't feel any degree of certainty about when life begins. Certainly there is no consensus on that question, nor do I think there ever will be. And, absent certainty and consensus, I think the proper response from the law is to step back and let people make their own decisions about abortions--i.e. preserve a federal right to abortion.

    And yet... If I believed that a fetus is a human life, deserving of the protections of law, then letting the right to abortions stand as an individual decision puts me in conflict with my conscience. A real moral dilemma.

    Tom
    I am content with the consensus view that life begins when the fetus can survive independently of its mother. Until then, it is not truly alive. That is at 24 weeks. Consider the case of a pregnant woman being killed. The fetus is delivered by cesarean, at what stage is the fetus viable?
    There is a similar case that has been dragged through the courts over here. A 12 y o boy suffered some form of collapse and ended up on life support. The medical experts declared him brain-dead, but his parents were not having any of it, and dragged his case through every court that would hear them. The courts ruled for the hospital, life support was withdrawn this morning, he was declared dead at midday. Not truly alive.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    61,892

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    While I'm 100% in agreement with Tom that this is indeed a real moral question, I don't think 'alive' and 'not alive' is the important distinction. Pretty much everything we eat was once alive. Even an egg cell before fertilization is alive. And 'capable of surviving on its own' is technology-dependent; fetuses survive a lot earlier than they used to. Oxygen and incubators and good infection control help a lot, and I'd bet in not too long we'll be able to raise a fertilized egg all the way through in an artificial womb. I think the distinction we need to make is between fully human and not. The beginning of higher brain function does correlate pretty well with 25-odd weeks, and if anything makes us human, that's it.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hills of Vermont, USA
    Posts
    45,061

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by George Jung View Post
    There's a number of bilge denizens who seemingly feel the need to accept, at face value, any/all 'claptrap' a handful of folks continually spew. Garret is the posterboy, but has lots of company. Why enable trolls, provocateurs, $hit-stirrers? By appearances, you seemingly believe it makes you look open-minded, even-handed - reasonable, even.

    Not really. But you do lend a sheen of respectability to opinions, and members, who deserve anything but. Empowering those who would deconstruct us. Nice.
    Sorry you feel that way George. I hugely (bigly even) disagree with Boatbum on it's being a state issue. However, I'd be interested to learn why he feels that it is. Dismissing what he says as claptrap is not a good way to learn where the other person is coming from. I don't see it as "empowering him" - but as a way to have a civilized discussion.

    Just so you know, I won't even vote for a dogcatcher who's running as a Republican (& have said that to Reps who've knocked on my door), but that doesn't mean I don't want to learn why Reps feel the way they do. IOW - I don't want to live in a we're right, they're wrong echo chamber. I would have thought that someone who used to vote Republican would like to learn why some still do. Guess learning's overrated?
    "If it ain't broke, you're not trying." - Red Green

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pompano Beach, FLorida
    Posts
    1,240

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    If any one of you were to put a woman at the same physical risk that a fetus does, even unintentionally, there would be no legal problem with shooting you dead on the spot. There is no room in the law for living off another persons body without their consent, risking their life without consent, or invading their bodies without consent. It doesn't matter if you didn't mean to hurt the person, or you really needed it badly to survive, if you put their life at risk, it's legally protected self defense. Otherwise I'd be coming for someone's liver, and maybe a kidney, whether they wanted to give it up or not. Donating either is safer than child birth.

    No one is arguing if any of you are alive, or a person.

    The entire 'is it a person' debate is complete BS. It's a distraction from taking away a woman's right to defend their own body. Because the entire point is to control women. It has jack all to do with protecting the unborn.

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,058

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Corvida View Post
    If any one of you were to put a woman at the same physical risk that a fetus does, even unintentionally, there would be no legal problem with shooting you dead on the spot. There is no room in the law for living off another persons body without their consent, risking their life without consent, or invading their bodies without consent. It doesn't matter if you didn't mean to hurt the person, or you really needed it badly to survive, if you put their life at risk, it's legally protected self defense. Otherwise I'd be coming for someone's liver, and maybe a kidney, whether they wanted to give it up or not. Donating either is safer than child birth.

    No one is arguing if any of you are alive, or a person.

    The entire 'is it a person' debate is complete BS. It's a distraction from taking away a woman's right to defend their own body. Because the entire point is to control women. It has jack all to do with protecting the unborn.
    Wtf are you on about….

    Most fetuses don’t harm the mother.

    And by far, most pregnancies are by choice. It’s not like the fetus jumped into the mother as a parasite into a host.

    Id say you’re being silly, but you come across as frothing at the mouth.

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    16,406

    Default

    [QUOTE=Decourcy;6705666]

    Most fetuses don’t harm the mother./QUOTE]

    Only reason that's true is through the miracles of modern medicine.

    Take a walk through any old cemetery and note the number of plots with dad, and his 1, 2, 3+ wives, with most of them having died in childbirth.

    In modern times?

    "Maternal mortality in the United States has declined dramatically over the past century (1-4). The rate declined from 607.9 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 1915 to 12.7 in 2007 (1-3)."

    Or...

    https://slate.com/technology/2013/09...es-better.html

    "Bearing a child is still one of the most dangerous things a woman can do. It’s the sixth most common cause of death among women age 20 to 34 in the United States. If you look at the black-box warning on a packet of birth control pills, you’ll notice that at most ages the risk of death from taking the pills is less than if you don’t take them—that’s because they’re so good at preventing pregnancy, and pregnancy kills. The risk flips only after age 35 because birth control pills increase the risk of stroke. (Psst, guys, you know what makes an excellent 35th birthday present for your partner? Getting a vasectomy.)

    In the United States today, about 15 women die in pregnancy or childbirth per 100,000 live births. That’s way too many, but a century ago it was more than 600 women per 100,000 births. In the 1600s and 1700s, the death rate was twice that: By some estimates, between 1 and 1.5 percent of women giving birth died. Note that the rate is per birth, so the lifetime risk of dying in childbirth was much higher, perhaps 4 percent."

    "Compared to other primates, human infants are born ridiculously underdeveloped; they can’t do much more than suck and scream. They would be better off if they could gestate longer—but the mother wouldn’t be.
    .
    .
    .
    The real reason women give birth when they do, Dunsworth says, is that it would take too much energy to feed a fetus for any longer. This is the “metabolic hypothesis” and it’s based on the finding that the maximum metabolic rate people can sustain is about 2 or 2.5 times their standard rate of using energy. During the third trimester, that’s exactly how much metabolic activity the pregnancy demands. Carrying a fetus for those final few months “is like being an incredibly good athlete,” Dunsworth says. No wonder it’s so exhausting.
    .
    .
    .
    By the late stages of pregnancy and during childbirth, almost anything can go wrong. Pregnant women are sapped of energy. They are susceptible to infectious disease. The baby’s head is enormous. Labor takes much longer in humans than in other primates; women often pushed for days. Historically, women died of puerperal fever (also called childbed fever, or postpartum sepsis, an infection usually contracted during childbirth), hemorrhage, eclampsia (dangerously high blood pressure and organ damage; that’s what killed Sybil on Downton Abbey), and obstructed labor.

    Given all the dangers, how did deaths in childbirth fall to about one-fiftieth of the historic rate? Life expectancy in the United States and the developed world basically doubled in the past 150 years, and a decrease in maternal mortality is ultimately a big reason for our longer, healthier lives. But the history of childbirth death rates is complicated and disturbing. It’s a story of hubris, mistrust, greed, incompetence, and turf battles that live on today.

    The death rate in the overall population started dropping at the end of the 1800s, and it dropped most dramatically during the first few decades of the 20th century. Childbirth deaths were different. They actually increased during the first few decades of the 20th century. Even though pregnant women had less exposure to disease and were more likely to have clean water, proper nutrition, safe food, and comfortable housing than at any previous time in human history, they died in droves in childbed.

    [Read the rest at https://slate.com/technology/2013/09...s-better.html]

    And from this paper, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3511335/

    "The history of maternal deaths in England from the earliest records in the 1700s to 1935, concentrating on the influence of medical practice, is recounted. The rate lay between 4 and 5 per 1000 until 1935, with the advent of sulfa antibiotics to prevent puerperal infections. . . . The current maternal death rate is about 0.1/1000."
    You would not enjoy Nietzsche, sir. He is fundamentally unsound. — P.G. Wodehouse (Carry On, Jeeves)

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,058

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Even 607 per 100000 means 99393 don’t harm the mother. The language of the post I responded to was ridiculous.

    And by far most women that become pregnant have chosen to do so. No-one has forced them.

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    16,406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Decourcy View Post
    Even 607 per 100000 means 99393 don’t harm the mother. The language of the post I responded to was ridiculous.

    And by far most women that become pregnant have chosen to do so. No-one has forced them.

    Most people with lung cancer have it by choice. Nobody forced them to smoke. It doesn't make it not a health problem.

    For lung cancer, the death rate is 46.7 per 100,000 for white men.

    Heart disease, 274.5 deaths per 100,000 for white men.

    The mortality rate for COVID-19 in the US is 313.69 per 100,000.

    Carrying a child is a risky undertaking, only made less risky by a lot of high-tech medicine.

    One of the (the only?) reasons the US has a higher maternal mortality rate than most other comparable industrialized countries is our crappy system of medical care.
    You would not enjoy Nietzsche, sir. He is fundamentally unsound. — P.G. Wodehouse (Carry On, Jeeves)

  9. #114
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,058

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholas Carey View Post
    Most people with lung cancer have it by choice. Nobody forced them to smoke. It doesn't make it not a health problem.

    For lung cancer, the death rate is 46.7 per 100,000 for white men.

    Heart disease, 274.5 deaths per 100,000 for white men.

    The mortality rate for COVID-19 in the US is 313.69 per 100,000.

    Carrying a child is a risky undertaking, only made less risky by a lot of high-tech medicine.

    One of the (the only?) reasons the US has a higher maternal mortality rate than most other comparable industrialized countries is our crappy system of medical care.
    I didn’t say it wasn’t risky. I said the language was ridiculous. “There is no room in the law for living off another persons body without their consent, risking their life without consent, or invading their bodies without consent. It doesn't matter if you didn't mean to hurt the person, or you really needed it badly to survive”


    And seriously? You’re comparing pregnancy to disease?
    Last edited by Decourcy; 08-07-2022 at 12:15 AM.

  10. #115
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    13,086

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    I am content with the consensus view that life begins when the fetus can survive independently of its mother.
    There is no consensus:

    And about a third of Americans who generally support legal abortion (33%) say the statement “human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights” describes their own view at least “somewhat” well.
    In fact, the majority view in the U.S., according to Pew Research, is:

    ...more than half (56%) say [that] the statement “human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights” [describes their views at least somewhat well]
    Source

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  11. #116
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,660

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    There is no consensus:



    In fact, the majority view in the U.S., according to Pew Research, is:



    Source

    Tom
    This from someone who now knows that there is land to the east of the USA.
    There is a medical consensus that fetuses before 24 weeks are not really viable. The probability of any survival at 22 weeks is 1 in 10, and that with very sophisticated life support and intensive care, and a real risk of serious disability.
    Doctors now consider 22 weeks the earliest gestational age when a baby is "viable," or able to survive outside the womb. But this is still extremely premature, and a baby born at this age will need a great deal of medical attention. Even if he survives, the risk of permanent disability is very high.
    https://www.babycenter.com/baby/prem...-womb_10419991
    Today, the prospect of survival is only about 1 in 10 at 23 weeks, and if the child lives it is more likely to be handicapped that not. At 24 weeks the chance of a normal survivor is about 50%, and after this the odds are in favor of a normal survivor. Considering this data, intensive care should be an optional choice for fetuses at 23 and 24 weeks of gestation and should be offered to every fetus at 25 weeks or more.
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11753511/
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  12. #117
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    13,086

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    This from someone who now knows that there is land to the east of the USA.
    I've known that for a long time, Nick--I've lived in (that's "lived in," not "visited") Korea, the Middle East, and the Marshall Islands as well. (Alaska, too, which if you ask people there, is not the same as "outside.") Remind me: where outside the UK you have lived for extended periods of time?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    There is a medical consensus that fetuses before 24 weeks are not really viable.
    You've changed the debate by throwing in that qualifier "medical." I could claim a consensus, too: There is an evangelical Christian consensus that life begins at conception.

    The question is not "When does a fetus become viable?" but "When does a fetus become a human person, and thus worthy of the protections of law?"

    The first question can be answered by science--and largely has been, although the answer evolves with medical technology.

    The second question is a value judgment, not a technical matter. Science is no help there.

    I find it difficult to believe there will ever be a consensus on the answer to question 2. How can there be?

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  13. #118
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Gulgong. Central west N.S.W. Australia
    Posts
    6,220

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    If the antis want to go on about the sanctity of life and the rights of the unborn then they have a right to be heard. But maybe they also have an obligation to act as though they give a s##t when a bunch of little kids are murdered in a classroom. There is so much about modern America that seems the stuff of nightmares, despite all the flag waving and hand on heart patriotism. JayInOz

  14. #119
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    13,086

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by JayInOz View Post
    If the antis want to go on about the sanctity of life and the rights of the unborn then they have a right to be heard. But maybe they also have an obligation to act as though they give a s##t when a bunch of little kids are murdered in a classroom. There is so much about modern America that seems the stuff of nightmares, despite all the flag waving and hand on heart patriotism. JayInOz
    Or maybe because of it, eh?

    You're absolutely right. Apart from the guns issue, the tendency of anti-abortion groups to support elected leaders who do all they can to block or reduce or eliminate social safety nets, and even more, (some of) their strong opposition to the things that we know reduce abortions--comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraception--make it hard to believe their sincerity when they say they are "pro-life" and "anti-abortion."

    It's not a simple issue for sure.

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,660

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post

    The question is not "When does a fetus become viable?" but "When does a fetus become a human person, and thus worthy of the protections of law?"


    Tom
    We use brain death as a criterion for defining end of life, see post #106 above.
    So it is sensible to consider the brain "turning on" as the beginning of Human personhood, yes?
    By coincidence, this also happens at about 24 weeks.
    Just as there are two types of brain death - whole brain death (which refers to the irreversible cessation of function of both the brain stem and higher parts of the brain) and higher brain death (destruction of the cerebral hemispheres alone, with possible retention of brain stem function), there are two types of brain birth (based on their reversal) - brain stem birth at the first appearance of brain waves in lower brain (brain stem) at 6–8 weeks of gestation, and higher brain birth, at the first appearance of brain waves in higher brain (cerebral cortex) at 22–24 weeks of gestation.[24]
    Does that help?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  16. #121
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    13,086

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    We use brain death as a criterion for defining end of life, see post #106 above.
    So it is sensible to consider the brain "turning on" as the beginning of Human personhood, yes?
    By coincidence, this also happens at about 24 weeks.

    Does that help?
    I doubt it. While the question may be settled law in the UK--and thus at least a majority view, if not a complete consensus--the answer is not as clear-cut as you seem to be arguing. For example:

    I really can't tell you when personhood begins, but I can say with absolute certainty that there's no consensus among scientists. Some scientists will say it begins at fertilization, where the zygote gets a new genome, where the sperm and egg combine, their nuclear materials, which actually is a long process ending with a two cell stage. Some scientists will say it's at implantation, where you get a pregnancy. Other scientists will say it's at day 14, gastrulation, where the embryo becomes an individual, where you can no longer form twins and triplets, so that you have one embryo giving rise to, at best, only one adult. Some scientists will say it's at week 24 to 28 when you see the beginnings of the human specific electroencephalogram, and saying if we're willing to say that death is the loss of the EEG, perhaps personhood is the acquisition of the EEG. Still others say it's at birth or during the perinatal period where a successful birth is possible.
    That's from Scott Gilbert, a professor at Swarthmore College, whose wife is a pro-abortion rights activist. It's actually a good overview of the different interpretations of personhood--worth a read, maybe. Pretty thoughtful and non-dogmatic.

    So, the view you propose is one view. I think it's a reasonable one; others think otherwise. I also think that some of the people fighting against abortion rights, and rejecting that view, are the same people fighting NOT to have brain-dead people unplugged from life support.

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  17. #122
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,660

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    I doubt it. While the question may be settled law in the UK--and thus at least a majority view, if not a complete consensus--the answer is not as clear-cut as you seem to be arguing. For example:



    That's from Scott Gilbert, a professor at Swarthmore College, whose wife is a pro-abortion rights activist. It's actually a good overview of the different interpretations of personhood--worth a read, maybe. Pretty thoughtful and non-dogmatic.

    So, the view you propose is one view. I think it's a reasonable one; others think otherwise. I also think that some of the people fighting against abortion rights, and rejecting that view, are the same people fighting NOT to have brain-dead people unplugged from life support.

    Tom
    Having scanned your Professor's paper, it is apparent that he debunks all of those alternatives, and if he plumps for one it is the Jewish concept of first breath. He points out that the first breath causes the plumbing of the heart to change, and the blood vessels to the navel to wither. Now, the reason for the need for intensive care before 24 weeks is that the lungs are not developed and cannot support life on the air that nature provides, so the idea of first breath, from 24 weeks onwards seems sound. The brain is sufficiently formed, as are the lungs, to sustain independent life out in the big wide world.

    His paper indicates why medical ethics are decided by a multidisciplinary team, and not just by the medical profession.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  18. #123
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    13,086

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Having scanned your Professor's paper, it is apparent that he debunks all of those alternatives, and if he plumps for one it is the Jewish concept of first breath.
    But the most relevant point he makes to this discussion is, I'd say, is that there is no universal consensus about when a fetus becomes a human person. Not even among scientists.

    All of which--to me--argues for a universal right to abortion, making it an individual decision for the woman to make. Which will still feel like allowing murder to many who oppose abortion, which makes it a thorny moral issue to navigate.

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  19. #124
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,660

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    But the most relevant point he makes to this discussion is, I'd say, is that there is no universal consensus about when a fetus becomes a human person. Not even among scientists.

    All of which--to me--argues for a universal right to abortion, making it an individual decision for the woman to make. Which will still feel like allowing murder to many who oppose abortion, which makes it a thorny moral issue to navigate.

    Tom
    Which brings us back to the two points:
    Those families who disagree with abortion, don't have to have one, and accept the risk that both their daughter and her child might not survive the pregnancy, but should keep their nebs out of other people's lives.
    Responsible government have to recognize that if they put unreasonable limits on abortion, mothers will die, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_...a_Halappanavar, or at the hands of backstreet abortionists with a bent coat hanger.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  20. #125
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    13,086

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    You do realize that I'm not the one who needs convincing, right?

    The point is to understand the other point of view, not to argue that they're correct.

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  21. #126
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,660

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    You do realize that I'm not the one who needs convincing, right?

    The point is to understand the other point of view, not to argue that they're correct.

    Tom
    From the fallacies threaD.
    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Originally Posted by Too Little Time
    People are entitled to believe what they believe. With or without arguments.
    yes, and some people make total tits of themselves when they share beliefs that have no foundation in facts.
    Good timing, eh?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  22. #127
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    39,304

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    You do realize that I'm not the one who needs convincing, right?

    The point is to understand the other point of view, not to argue that they're correct.

    Tom
    Yes. If we cannot understand the other side, we will never persuade them that our view is correct. That relegates us to the sidelines with our one vote, yelling at the opposition, as society debates and moves in one direction or another.
    "Where you live in the world should not determine whether you live in the world." - Bono

    "Live in such a way that you would not be ashamed to sell your parrot to the town gossip." - Will Rogers

    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - Groucho Marx

  23. #128
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    13,086

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    From the fallacies threaD.
    some people make total tits of themselves when they share beliefs that have no foundation in facts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Good timing, eh?
    Hmm... I think it's entirely possible to share the same set of facts on this issue, and still reach no agreement on when life begins. Because "when life begins" is not a question of fact, but of subjective perception.

    Kind of like: we can agree that it was 92 F in Wrocław on Friday, but we won't necessarily agree whether it was "hot."

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  24. #129
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    the hills
    Posts
    67,191

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Corvida View Post
    If any one of you were to put a woman at the same physical risk that a fetus does, even unintentionally, there would be no legal problem with shooting you dead on the spot. There is no room in the law for living off another persons body without their consent, risking their life without consent, or invading their bodies without consent. It doesn't matter if you didn't mean to hurt the person, or you really needed it badly to survive, if you put their life at risk, it's legally protected self defense. Otherwise I'd be coming for someone's liver, and maybe a kidney, whether they wanted to give it up or not. Donating either is safer than child birth.

    No one is arguing if any of you are alive, or a person.

    The entire 'is it a person' debate is complete BS. It's a distraction from taking away a woman's right to defend their own body. Because the entire point is to control women. It has jack all to do with protecting the unborn.
    Yup

  25. #130
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    13,086

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Corvida View Post
    If any one of you were to put a woman at the same physical risk that a fetus does, even unintentionally, there would be no legal problem with shooting you dead on the spot.
    Driving drunk puts others (women and men) at higher risk than most pregnancies, yet we don't get to shoot drunk drivers dead, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Corvida View Post
    The entire 'is it a person' debate is complete BS. It's a distraction from taking away a woman's right to defend their own body. Because the entire point is to control women. It has jack all to do with protecting the unborn.
    You're painting with a brush that's about 19 city blocks wide. In my experience, many who oppose abortion are quite genuinely concerned with protecting what they see as an innocent unborn human.

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  26. #131
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,660

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    Hmm... I think it's entirely possible to share the same set of facts on this issue, and still reach no agreement on when life begins. Because "when life begins" is not a question of fact, but of subjective perception.

    Kind of like: we can agree that it was 92 F in Wrocław on Friday, but we won't necessarily agree whether it was "hot."

    Tom
    So maybe we give up on that as sterile ground, and concentrate on when life is viable outside the mother's life support system.
    And remember that the mother has equal or greater rights than the potential infant.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  27. #132
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,058

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    So maybe we give up on that as sterile ground, and concentrate on when life is viable outside the mother's life support system.
    And remember that the mother has equal or greater rights than the potential infant.
    Viable with or without medical intervention? We do, after all, intervene to save the life of a car crash victim rather than saying “he’s not viable so let’s just let him go”.
    At the stage that the fetus is “human” it has equal rights. We don’t own our children and can’t do what we wish with them. When that change from cells to human happens will be a discussion forever I’m afraid. Some will say conception, some will say birth, and most of us will fall in the middle.

  28. #133
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,660

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Decourcy View Post
    Viable with or without medical intervention? We do, after all, intervene to save the life of a car crash victim rather than saying “he’s not viable so let’s just let him go”.
    At the stage that the fetus is “human” it has equal rights. We don’t own our children and can’t do what we wish with them. When that change from cells to human happens will be a discussion forever I’m afraid. Some will say conception, some will say birth, and most of us will fall in the middle.
    Go back and read the debate between Tom and I, it went over all of that, it pretty well beat it to death.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  29. #134
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,058

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Go back and read the debate between Tom and I, it went over all of that, it pretty well beat it to death.
    So what is your answer to my question? I didn’t see you state anything other than 24 week viability. I saw no mention of medical intervention or how to deal with increasing technology moving that date further and further back.

  30. #135
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    4,628

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    If you don't think abortion is the correct choice for you, don't have one. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion. What is happening is that a small, albeit very vocal, segment of society is telling or attempting to tell women that they are NOT allowed to have dominion over their own bodies.

    Here's a thought experiment for all the old white dude champions of the anti-abortion movement.

    What would be the reaction if the government prohibited all males from fathering children until they could prove the financial resources to successfully raise a child to adulthood?

    How about we enact a law where all males from say 12 onwards would be required to undergo a vasectomy and would not be allowed to have it reversed until they provided sufficient proof that they are capable financially and stable enough (housing, job, parenting class attendance, etc) to start spreading baby batter.

    How would this government control over an individual's body be any different then what is being imposed on women.

    If men were the ones getting pregnant, the right to choice would be within the first paragraph of the constitution.
    "Unrepentant Reprobate"
    Lew Barrett



  31. #136
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    61,892

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    'Viable outside mom' depends on the level of technology. It's not that far from where we are now, to being able to grow a fertilized egg into a baby in a completely artificial environment. Even without that, viable with or without an incubator? With or without extra oxygen? (But not too much, the baby'll go blind.) With or without a reasonably sterile environment?

    The decisions about when to try to save a very premature baby are damnably difficult. My wife doesn't handle the newborn ICU anymore, but boy, does she have some stories.

    Again, I'd propose higher brain function as the dividing line between 'human being' and 'not yet a human being'. We already do something similar at the end of life with brain-dead people.

    __________________________________________________ __________________________

    And I think Tom gets it right about the motivation and thinking of those who oppose abortion. The main point is not to control women, nor to enforce a particular kind of society. They're OK with some of that as a byproduct, and might even think it's desirable, but the main point really is to protect the fetus, which they think of as sort of a very small baby. There's a reason anti-abortion billboards always show a very cute 4-month old, not a 10-week embryo.
    Last edited by Keith Wilson; 08-07-2022 at 11:57 AM.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  32. #137
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    13,086

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin T View Post
    Here's a thought experiment for all the old white dude champions of the anti-abortion movement.

    What would be the reaction if the government prohibited all males from fathering children until they could prove the financial resources to successfully raise a child to adulthood?
    Yep, I can see the logic in that. Here's a thought experiment for all the old white dude champions of the abortion-rights movement.

    What would be the reaction if some people were demanding the right to kill someone they do not believe is a human being, but you do believe their target is a human being?
    For example, using the "higher brain function" idea, people with severe dementia would arguably no longer qualify as human. Should people who believe that be allowed to kill them?

    Or, suppose a racist believes that non-white people are not fully human. Should they be allowed to kill these "non-humans"?

    Should the rest of society, who does believe these people are human, stand by and let those who don't believe they are human kill them with impunity?

    It's a thorny moral issue for many people--not nearly as simple as some on this thread want to make it seem.

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  33. #138
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,660

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    This from someone who now knows that there is land to the east of the USA.
    There is a medical consensus that fetuses before 24 weeks are not really viable. The probability of any survival at 22 weeks is 1 in 10, and that with very sophisticated life support and intensive care, and a real risk of serious disability.
    Doctors now consider 22 weeks the earliest gestational age when a baby is "viable," or able to survive outside the womb. But this is still extremely premature, and a baby born at this age will need a great deal of medical attention. Even if he survives, the risk of permanent disability is very high.
    https://www.babycenter.com/baby/prem...-womb_10419991
    Today, the prospect of survival is only about 1 in 10 at 23 weeks, and if the child lives it is more likely to be handicapped that not. At 24 weeks the chance of a normal survivor is about 50%, and after this the odds are in favor of a normal survivor. Considering this data, intensive care should be an optional choice for fetuses at 23 and 24 weeks of gestation and should be offered to every fetus at 25 weeks or more.
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11753511/
    Quote Originally Posted by Decourcy View Post
    So what is your answer to my question? I didn’t see you state anything other than 24 week viability. I saw no mention of medical intervention or how to deal with increasing technology moving that date further and further back.
    The problem lies in the undeveloped lung's ability to absorb oxygen. Too much oxygen is poisonous, see the problems divers face when the partial pressure of their oxygen supply exceeds 100%. Too little oxygen causes damage to the brain. A very difficult balancing act for which it is hard to posit a solution.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  34. #139
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,660

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    'Viable outside mom' depends on the level of technology. It's not that far from where we are now, to being able to grow a fertilized egg into a baby in a completely artificial environment.
    Well there are these issues to be considered
    Doctor Jones and others talked yesterday about epigenetics. Here we see two genetically identical mice. They do not look genetically identical. Their mothers were given different diets. The different diets actually activated and suppressed different genes, so one is obese and golden, the other is sleek and brown, so the genes are not determining their obesity in this case. The genes are not determining their color. It's the environment, the maternal diet that's doing this.
    I'm not going to go into this slide, but maternal care can activate or repress gene expression in rats. Here we see the glucocorticoid receptor in the brain of rats, and depending on whether the rats got maternal care during the first seven days of postnatal life, you either activate or un-activate this particular gene. In both cases, this is due to DNA methylation, this epigenetic phenomena.
    We even get a separate inheritance. We get bacteria. As we go through the reproductive tract of the female, we get new bacteria. That bacteria colonizes our gut. Our gut expects it. We get variation. We get finished by the bacteria that we inherit, often through birth.
    From the paper Tom linked earlier.

    There is also the issue that the mother's hormones, dumped into the blood stream at the right time and in the correct mix, has a role in confirming the development of gender.

    That is one hell of a lot of stuff that could go wrong.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  35. #140
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    61,892

    Default Re: Roe: you GO Kansas!!!

    OK, maybe it's 50 years out, not ten or 20. Never said it was easy; the point is the same.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •