<strong>to which my question would be where and how do you draw the line? at what point do a mother's rights no longer outweigh the baby's rights? how do you pick a point in time that isn't completely arbitrary?</strong><hr></blockquote>I don't think there is any objective way to determine that, and the lack of an absolute objective standard is not uncommon in ethical dilemmas. I'm on a research ethics committee at my workplace, and this is what we have to do all the time - balance the importance of the research against the rights of the human or animal subjects. There's no objective way to determine whether the research is important enough to balance some potential harm to the subjects. I think the same is true with abortion.
There are competing interests and rights - the right of the mother to have control over her reproduction and the right to life of a baby in the womb. The right to life would almost always trump everything else, but here you have a baby that hasn't been born yet. Even 20-year-olds don't have all the same rights as adults in our society (e.g., drinking).
I believe both rights to life and to reproductive freedom are valid, but they conflict in this issue. And I believe Roe v. Wade is a compromise position. Abortions are only completely free from regulation in the first trimester. After that, there has to be a medical reason. It balances the two rights. Not in an objective way, but there is no objective way of determining which right is more important.
I could reverse the question on you: at what point does a woman no longer have control over her reproduction? Any time after conception? Where's your objective standard for that?
[quote]If someone has a premature child and wants to keep it, it can be given honorary human status by the parent. Again, I still don't consider it to be human but if the parent so wishes, the parent may treat it like one.<hr></blockquote>
odd, sounds eerily similar to the arguments made by those who supported the right to own slaves. treat them like a slave if you want, or treat them like a human being, it's up to you! sorry, either you are or you aren't. i don't feel that there's any room for honorary status to human rights.
[quote]I also would have no problem taking a premature baby off life support if the parent so wishes.<hr></blockquote>
does this also apply to people who have been in comas? what about people who have birth defects and can't live without machine aid ever, but will be able to live a normal life span with aid? i can't believe that "machine aid" would be a requirement for being a human being either.
that or you're taking a much stronger stance on this than i initially thought and are trying to argue that those who can't live w/o aid aren't people. (and there are those who feel that way, it's just not as common)
[quote]odd, sounds eerily similar to the arguments made by those who supported the right to own slaves. treat them like a slave if you want, or treat them like a human being, it's up to you! sorry, either you are or you aren't. i don't feel that there's any room for honorary status to human rights.<hr></blockquote>
I don't believe that a fetus that cannot survive by itself outside the womb is really human yet. That does not stop someone from treating it like a human. That is what I mean by honorary human status. The cutoff I propose is very specific. Anything before is not considered human and anything after is considered human. You were the one who brought up premature babies. I said that if the parents want to treat the premature baby as a human, that is their perogative. It's not some wishy washy flimsy distinction like you are painting it to be.
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>
does this also apply to people who have been in comas? what about people who have birth defects and can't live without machine aid ever, but will be able to live a normal life span with aid? i can't believe that "machine aid" would be a requirement for being a human being either.
that or you're taking a much stronger stance on this than i initially thought and are trying to argue that those who can't live w/o aid aren't people. (and there are those who feel that way, it's just not as common)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Those that cannot live without aid at birth, to me, are not human yet. However, I feel that once one has become human, it cannot be taken away unless extreme circumstances exist such as brain death.
[quote]Those that cannot live without aid at birth, to me, are not human yet. However, I feel that once one has become human, it cannot be taken away unless extreme circumstances exist such as brain death<hr></blockquote>
ok, for example (and this isn't that uncommon) say a baby is born premature (6 months old) with extreme jaundice. the baby has to stay on dialisys (sp?) machines in order to live, and must stay on them for the first 12 months after she's been born.
at what point would that baby/fetus become a human?
i'm not trying to put words in your mouth, or make your idea seems wishy-washy, i just don't think it would actually work.
ok, for example (and this isn't that uncommon) say a baby is born premature (6 months old) with extreme jaundice. the baby has to stay on dialisys (sp?) machines in order to live, and must stay on them for the first 12 months after she's been born.
at what point would that baby/fetus become a human?
i'm not trying to put words in your mouth, or make your idea seems wishy-washy, i just don't think it would actually work.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It becomes human at the regular cutoff. It's not a case by case basis. Exceptions to the rule matter little. Perform the analysis. Find the mean and move 5 standard deviations to the left. That's the date for everyone. Make sure the study is large enough to include all (numerically significant: .75% of the pop or higher) races in the sample group as well as having proper geographic representation. The study would take a long time to complete because it would rely on babies that are born prematurely--no babies will be specifically bred to test the various dates.
It becomes human at the regular cutoff. It's not a case by case basis. Exceptions to the rule matter little. Perform the analysis. Find the mean and move 5 standard deviations to the left. That's the date for everyone. Make sure the study is large enough to include all (numerically significant: .75% of the pop or higher) races in the sample group as well as having proper geographic representation. The study would take a long time to complete because it would rely on babies that are born prematurely--no babies will be specifically bred to test the various dates.</strong><hr></blockquote>What's this? The average age of viability - 5 standard deviations?
That would probably put it at a couple months BEFORE conception. The lowest age of viability ever I think is around 20 weeks. But most die at 25 weeks. The variability is huge. Taking off 5 standard deviations would put it way way down there.
<strong>Hydrocephalus. The baby's head is enlarged and will never live. The head cannot be delivered, so the fluid from the head is drained, which kills the baby.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They could not see this coming and make plans for alternate delivery methods? A C-section for the child is always out? They don't ever attempt to save the baby? How many pregnancies have this condition? 1 in 1000? 1 in 1,000,000? I am curious if there are any normally occurring problems that would necessitate, not simply make things easier, but necessitate PBA.
That would probably put it at a couple months BEFORE conception. The lowest age of viability ever I think is around 20 weeks. But most die at 25 weeks. The variability is huge. Taking off 5 standard deviations would put it way way down there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Living on its own with only breastfeeding and no other support? I doubt it's 20 weeks and I doubt the standard deviation will be anything more than a few days.
<strong>They could not see this coming and make plans for alternate delivery methods? A C-section for the child is always out? They don't ever attempt to save the baby? How many pregnancies have this condition? 1 in 1000? 1 in 1,000,000? I am curious if there are any normally occurring problems that would necessitate, not simply make things easier, but necessitate PBA.</strong><hr></blockquote>A c-section is a major surgery involving cutting open the woman. I'm sure there are other ways to deal with the situation. They should use the safest and most well-accepted medical method available to them, unconstrained by politicians. Anyway I've heard that most physicians believe there are other methods and that they could live with a ban. But in a case like I mentioned (the baby cannot live and the mother is in danger), who cares how they do it?
Weren't you a Kerry supporter, Fellowship? Guess you'll just have to withdraw your support (as opposed to listening to the views of someone you claim to respect), right?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did anyone here really think Fellowship would vote for a liberal democrat? You're a conservative, don't vote for someone who doesn't represent your views. For example, a conservative would never vote for Nader.
[quote]alcimedes, you keep asking where the cutoff is. That is irrelevant to Roe v Wade. There is no question that at 90 days the fetus is not developed. That is the legal cutoff of Roe v Wade.<hr></blockquote>
i disagree that there's no question as to development at 90 days.
[quote]
8th week - Major organ development begins. Eyelids meet and close. Fingers and feet are visible.
9th week - The baby's eyes have retina and lenses. Child has its own blood type. Toes are developed.
10th week - Intestines are now in abdomen rather then the umbilical cord. Early fingernail development has started. 20 baby teeth start forming in the gums. Baby can suck its thumb. Heartbeat can be detected electronically.
12th week - Vocal cords are complete and my cry silently. Brain is fully formed. Can feel pain. Digests food and excretes. Tests can determine gender<hr></blockquote>
i ask about the cut off point becuase it seems that you're trying to set an arbitrary date for when a baby becomes a person. that's crap for someone so concerned with human rights.
Comments
<strong>to which my question would be where and how do you draw the line? at what point do a mother's rights no longer outweigh the baby's rights? how do you pick a point in time that isn't completely arbitrary?</strong><hr></blockquote>I don't think there is any objective way to determine that, and the lack of an absolute objective standard is not uncommon in ethical dilemmas. I'm on a research ethics committee at my workplace, and this is what we have to do all the time - balance the importance of the research against the rights of the human or animal subjects. There's no objective way to determine whether the research is important enough to balance some potential harm to the subjects. I think the same is true with abortion.
There are competing interests and rights - the right of the mother to have control over her reproduction and the right to life of a baby in the womb. The right to life would almost always trump everything else, but here you have a baby that hasn't been born yet. Even 20-year-olds don't have all the same rights as adults in our society (e.g., drinking).
I believe both rights to life and to reproductive freedom are valid, but they conflict in this issue. And I believe Roe v. Wade is a compromise position. Abortions are only completely free from regulation in the first trimester. After that, there has to be a medical reason. It balances the two rights. Not in an objective way, but there is no objective way of determining which right is more important.
I could reverse the question on you: at what point does a woman no longer have control over her reproduction? Any time after conception? Where's your objective standard for that?
odd, sounds eerily similar to the arguments made by those who supported the right to own slaves. treat them like a slave if you want, or treat them like a human being, it's up to you! sorry, either you are or you aren't. i don't feel that there's any room for honorary status to human rights.
[quote]I also would have no problem taking a premature baby off life support if the parent so wishes.<hr></blockquote>
does this also apply to people who have been in comas? what about people who have birth defects and can't live without machine aid ever, but will be able to live a normal life span with aid? i can't believe that "machine aid" would be a requirement for being a human being either.
that or you're taking a much stronger stance on this than i initially thought and are trying to argue that those who can't live w/o aid aren't people. (and there are those who feel that way, it's just not as common)
I don't believe that a fetus that cannot survive by itself outside the womb is really human yet. That does not stop someone from treating it like a human. That is what I mean by honorary human status. The cutoff I propose is very specific. Anything before is not considered human and anything after is considered human. You were the one who brought up premature babies. I said that if the parents want to treat the premature baby as a human, that is their perogative. It's not some wishy washy flimsy distinction like you are painting it to be.
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>
does this also apply to people who have been in comas? what about people who have birth defects and can't live without machine aid ever, but will be able to live a normal life span with aid? i can't believe that "machine aid" would be a requirement for being a human being either.
that or you're taking a much stronger stance on this than i initially thought and are trying to argue that those who can't live w/o aid aren't people. (and there are those who feel that way, it's just not as common)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Those that cannot live without aid at birth, to me, are not human yet. However, I feel that once one has become human, it cannot be taken away unless extreme circumstances exist such as brain death.
ok, for example (and this isn't that uncommon) say a baby is born premature (6 months old) with extreme jaundice. the baby has to stay on dialisys (sp?) machines in order to live, and must stay on them for the first 12 months after she's been born.
at what point would that baby/fetus become a human?
i'm not trying to put words in your mouth, or make your idea seems wishy-washy, i just don't think it would actually work.
<strong>
ok, for example (and this isn't that uncommon) say a baby is born premature (6 months old) with extreme jaundice. the baby has to stay on dialisys (sp?) machines in order to live, and must stay on them for the first 12 months after she's been born.
at what point would that baby/fetus become a human?
i'm not trying to put words in your mouth, or make your idea seems wishy-washy, i just don't think it would actually work.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It becomes human at the regular cutoff. It's not a case by case basis. Exceptions to the rule matter little. Perform the analysis. Find the mean and move 5 standard deviations to the left. That's the date for everyone. Make sure the study is large enough to include all (numerically significant: .75% of the pop or higher) races in the sample group as well as having proper geographic representation. The study would take a long time to complete because it would rely on babies that are born prematurely--no babies will be specifically bred to test the various dates.
<strong>
It becomes human at the regular cutoff. It's not a case by case basis. Exceptions to the rule matter little. Perform the analysis. Find the mean and move 5 standard deviations to the left. That's the date for everyone. Make sure the study is large enough to include all (numerically significant: .75% of the pop or higher) races in the sample group as well as having proper geographic representation. The study would take a long time to complete because it would rely on babies that are born prematurely--no babies will be specifically bred to test the various dates.</strong><hr></blockquote>What's this? The average age of viability - 5 standard deviations?
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
That would probably put it at a couple months BEFORE conception. The lowest age of viability ever I think is around 20 weeks. But most die at 25 weeks. The variability is huge. Taking off 5 standard deviations would put it way way down there.
<strong>Hydrocephalus. The baby's head is enlarged and will never live. The head cannot be delivered, so the fluid from the head is drained, which kills the baby.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They could not see this coming and make plans for alternate delivery methods? A C-section for the child is always out? They don't ever attempt to save the baby? How many pregnancies have this condition? 1 in 1000? 1 in 1,000,000? I am curious if there are any normally occurring problems that would necessitate, not simply make things easier, but necessitate PBA.
<strong>What's this? The average age of viability - 5 standard deviations?
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
That would probably put it at a couple months BEFORE conception. The lowest age of viability ever I think is around 20 weeks. But most die at 25 weeks. The variability is huge. Taking off 5 standard deviations would put it way way down there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Living on its own with only breastfeeding and no other support? I doubt it's 20 weeks and I doubt the standard deviation will be anything more than a few days.
<strong>They could not see this coming and make plans for alternate delivery methods? A C-section for the child is always out? They don't ever attempt to save the baby? How many pregnancies have this condition? 1 in 1000? 1 in 1,000,000? I am curious if there are any normally occurring problems that would necessitate, not simply make things easier, but necessitate PBA.</strong><hr></blockquote>A c-section is a major surgery involving cutting open the woman. I'm sure there are other ways to deal with the situation. They should use the safest and most well-accepted medical method available to them, unconstrained by politicians. Anyway I've heard that most physicians believe there are other methods and that they could live with a ban. But in a case like I mentioned (the baby cannot live and the mother is in danger), who cares how they do it?
<strong>
Weren't you a Kerry supporter, Fellowship? Guess you'll just have to withdraw your support (as opposed to listening to the views of someone you claim to respect), right?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I will not vote for Kerry.
Fellowship
<strong>What happened, Fellowship?</strong><hr></blockquote>
This was said by Mr. Kerry:
"Never in my years in the Senate have the rights of women been at such risk," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts."
That is reason enough for him to lose my vote.
Fellowship
<strong>Dammit, Fellowship. Just dammit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ohh come on,, You will be ok
Fellows
Did anyone here really think Fellowship would vote for a liberal democrat? You're a conservative, don't vote for someone who doesn't represent your views. For example, a conservative would never vote for Nader.
:looks around to see if groverat is in sight:
Got it, folks? Goody!
Now, continue on with the lovely thread.
<strong>I'm just disgusted by the fact that abortion is a voting issue to a such a large number of voters.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So Shawn, not to be hypocritical, can you name a candidate anywhere, in any state you would vote for who is pro-life?
Nick
i disagree that there's no question as to development at 90 days.
[quote]
8th week - Major organ development begins. Eyelids meet and close. Fingers and feet are visible.
9th week - The baby's eyes have retina and lenses. Child has its own blood type. Toes are developed.
10th week - Intestines are now in abdomen rather then the umbilical cord. Early fingernail development has started. 20 baby teeth start forming in the gums. Baby can suck its thumb. Heartbeat can be detected electronically.
12th week - Vocal cords are complete and my cry silently. Brain is fully formed. Can feel pain. Digests food and excretes. Tests can determine gender<hr></blockquote>
i ask about the cut off point becuase it seems that you're trying to set an arbitrary date for when a baby becomes a person. that's crap for someone so concerned with human rights.