|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 10/23/2013 : 12:25:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
My mind will be subject to revision if I'm presented with a solid argument for another timeframe, but for now, I will go with "When the foetus is viable outside the womb". Looking at it closer, there's not a 100.00% survival rate even if carried to terms, so an arbitrary limit less than 100% has to be agreed upon. A survival rate of 50% is an arbitrary number giving a fifty-fifty survival rate and puts the time limit somewhere around 7 months. With a margin for error, free abortion should be available until the end of the second trimester. After that, a medical review board should have to weigh in ethical concerns if it should be granted. Medical concerns for the mother, or medical problems with the foetus like various levels of deformity or genetic disorders. |
This reasoning amazes me because you cannot define when someone becomes a person... |
You're absolutely right. I can't define when someone becomes a person, because I don't know. It's a gradual process when a personality develops, until independent reasoning is achieved, and beyond. I can't set an arbitrary point at which it happens. Question is, if some members of Congress even qualify as a person from my perspective? I'm not sure.
| ...so instead of erring on the side of not killing a person you push the limits and kill people by your definition. Why not err on thie side of not killing a person? |
Because I do not think person-hood starts until we can interact with it in a meaningful way, which happens after birth. Birth is the transition point from foetus to newborn child. Personality develops later. And since your definition of what a person is differs from the normal definition, I cannot seriously consider your argument that I condone of killing people.
Conception is an arbitrary point which to define new life. Just as the point of transition from embryo to foetus is arbitrary. Or fertilization for that matter. The actual birth is just so much simpler to define because it is such a drastic event with a relatively short time of transition. Auxiliary life support is disconnected and the baby starts operating on its own. I'll get more into that in a minute.
The reason I call fertilization an arbitrary point in the definition of a new life is because I recognize and understand that it isn't actually a creation of life ex nihilo. It is a continuation of the life of the sperm and the egg which are continuations of the life of the cells from respective parent. It's a continuous line of life which only transitions through different phases. Like a branch splitting off the main trunk of a tree, finding the branch from another tree to merge with it and grow on as a seperate tree. Kind of.
We don't grant person-hood to my arm, or my leg. We don't grant person-hood to my liver or my kidney. We don't grant person-hood to one of my cells, or the any of the two sperms it will split into. We don't grant person-hood to the egg in the woman. We certainly do not press criminal charges againt a woman for failing to make sure the egg lives on by getting it fertilized, perfectly knowing it will die before her period starts, as if it was a person left for dying. Why should we grant person-hood to the successful fusion of a sperm and an egg? Or the blastocyte, or the foetus. Especially since only ~1/3 of the zygotes survive to term. Also, please read this.
Once it's viable on its own outside the womb, it can develope on its own, away from its mother. At that point, if she doesn't want it, someone else (the society, by government agency or whatever) can care for it and nurture it into person-hood.
Until it's viable, it's technically a parasite living off and sucking energy from its host, a part of her.
As long as it's a part of her, I think it's for her to do as she sees fit. If she wants to cut off her hand, that's her decision and we should have no say in it. Same to the foetus as long as it's not viable outside of her. It's her body and her dicision.
During gestation, until the medical establishmet is available to take over the responsibility for continued life of the foetus/newborn, abortion should be freely available (after that, induced labour/c-section should be available). Possibly attached to abortion-neutral councelling and information. After the point of viability until natural birth, abortion at the discression of a medical board considering the medical well being of the mother and life expectancy of the baby.
Edited: changes in blue. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/23/2013 22:02:12 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2013 : 12:29:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
This is not what I am saying. I am saying government will not reduce poverty it seems. There are other ways to reduce poverty other than through government programs if enough people cared. |
Our government hasn't been able to reduce poverty since the 1950s because the conservatives have been fighting tooth-and-nail to make the poor poorer since then. The current Congressional conservatives have a laser focus on dismantling every program aimed (however partially) at the poor that they can, and are willing to quit paying civil workers and even ruin our national credit to do it. So no, it's not that government can't reduce poverty, it's that the asshats in Congress have been preventing it from happening. (Again, the difference between government and governance.)
And what the conservatives don't understand is that aside from it being the right thing to do, giving money/aid to the poor keeps us from having nasty things like food riots. Now, I know that a few Congresscritters would enjoy a riot or two as an excuse to have the police execute a handful of those dirty, lazy moochers, but it wouldn't be easily contained. Imagine post-Rodney King-verdict-style rioting in every city with more than 100,000 people. The damage to small businesses alone would get the Republicans hauled out of Congress. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2013 : 08:17:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
You're absolutely right. I can't define when someone becomes a person, because I don't know. It's a gradual process when a personality develops, until independent reasoning is achieved, and beyond. I can't set an arbitrary point at which it happens. Question is, if some members of Congress even qualify as a person from my perspective? I'm not sure. |
Then why not err on the side of causing the least aborted persons? And yes everyone is a person in congress.
| Because I do not think person-hood starts until we can interact with it in a meaningful way, which happens after birth. Birth is the transition point from foetus to newborn child. Personality develops later. And since your definition of what a person is differs from the normal definition, I cannot seriously consider your argument that I condone of killing people. |
What does meaningful way mean? I cant imagine you really think that a baby at 8.5 month of gestation is not a person but the same baby born 2 weeks later is suddenly a person.
| We don't grant person-hood to my arm, or my leg. We don't grant person-hood to my liver or my kidney. We don't grant person-hood to one of my cells, or the any of the two sperms it will split into. We don't grant person-hood to the egg in the woman. We certainly do not press criminal charges againt a woman for failing to make sure the egg lives on by getting it fertilized, perfectly knowing it will die before her period starts, as if it was a person left for dying. Why should we grant person-hood to the successful fusion of a sperm and an egg? Or the blastocyte, or the foetus. Especially since only ~1/3 of the zygotes survive to term. |
None of these things you mention here have any potential to form a person.
I read this but it is still an argument over definition of terms.
| Once it's viable on its own outside the womb, it can develope on its own, away from its mother. At that point, if she doesn't want it, someone else (the society, by government agency or whatever) can care for it and nurture it into person-hood. |
Do you mean viable without any medical attention?
| As long as it's a part of her, I think it's for her to do as she sees fit. If she wants to cut off her hand, that's her decision and we should have no say in it. Same to the foetus as long as it's not viable outside of her. It's her body and her dicision. |
If a person went to a doctor to have their hand removed for no medical reason most likely the doctor would not do it and refer her to a psychiatrist for a mental assessment.
| During gestation, until the medical establishmet is available to take over the responsibility for continued life of the foetus/newborn, abortion should be freely available (after that, induced labour/c-section should be available). Possibly attached to abortion-neutral councelling and information. After the point of viability until natural birth, abortion at the discression of a medical board considering the medical well being of the mother and life expectancy of the baby. |
This is truly evil in my opinion. It makes me sick.
|
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2013 : 08:27:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Our government hasn't been able to reduce poverty since the 1950s because the conservatives have been fighting tooth-and-nail to make the poor poorer since then. |
| The current Congressional conservatives have a laser focus on dismantling every program aimed (however partially) at the poor that they can, and are willing to quit paying civil workers and even ruin our national credit to do it. So no, it's not that government can't reduce poverty, it's that the asshats in Congress have been preventing it from happening. (Again, the difference between government and governance.) |
So we wait until we get the right people in congress? It has not happend in 63 years from your comment above so why do you think it will happen any time soon? Governmental power corrupts people.
| And what the conservatives don't understand is that aside from it being the right thing to do, giving money/aid to the poor keeps us from having nasty things like food riots. |
You have a low view of the poor. Your view seems to be if we don't give them money and services they will cause riots.
| Now, I know that a few Congresscritters would enjoy a riot or two as an excuse to have the police execute a handful of those dirty, lazy moochers, but it wouldn't be easily contained. |
Do you care about truth? This is slanderous. Where have they said they would like the poor to be killed.
|
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2013 : 12:05:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
You're absolutely right. I can't define when someone becomes a person, because I don't know. It's a gradual process when a personality develops, until independent reasoning is achieved, and beyond. I can't set an arbitrary point at which it happens. Question is, if some members of Congress even qualify as a person from my perspective? I'm not sure. |
Then why not err on the side of causing the least aborted persons? |
Because no persons will be aborted. I can't acknolwdge any validity of your argument as long as you are using your own made-up definitions which deviate a lot from accepted definitions.
And yes everyone is a person in congress. |
Your say-so without evidence doesn't carry any weight.
| Because I do not think person-hood starts until we can interact with it in a meaningful way, which happens after birth. Birth is the transition point from foetus to newborn child. Personality develops later. And since your definition of what a person is differs from the normal definition, I cannot seriously consider your argument that I condone of killing people. |
What does meaningful way mean? I cant imagine you really think that a baby at 8.5 month of gestation is not a person but the same baby born 2 weeks later is suddenly a person. |
I never said I think this way. In this case, one could easily and relatively safely trigger labour, and once it's out, I would be hard pressed indeed to see the difference. But now they are both infants that eat and scream and smell bad every now and then. At this point, terminating the pregnancy will not automatically mean terminating the life of the foetus.
| We don't grant person-hood to my arm, or my leg. We don't grant person-hood to my liver or my kidney. We don't grant person-hood to one of my cells, or the any of the two sperms it will split into. We don't grant person-hood to the egg in the woman. We certainly do not press criminal charges againt a woman for failing to make sure the egg lives on by getting it fertilized, perfectly knowing it will die before her period starts, as if it was a person left for dying. Why should we grant person-hood to the successful fusion of a sperm and an egg? Or the blastocyte, or the foetus. Especially since only ~1/3 of the zygotes survive to term. |
None of these things you mention here have any potential to form a person. |
You are absolutely right! Not even the blastocyte or the feotus, if left to fend on their own disconnected from its mother.
That's my point. Until born, it's an extension of the life of its mother. That's why I think it should be up to her to decide what happens to it.
| I read this but it is still an argument over definition of terms. |
An argument over the definition of terms between experts in the field where the terms are being used, and bat shit crazy religionists who's desire is to enforce their will and twisted peculiar sense of morality on other people. You mentioned evil in your answer to me. That is how I would describe their legislation attempt.
| Once it's viable on its own outside the womb, it can develope on its own, away from its mother. At that point, if she doesn't want it, someone else (the society, by government agency or whatever) can care for it and nurture it into person-hood. |
Do you mean viable without any medical attention? |
No I mean with life support. Without it, premature deliveries would often be fatal. Thanks to medical science (no thanks to God) may prematurely born children get to live. Of course this technology should be extended to unwanted pregnancies too.
| As long as it's a part of her, I think it's for her to do as she sees fit. If she wants to cut off her hand, that's her decision and we should have no say in it. Same to the foetus as long as it's not viable outside of her. It's her body and her dicision. |
If a person went to a doctor to have their hand removed for no medical reason most likely the doctor would not do it and refer her to a psychiatrist for a mental assessment. |
Cheeky. She wanted that hand off because it's causing her severe emotional trauma, her psychiatrist just referred her back to the surgeon because this is a problem her psychiatrist can't fix.
Back to the beginning. There are no laws preventing her from having her hand taken off. Neither by surgon nor herself. Isn't it safer to have a surgon do the procedure?
| During gestation, until the medical establishmet is available to take over the responsibility for continued life of the foetus/newborn, abortion should be freely available (after that, induced labour/c-section should be available). Possibly attached to abortion-neutral councelling and information. After the point of viability until natural birth, abortion at the discression of a medical board considering the medical well being of the mother and life expectancy of the baby. |
This is truly evil in my opinion. It makes me sick. |
Which part of it?
Your wish to impose your morality on others is what I consider evil, and makes me sick. That's why I stand up for women's right to decide for themselves. If YOU don't approve of abortion, then don't have one.
I'm suggesting we agree on guidelines founded on science and logic, as they are morally neutral. Bring me a convincing argument, and I will change my mind.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2013 : 21:15:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Originally posted by Dave W.
Our government hasn't been able to reduce poverty since the 1950s because the conservatives have been fighting tooth-and-nail to make the poor poorer since then. |
|
You can roll your eyes at it all you like, but can you refute the idea that the fact that our efforts to reduce poverty stalled at about the same time as the rise of Goldwater conservatism is not a coincidence?| So we wait until we get the right people in congress? |
No, we act and get the right people in Congress. If you're not actively engaged in politics, you get the government you deserve.| It has not happend in 63 years from your comment above so why do you think it will happen any time soon? |
Anytime soon? When did I say the kind of change we need would occur "soon?"| Governmental power corrupts people. |
And that's why our government was build with checks and balances. They aren't being enforced very much, lately, because all of our elected officials, who are supposed to police each other, are on mostly the same side.| You have a low view of the poor. Your view seems to be if we don't give them money and services they will cause riots. |
If they have nothing to lose, they will. Some of them commit crimes just to get the three square meals a day and a roof that prison supplies. Some kids today get one good meal a day, only five days a week, in public school. Take that away and see what their parents do.
I don't have a low view of the poor, I have a realistic view of human nature. And humans, under massive stress, do ugly things. Besides, there isn't any nobility in bearing the intolerable. That just means you're a doormat.| Now, I know that a few Congresscritters would enjoy a riot or two as an excuse to have the police execute a handful of those dirty, lazy moochers, but it wouldn't be easily contained. |
Do you care about truth? This is slanderous. Where have they said they would like the poor to be killed. |
Have you listened to them? There are plenty of them who suggest, in not very veiled terms, that anyone who receives government assistance is doing so because they don't want to work, and is thus stealing from hard-working, honest Americans who have a right to defend themselves. Look at which programs kept working unhindered during the Shutdown and which faced problems. And it's not just the poor. We now have representatives who openly admit that they think gay people should be killed, Old Testament style. And representatives who make no attempt to disguise their support of the KKK. Right-wing extremism is so prevalent in US politics today that people can express these ideas without fear of losing their next election. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2013 : 21:31:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
We don't grant person-hood to my arm, or my leg. We don't grant person-hood to my liver or my kidney. We don't grant person-hood to one of my cells, or the any of the two sperms it will split into. We don't grant person-hood to the egg in the woman. We certainly do not press criminal charges againt a woman for failing to make sure the egg lives on by getting it fertilized, perfectly knowing it will die before her period starts, as if it was a person left for dying. Why should we grant person-hood to the successful fusion of a sperm and an egg? Or the blastocyte, or the foetus. [blue]Especially since only ~1/3 of the zygotes survive to term. |
None of these things you mention here have any potential to form a person. |
Um, zygotes, blastocysts and foetuses are what you're claiming are people. Not just "potential" people, but actual people.
But if you're going to go with the "potential people" argument, then you need to be advocating for laws that criminalize male masturbation and also in favor of laws that force non-pregnant women to have sex. Because individual sperm and unfertilized eggs are "potential" people, just like zygotes are.
And given that cloning technology seems to be improving every year, it may be very soon that arms, legs and liver or kidney cells will be potential people. What, then, for the "potential person" argument? Will the anti-abortionists begin to claim that exfoliation is murder? Giving blood would become a nightmare!| If a person went to a doctor to have their hand removed for no medical reason most likely the doctor would not do it and refer her to a psychiatrist for a mental assessment. |
But that doctor wouldn't refuse because he thinks her hand is "ensouled" or otherwise a person.| During gestation, until the medical establishmet is available to take over the responsibility for continued life of the foetus/newborn, abortion should be freely available (after that, induced labour/c-section should be available). Possibly attached to abortion-neutral councelling and information. After the point of viability until natural birth, abortion at the discression of a medical board considering the medical well being of the mother and life expectancy of the baby. |
This is truly evil in my opinion. It makes me sick. |
Can you explain why? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2013 : 22:24:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
| During gestation, until the medical establishmet is available to take over the responsibility for continued life of the foetus/newborn, abortion should be freely available (after that, induced labour/c-section should be available). Possibly attached to abortion-neutral councelling and information. After the point of viability until natural birth, abortion at the discression of a medical board considering the medical well being of the mother and life expectancy of the baby. |
This is truly evil in my opinion. It makes me sick. |
Can you explain why?
|
Seems a moderate and sensible opinion on when what would be allowed to me...
I'm unable to find a basis to form an opinion beyond the absurdity of a zygote being a "person" and a late-term viable fetus not being a "person," which makes Roe v. Wade an acceptable practical solution until (or if) I can find some rationale for some more definite position.
I'm not sure how a medical board gets from the is to the ought in making late-term decisions, however. They may well be able to provide good life expectancy and medical well-being projections, but how does that translate into some valuation?
What on earth would a, say, 55% life expectancy for the mother if the fetus is not aborted and a 75% life expectancy for the mother with an abortion and 80% life expectancy for the fetus if not aborted suggest scientifically should be done? I don't see interpreting this into some valuation or suggested course of action as a scientific or medical question at all... |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 10/29/2013 22:31:50 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2013 : 20:04:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
What on earth would a, say, 55% life expectancy for the mother if the fetus is not aborted and a 75% life expectancy for the mother with an abortion and 80% life expectancy for the fetus if not aborted suggest scientifically should be done? I don't see interpreting this into some valuation or suggested course of action as a scientific or medical question at all...
|
Well, whatever the conclusion of the professional doctor/ethics board decide, I for one would place emphasis on the life of the mother. A mother can lose a pregnancy and recover and get another one. A dead mother is a dead mother, and possible a dead foetus anyway. And a mother is always more person than a foetus, at least until it's out kicking and screaming; at that point you no longer have to pick and choose the lesser of two evils.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Hypothetical Question
