fertalized embreyos in clinics ruled as human

[FearlessLeader2]

There is no doubt in my mind that a one (or few cell) cell zygote is already human (human life begins at conception). There is also no doubt in my mind that I would absolutely not provide it the same rights as a born child.

I would, however, provide a late term fetus the same rights as an already born child. For me, sentience is the determining factor.

Sentience is no different than skin color when you're sorting out who to kill.

Do coma patients have rights? Ans: Yes.
Whether they'll recover or not? Ans: Yes.

So a non-sentient baby (early term fetus, et al) is a human in your book, but has less rights than a coma patient. Why?

And here's something to think about while you're mulling that one over: a non-sentient baby that continues to develop... will develop sentience. IE it will 'recover' from its non-sentient state... unlike many coma patients. So why does it have less rights again?

This ruling is a step in the right direction.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

@Post#21

Yes, an early tem non-sentient zygote/fetus/baby (or any other term one would like to use) is definately human, but IMHO should have less rights than a coma patient.

Actually coma patients have not necessarily lost sentience. Many will remember people talking to them, etc. after they awaken. If their brain is alive, I give them the benefit of the doubt, even if the likelihood of recovery well below 1%. If they are braindead, I find it cruel and useless to keep their body alive by extraordinary means. This is a key reason a pre-brain fetus has less rights IMHO. Understand that a pre-sentience fetus will develop sentience, but it hasn't yet.

Also if you wan't to 'compare' it to coma patients, over 1/3 of fetuses are 'aborted' by nature. However, I think this, or the comparison, has nothing to do with it.

 

[cgannon64]

The pro choicers want to give the decision making power to the mother alone. The Pro lifers want to give it to the state, if the state conforms to their postion of outlawing all abortions. Each side wants total victory without compromise. Pro lifers will even kill to get their way.
I fear that if one side wins, it will get far bloodier. I would much rather have them fight it out another 30 years in Washington than in clinics, back alleys and the strteets.

That's pretty harsh, BirdJaguar. The reason pro-lifers want total victory without compromise because they are convinced they are fighting for human rights. It is not like any other case where personal rights are involved, because one side beleives that it is an issue of human rights, not personal rights.

And I wouldn't say that a sane pro-lifer would kill to get their way. As for the insane ones; perhaps they should be killed.

 

[ybbor]

Pro lifers will even kill to get their way.

that goes a little extream, you didn't even use the word some


some might say pro-choicesers already are killing to get their way...

 

[Birdjaguar]

That's pretty harsh, BirdJaguar. The reason pro-lifers want total victory without compromise because they are convinced they are fighting for human rights. It is not like any other case where personal rights are involved, because one side beleives that it is an issue of human rights, not personal rights.

And I wouldn't say that a sane pro-lifer would kill to get their way. As for the insane ones; perhaps they should be killed.

Yes, but some of that harshness comes from trying to boil the issues down to a sentence or two. Had I written a page, I could have softened it with all kinds of caveats and fuzziness. I'm not ready to agree that its human rights versus personal rights. Abortions/miscarriages are a normal and natural part of reproduction, and I don't think anyone has yet suggested stopping them if we could. They are preceived as OK. For me that question is where is the line that separates when a mother can choose to end her pregnancy and when she needs to go to term. for me that point hinges on when a fetus becomes its own entity. Important questions in establishing that point are:
At what point does the soul enter the picture?
At what point do spontaneous miscarriages drop substantially?
When do the heart and brain come on line?
When is life outside the womb viable with and without life support?

I would build my model around the answers to those questions. In reality I don't think compromise is in the wind. The republicans smell victory if they can pack the court and push laws through congress. Oh.. I do not think all pro lifers condone murdering doctors.

 

[Birdjaguar]

that goes a little extream, you didn't even use the word some
some might say pro-choicesers already are killing to get their way...

See my previous post in reply to CG.

 

[cgannon64]

At what point does the soul enter the picture?
At what point do spontaneous miscarriages drop substantially?
When do the heart and brain come on line?
When is life outside the womb viable with and without life support?

Tough questions, of course, but:

1. This point is obviously of utmost importance, but it will never be brought up in a public debate. People mistaking the line between Church and state for a wall sure does annoy me sometimes...
2. Someone actually gave this moment, I think, in the big abortion thread.
3. Here is something I disagree with. Why is the heart or any other point important? The formation of the heart is obviously significant, but its arguably no less significant than the seperation of the cells into a few classes, or the seperation of these classes into tissues, before they become definite organs. I see an actual beating heart as equally significant to the formation of muscle tissue. Any line drawn here is arbitrary.
And, as for the brain: People like to say that they consider thought the formation of human life, but again, any line drawn here is arbitrary. When the heart begins to beat, is that thought? Clearly there is some kind of higher brain function going on when compared to earlier stages, but it is nothing like cognitive thought. When the fingers and toes start to move, is that thought? When pain is able to be felt, is that thought? How can you even determine when thought begins? Do babies even really feel?
4. This is another point I disagree with. Why is that important? If a baby can live outside of the womb by means of complicated machines, does that make it any more human than if it cannot? Were babies at 6 months (say that's the point where they can live outside the womb) less human back in the middle ages, when they did not have the technology to keep them alive, than they are today? And what is the difference between the natural method of life support and its artificial imitation? If life is seen as the beginning of independent survival, doesn't that really not come until much, much later?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Tough questions, of course, but:

1. This point is obviously of utmost importance, but it will never be brought up in a public debate. People mistaking the line between Church and state for a wall sure does annoy me sometimes...
2. Someone actually gave this moment, I think, in the big abortion thread.
3. Here is something I disagree with. Why is the heart or any other point important? The formation of the heart is obviously significant, but its arguably no less significant than the seperation of the cells into a few classes, or the seperation of these classes into tissues, before they become definite organs. I see an actual beating heart as equally significant to the formation of muscle tissue. Any line drawn here is arbitrary.
And, as for the brain: People like to say that they consider thought the formation of human life, but again, any line drawn here is arbitrary. When the heart begins to beat, is that thought? Clearly there is some kind of higher brain function going on when compared to earlier stages, but it is nothing like cognitive thought. When the fingers and toes start to move, is that thought? When pain is able to be felt, is that thought? How can you even determine when thought begins? Do babies even really feel?
4. This is another point I disagree with. Why is that important? If a baby can live outside of the womb by means of complicated machines, does that make it any more human than if it cannot? Were babies at 6 months (say that's the point where they can live outside the womb) less human back in the middle ages, when they did not have the technology to keep them alive, than they are today? And what is the difference between the natural method of life support and its artificial imitation? If life is seen as the beginning of independent survival, doesn't that really not come until much, much later?

I would not expect that the answers to the questions would all intersect at point A and define a single point in time. These are the questions that define the problem. My initial question is when does a fetus become a separate entity in regards to drawing a line about abortion. The heart and brain staret dates stake out an area. Living outside of the womb is important if one is establishing separateness. And yes that could be a moving target as technology advances. Each answer tugs the line one way or the other. If I knew when the soul entered a body, then that would be, for me, the earliest point to draw a line. I think the drop off of significant natural miscarriages would also tag an early demarcation point. Viability outside the womb with and without life support would be the late boundries. I expect that heart and brain function will fall in between.

I do not expect my methodology will suit most people, but for me it is how I go about understanding the problem and making sure I haven't left out any significant pieces. And when I'm done, I get my answer. And it's only my answer and pretty much irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

@Post#21

Yes, an early tem non-sentient zygote/fetus/baby (or any other term one would like to use) is definately human, but IMHO should have less rights than a coma patient.

Actually coma patients have not necessarily lost sentience. Many will remember people talking to them, etc. after they awaken. If their brain is alive, I give them the benefit of the doubt, even if the likelihood of recovery well below 1%. If they are braindead, I find it cruel and useless to keep their body alive by extraordinary means. This is a key reason a pre-brain fetus has less rights IMHO. Understand that a pre-sentience fetus will develop sentience, but it hasn't yet.

Also if you wan't to 'compare' it to coma patients, over 1/3 of fetuses are 'aborted' by nature. However, I think this, or the comparison, has nothing to do with it.

Heh, gotcha.

Many parents play music and recordings of their voices to their babies in utero, because the unborn can ALSO hear people on the outside, and doctors think it may speed parental bonding.

Lacking that, your response is reduced to... 'because that's what I say'.

Not good enough.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Heh, gotcha.

Many parents play music and recordings of their voices to their babies in utero, because the unborn can ALSO hear people on the outside, and doctors think it may speed parental bonding.

Lacking that, your response is reduced to... 'because that's what I say'.

Not good enough.

Heh, didn't get nothin'. I did that for 3 kids. Of course, our various doc's recommended we start AFTER the brain developed, hence they were sentient.

My response is just a personal belief that is normally discounted by both the pro-life and pro-choice crowds. Of course, that's how I know I have the correct view.

 

[MOTH]

I have a bit of a mixed feeling since I am, Pro-choice of abortion on the early stage of pregnancy, from a fertalized zygote to up till the middle of the second trimester. From there up till childbirth, I am Pro-life. So in a sence I am a semipro-choice and semipro-life (I dont know the term for that ATM).

I think the term you are looking for is "Reasonable". There are plenty of Fanatics on either extreme. I believe the moral choice is in the middle. About the time that a pre-mature baby would have a reasonable chance to have a relatively normal life.

:ducks and hides: from all the wackos on either extreme of the abortion debate

 

[stratego]

So a non-sentient baby (early term fetus, et al) is a human in your book, but has less rights than a coma patient. Why?

Would you then believe that abortion should not be allowed even if it endangers the mother's health, since the baby already has equal rights? (provided that if one survives the other doesn't).

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Wow, AAA, Moth and CivGeneral meet in the middle. My personal break point is brain development (for sentience). I use the same break point for the end of life. This is why the three of us will never make it in politics.

Of course, Ms. Clinton recently announced she is reconsidering her view on late term abortion, so maybe the rest of the world will follow our lead.

 

[ybbor]

okay haven't had time to follow tyhe whole thread, but i'd just like tio say the heart starts at 25 days and the brain at 45

 

[cgannon64]

Would you then believe that abortion should not be allowed even if it endangers the mother's health, since the baby already has equal rights? (provided that if one survives the other doesn't).

This is basically the question of, is it right to kill a person to save yourself?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Would you then believe that abortion should not be allowed even if it endangers the mother's health, since the baby already has equal rights? (provided that if one survives the other doesn't).

If the mother dies, so does the child. If the mother could bear the child to term at the cost of her own life, then it is up to her to decide whether or not she wants to. Everyone has the right to spend their lives to save other's. Firefighters do it all the time.

A mother who denies herself a teratogenically lethal drug to allow her child to be born and then dies from its lack is no different from a mother who puts her baby on a raft, pushes it out into the stream, and turns to face the wolves with a rock in her hand. They're both mothers that CHOSE to love their child more than they loved themselves.

By the same tack, a woman who takes the drug, loses the child, but lives to raise the other three is no worse than the one who dropped her baby to escape the wolves to raise the other three.

Hmmm, I like the first pair of women better.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If the mother dies, so does the child. If the mother could bear the child to term at the cost of her own life, then it is up to her to decide whether or not she wants to. Everyone has the right to spend their lives to save other's. Firefighters do it all the time.

A mother who denies herself a teratogenically lethal drug to allow her child to be born and then dies from its lack is no different from a mother who puts her baby on a raft, pushes it out into the stream, and turns to face the wolves with a rock in her hand. They're both mothers that CHOSE to love their child more than they loved themselves.

By the same tack, a woman who takes the drug, loses the child, but lives to raise the other three is no worse than the one who dropped her baby to escape the wolves to raise the other three.

Hmmm, I like the first pair of women better.

But would you sacrifice your life tomorrow if it kept a woman stranger from having an abortion?

 

[CurtSibling]

people post news on this forum. this is news. sorry for posting something i thought some people might find interesting.

Outside of good ol' Cook County, this has little clout.

The laws about foetus rights have been formalised in Europe for years....

The debate ended long ago.

...

 

[CurtSibling]

If the mother dies, so does the child. If the mother could bear the child to term at the cost of her own life, then it is up to her to decide whether or not she wants to. Everyone has the right to spend their lives to save other's. Firefighters do it all the time.

A mother who denies herself a teratogenically lethal drug to allow her child to be born and then dies from its lack is no different from a mother who puts her baby on a raft, pushes it out into the stream, and turns to face the wolves with a rock in her hand. They're both mothers that CHOSE to love their child more than they loved themselves.

By the same tack, a woman who takes the drug, loses the child, but lives to raise the other three is no worse than the one who dropped her baby to escape the wolves to raise the other three.

Hmmm, I like the first pair of women better.

How fortunate then, that your particular likes or dislikes have little bearing on how women act anyway.

It is not your choice, you have no say unless you are the father.
But in this case, you are the stranger, the third party.

And you can scream that to your heavens, but the fact does not change.

Your morals are yours alone, everyone choose their own.

.......

 

[FearlessLeader2]

But would you sacrifice your life tomorrow if it kept a woman stranger from having an abortion?

You're going to have to flesh this out before I can answer. What are the circumstances?