Foetus 'cannot feel pain before 24 weeks'

[Removable Mind]

Yes, it does

Of course you won't hash it out. That's because it makes no sense to argue that a law that explicitly allows abortions somehow justifies making abortion illegal.

Okay, Sangha...here's Jerry's other portion of Roe v. Wade, which is Section 11 and it basically is the following:

Roe v. Wade Section 11 - Subsection 1. A woman's right to privacy and to chose to undergo medical procedures is protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Texas cannot criminalize her actions (i.e. getting an abortion) consistent with this right without taking into consideration the pregnancy stage.

"(a) the woman has complete control over whether to have an abortion or not in the first trimester.

"(b) the state may restrict/regulate abortion in ways directly related to maternal health.

"(c) after the fetus is viable, the state may forbid abortion, regulate it anyway it wants, except when necessary to save the life or health of the mother, because at viability the state has an overriding legal interest in the potentiality of human life (the fetus).

Subsection 2. the state can regulate who may perform abortions, to a minimum of licensed physicians.

Alrighty, so the Court states that it's decision seeks to balance the rights of the woman vs. the rights of the state it protecting it's "potential" citizens. But the Court made very clear that the unborn do not have constitutional rights. Then it muddies up the legal waters by recognizing the "potential of life" of the embryo/fetus even though they say that they can't legally define when life begins so back to square one. How about we just call this judicial rhetoric or pitching meaningless, but feel good nonsense to the states.

The Court also recognizes that the state has a legal interest in the potential life, BUT IN THE END rules that the state's right must be balanced against the right of a woman over her own body thus comes the issue of "viability of a fetus

This whole thing is a polite way of giving the states some individual control through the respective governments, but limits their power to the fundamental decisions made in Roe v. Wade.

The SC will never define when life begins...NEVER...

That's it for me Sangha.

 

[mac]

It would seem the poster would be attempting to commit an argumentum ad passiones. And besides, the scientific burden of evidence is on the positive claimant along with the philosophical burden of proof.

So?

...

 

[zgoldsmith23]

To execute the 'personhood clause' in Roe v Wade, making the Roe ruling itself the abortion ban:

When did I also declare Roe v. Wade mattered? Others might, I do not. You might grant it power, I do not.

So?

...

Well, for one that's a fallacy. And two, there's not really been any scientific evidence or philosophical proof presented in this thread that I've seen - just a bunch of scrambled opinions.

 

[mac]

Well, for one that's a fallacy. And two, there's not really been any scientific evidence or philosophical proof presented in this thread that I've seen - just a bunch of scrambled opinions.

The opinion that human life is important at all is little more than unsubstantiated opinion. Why would it be any different in this thread?

 

[minnie616]

The problem with this is that miscarriages are often environmentally induced. If a fetus is truly a person, then the anti-choice movement should be trying to ban the use of chemicals that we know increase the chances of miscarriages, and they would be arguing that the CEOs who today knowingly produce such chemicals are murderers and should be criminally prosecuted.

Something tells me that the anti-choice movement doesn't really have the courage of its convictions in that regard.

It is a big deal with lots of legal implications to claim that a fetus is a person. I don't believe that the anti-choice movement has thought it through or wants to think it through. It seems fixated rather on controlling female bodies.

Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles
Well, I just outlined how they were different, but being that you're going to ignore that regardless, I'll just reiterate that there is legitimate concern the one procedure may directly effect another individual.

it's not a position I agree with, but i can see where the concern stems from.

There is a concern, and I also see where it comes from, but it is not legitimate

Actually I think head of joaquin's concern is a real one and I think it could be legitimate.

Tobacco companies and asbestos companies have had to pay huge amount of monies for illnesses and deaths their products have caused.

If fetuses become legal persons than companies whose products cause their deaths through miscarriage will also be sued for wrongful death.

In the past it was very hard to pinpoint that a certain chemical or product caused a miscarriage but according to the following article that may not always be the case anymore.

This is the first study to examine phthalate exposure and miscarriage in humans. It is unique because it measured exposures at a specific time after conception that is an important window for early pregnancy loss. The results are published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

,SNIP>

From 1992 to 1994, couples in Denmark trying to get pregnant for the first time participated in the study by donating daily urine samples. In 2009, researchers analyzed the samples for levels of a hormone called hCG (human chorionic gonadotropin), which is the same hormone that home pregnancy tests can detect. The scientists identified early pregnancy losses in the women by determining who had high levels followed by a decline of hCG in their urine. For pregnancies that were confirmed by a doctor, the women reported their pregnancy outcome after one year. Scientists also analyzed the urine samples taken shortly before ovulation for concentrations of several phthalates and the metabolites of these phthalates, which are excreted in the urine after the body has processed the chemical.

Of the 148 women followed, 48 had a pregnancy loss, of which 32 were early on and identified by fluctuating hCG hormone levels. The women in this study were exposed to phthalates at the same levels as women in other parts of the world, such as Germany and the United States.

The scientists found that the women with the highest levels of monoethylhexyl phthalate (MEHP) in their urine around the time of conception were more likely to experience a pregnancy loss compared to those with lower exposures. The associated risk was greatest when the scientists considered only early pregnancy losses occurring within the first six weeks of gestation.

High levels of MEHP indicate a greater exposure to the particular phthalate di-(2 ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), which is a component in plastics.

The scientists only detected the association when they considered phthalate exposure during the month that conception occurred. Phthalate exposure from the previous month before pregnancy had no detectable effects in terms of pregnancy loss.

Since this study is the first of its kind in humans, further studies are necessary to confirm the relationship between phthalate exposure and pregnancy losses.

Plastizer increases miscarriage risk. — Environmental Health News

 

[sangha]

Actually I think head of joaquin's concern is a real one and I think it could be legitimate.

Tobacco companies and asbestos have had to pay huge amount of monies for illnesses and deaths their products have caused.

If fetuses become legal persons than companies whose products cause their deaths through miscarriage will also be sued for wrongful death.

In the past it was very hard to pinpoint that a certain chemical or product caused a miscarriage but according to following article that is not always the case anymore.



Plastizer increases miscarriage risk. — Environmental Health News

My remark about the illegitimacy of concern was not directed at HoJ's remarks about environmental factors. It was directed at Dr Chuckles remarks about another person being affected (ie the ZEF) in an abortion.

 

[minnie616]

My remark about the illegitimacy of concern was not directed at HoJ's remarks about environmental factors. It was directed at Dr Chuckles remarks about another person being affected (ie the ZEF) in an abortion.

Thanks for clarifying you were referring to Dr. Chuckles remarks and not HoJ's remarks.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

The opinion that human life is important at all is little more than unsubstantiated opinion. Why would it be any different in this thread?

Agreed. That's why I do not ascribe that opinion (mere wishful thinking) much merit.

 

[mac]

Agreed. That's why I do not ascribe that opinion (mere wishful thinking) much merit.

Well, your opinion is noted.

 

[sangha]

Well, your opinion is noted.

And your opinion is noted as well

Fortunately, the law is not predicated on our opinions.

 

[mac]

And your opinion is noted as well

Fortunately, the law is not predicated on our opinions.

Of course it is. Every one of them.

 

[sangha]

Of course it is. Every one of them.

Nope

None of them are

 

[mac]

Nope

None of them are

Every single one...based on an opinion.

 

[sangha]

Every single one...based on an opinion.

Not your opinion

Nor mine

 

[mac]

Not your opinion

Nor mine

Half true. Our Opinions.

 

[sangha]

Half true. Our Opinions.

Nope

Not yours and mine together, either

 

[Fisher]

Actually I think head of joaquin's concern is a real one and I think it could be legitimate.

Tobacco companies and asbestos companies have had to pay huge amount of monies for illnesses and deaths their products have caused.

If fetuses become legal persons than companies whose products cause their deaths through miscarriage will also be sued for wrongful death.

In the past it was very hard to pinpoint that a certain chemical or product caused a miscarriage but according to the following article that may not always be the case anymore.

So it is better to let 50+M people be killed in the womb to avoid lawsuits. Is that really logical to you? If that were the real concern, then we could just grant blanket immunity and ban abortion. It would be no different legally than granting blanket immunity for killing your baby as we already do.

 

[minnie616]

So it is better to let 50+M people be killed in the womb to avoid lawsuits. Is that really logical to you? ...

That was just a concern that I don't think many have truly thought about.
It was not arugment for or against abortion.

The right to privacy for the woman/ couple regarding reproduction and child rearing is here to stay in my educated opinion.

Fetuses will never be granted personhood in the USA as long as our country remains a democracy.

 

[Fisher]

That was just a concern that I don't think many have truly thought about.
It was not arugment for or against abortion.

The right to privacy for the woman/ couple regarding reproduction and child rearing is here to stay in my educated opinion.

Fetuses will never be granted personhood in the USA as long as our country remains a democracy.

Sure they will. The minute that it hits home whites are functionally extinct, abortion will be banned.

 

[minnie616]

Sure they will. The minute that it hits home whites are functionally extinct, abortion will be banned.

Wrong.
Fetuses will never be granted personhood in the USA.
It would take a personhood amendment to the US Constitution to grant fetuses personhood.
Not gonna happen.

 

[Removable Mind]

Sure they will. The minute that it hits home whites are functionally extinct, abortion will be banned.

I don't think that at anytime in history laws against abortion stopped abortion. It only stops legal abortions. Abortions will always happen. They are impossible to stop.

And to say that white extinction will be the impetus of creation of a ban on abortion...is an angle I've never heard before. Considering all of the abortions ever performed throughout history...at what point in time did the extinction of any race become a concern?

 

[mac]

Nope

Not yours and mine together, either

Our meaning ours collectively. I don't really give a damn about your opinion.

The idea that murder is wrong, or even, that it should be punishable, is an opinion. It's certainly not the natural order.

 

[sangha]

Our meaning ours collectively. I don't really give a damn about your opinion.

The idea that murder is wrong, or even, that it should be punishable, is an opinion. It's certainly not the natural order.

Wrong again

The only opinions that matter are the ones the Framers had when writing the constitution, as inferred by the nine people who serve on the Supreme Court.