Peeling the onion.

[minnie616]

I remember being young and wondering what people meant when they referred to people as "Human Beans".

Maybe it means they aren’t dog beings or cat beings. Don’t you know the word being is always used to describe canine beings or feline beings so we must add the being when describing humans.

That is a lesson every first grader should learn in school. Wink Wink .

 

[bluesmoke]

You're off base there. In this context, those two questions are asking the same thing. They are not different in any meaningful way.

Exactly what did I say that is not factual and why? According to the law, person has never been synonymous with human.

 

[NatMorton]

Exactly what did I say that is not factual and why? According to the law, person has never been synonymous with human.

It’s not that you statement is wrong. It’s that you’re making a distinction without a difference.

Suppose State A bans abortions after week 15 claiming the compelling interest is the potential that the fetus will be a human being with rights once born. Then supposes State B bans abortions after week 15 citing its interest in the rights of the 15 week old human being.

In what meaningful way are these two laws different? Both are putting a fetal right to life ahead of the woman’s right to privacy after week 15.

 

[bluesmoke]

Is that a justification to kill it

The facts of the matter refute your position stated in prior post. No further debate is necessary.

 

[bluesmoke]

It’s not that you statement is wrong. It’s that you’re making a distinction without a difference.

Suppose State A bans abortions after week 15 claiming the compelling interest is the potential that the fetus will be a human being with rights once born. Then supposes State B bans abortions after week 15 citing its interest in the rights of the 15 week old human being.

In what meaningful way are these two laws different? Both are putting a fetal right to life ahead of the woman’s right to privacy after week 15.

My post was to make that distinction. Quote what I said that lacks the distinction and why. Presenting a hypothetical as if the same as my statement of fact is an example that goes nowhere.

 

[NatMorton]

My post was to make that distinction. Quote what I said that lacks the distinction and why. Presenting a hypothetical as if the same as my statement of fact is an example that goes nowhere.

It is how I inferred your statement.

 

[minnie616]

It is how I inferred your statement.

You inferrered wrong.

The Perinatal Mortality Surveillance Report (CEMACH)3 defined stillbirth as 'a baby delivered with no signs of life known to have died after 24 completed weeks of pregnancy'. Intrauterine fetal death refers to babies with no signs of life in utero.

That is the age of viability ( about 24 weeks ) . That is why viability is when when the state may take a compelling interest.

 

[trouble13]

The facts of the matter refute your position stated in prior post. No further debate is necessary.

Actually what you said was not even accurate and you are basing your position off of that inaccuracy. You claim a human embryo is not viable to become a person which isn't true. It is not self sustaining but it is in many cases viable to become a person.

 

[minnie616]

Actually what you said was not even accurate and you are basing your position off of that inaccuracy. You claim a human embryo is not viable to become a person which isn't true. It is not self sustaining but it is in many cases viable to become a person.

An embryo is not viable without the biomoms nutrition and body functions. A fetus has
to be gestated by the biomom before it can be separated from her womb and have air sacs in its lungs to even survive in an artificial womb.

Experts agree that that viability will never be lowered to 20 weeks.

At 20 weeks gestation a fetus has no air sacs in the lungs.

…….

For those interested

Biology is different than mechanical science and the lungs of a fetus will need to have already developed some air sacs before it be put in an liquid environment that would mimic a woman’s womb.

That’s why experts agree no fetus could ever be saved before 20 weeks gestation.

At 20 weeks no air sacs have started to develop. Before 20 weeks the lungs are the consistency of gelatin.

……..

From the following article :

Artificial Wombs: How Sci-Fi Could (One Day) Meet the NICU​

https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/artificial-wombs-how-sci-fi-could-one-day-meet-the-nicu

If a fetus is born too early, its small, stiff lungs aren’t yet able to take up oxygen from the air. That’s where artificial uteruses might someday come in. In the sheep trials, the fetus’s heart pumps deoxygenated blood through a tube in its umbilical cord to a machine that oxygenates it. The oxygen-rich blood then flows back into the fetus’s body through another tube in the umbilical cord.In lambs, the technology has been able to keep the fetus alive through the risky developmental stage when the lungs aren’t yet strong enough to go on a ventilator — the 23-24-week mark in humans.

 

[NatMorton]

You inferrered wrong.

The Perinatal Mortality Surveillance Report (CEMACH)3 defined stillbirth as 'a baby delivered with no signs of life known to have died after 24 completed weeks of pregnancy'. Intrauterine fetal death refers to babies with no signs of life in utero.

That is the age of viability ( about 24 weeks ) . That is why viability is when when the state may take a compelling interest.

Your response makes no sense in this discussion.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Here in the United States of America there are many levels [Ed.: and side corridors,] to the current 'discussions' -- often little more than shouting matches -- over the issue of abortion. I contend that once the onion is peeled down to an irreducible minimum, the remaining core is a question. That question is, 'What is a human being?' Phrased another way, it becomes, 'What specific characteristic(s) define a human being?'

There are a number of answers to this, ranging from the DNA sequence [Ed.: different for each person with the possible exception of identical twins,] to the ability to use speech, to self-awareness, to . . . .

It's difficult for this poor old country mouse to see how a meaningful discussion can obtain unless both parties agree upon the definition of a human being. Without that, they are discussing apples vs. oranges, itself an exercise in futility.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

I disagree. No human being has the right to use someone's body for life support against their will.

 

[Lursa]

I disagree. No human being has the right to use someone's body for life support against their will.

And that has been upheld at the federal level. See: McFall v Shimp. @Torus34 what is your opinion of that decision?

 

[trouble13]

I disagree. No human being has the right to use someone's body for life support against their will.

If you agree with child support laws, you don't disagree with what your claiming you disagree with.

 

[Torus34]

I disagree. No human being has the right to use someone's body for life support against their will.

Hi, Scrabaholic.

You disagree with the quote, but I don't know just what part of it you disagree with. Your second sentence is a statement of belief, and I thank you for taking time to post it.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Lursa]

Hi, Scrabaholic.

You disagree with the quote, but I don't know just what part of it you disagree with. Your second sentence is a statement of belief, and I thank you for taking time to post it.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

It is supported by the 4th Amendment, "security of the person" and that has been interpreted by the courts as bodily autonomy.

The McFall v Shimp decision makes it clear that her opinion is founded in the law. The decision, btw, discussed morality. And because of its subjective nature decided that rule of law and protection of the individual under the Const should stand.

While you and Scrab both have opinions on this...hers is backed by the Const and that is why I believe that women should have 'choice' when it comes to abortion: then no one's opinions are forced on women that believe differently. Do you believe your opinion should be forced on women by law (altho I dont think I know your full opinion. Will you share it?)

 

[Scrabaholic]

Is that a justification to kill it

The only justification needed is that the woman wants it OUT of her body, to which it is attached and inside of.

 

[Scrabaholic]

If you agree with child support laws, you don't disagree with what your claiming you disagree with.

I disagree. Child support does not risk a person's life/health unless s/he chooses a dangerous occupation.

 

[trouble13]

I disagree. Child support does not risk a person's life/health unless s/he chooses a dangerous occupation.

Your now moving the goal posts from what you originally said.

And for the record, there is an inherent amount of risk in everything. This includes getting up and going to work to earn money to keep someone else alive.

 

[Lursa]

Your now moving the goal posts from what you originally said.

And for the record, there is an inherent amount of risk in everything. This includes getting up and going to work to earn money to keep someone else alive.

Ah, so equal footing with the mother there. Seems like a wash then.

 

[Bodi]

Here in the United States of America there are many levels [Ed.: and side corridors,] to the current 'discussions' -- often little more than shouting matches -- over the issue of abortion. I contend that once the onion is peeled down to an irreducible minimum, the remaining core is a question. That question is, 'What is a human being?' Phrased another way, it becomes, 'What specific characteristic(s) define a human being?'

There are a number of answers to this, ranging from the DNA sequence [Ed.: different for each person with the possible exception of identical twins,] to the ability to use speech, to self-awareness, to . . . .

It's difficult for this poor old country mouse to see how a meaningful discussion can obtain unless both parties agree upon the definition of a human being. Without that, they are discussing apples vs. oranges, itself an exercise in futility.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

There is no meaningful discussion to be had. One either believes that abortion should be illegal or one believes that abortion should be legal.

The Right says that they care about the life but once it is born they don't really care any more.

The Left does not give a shit what you want to call it... just that I can get it out of my body if I so choose.

 

[Bodi]

Hi again, vg.

No two people have the same DNA, excepting only identical twins. What, specifically, about the DNA specifies human beings/h. sapiens?

Regards.

Maybe you should take a biology class... it is pretty basic stuff taught in high school.

 

[choiceone]

Here in the United States of America there are many levels [Ed.: and side corridors,] to the current 'discussions' -- often little more than shouting matches -- over the issue of abortion. I contend that once the onion is peeled down to an irreducible minimum, the remaining core is a question. That question is, 'What is a human being?' Phrased another way, it becomes, 'What specific characteristic(s) define a human being?'

There are a number of answers to this, ranging from the DNA sequence [Ed.: different for each person with the possible exception of identical twins,] to the ability to use speech, to self-awareness, to . . . .

It's difficult for this poor old country mouse to see how a meaningful discussion can obtain unless both parties agree upon the definition of a human being. Without that, they are discussing apples vs. oranges, itself an exercise in futility.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

I think peeling the onion begins this way --

If you support anti-abortion laws because you think the embryo is a person,

1) Why should one person be allowed to implant in the woman's body without her consent when another person isn't allowed to put his penis in her vagina and orgasm without consent?

2) How far are you willing to go to save the life of this "embryo-person"?
Specifically, should the state arrest suspect women before they have abortions, putting them in straitjackets and padded cells, putting barriers between their teeth to prevent them from committing suicide by biting their tongues, and force-feeding them until they give birth?
If you're not prepared to go that far, how else to you propose to save the life of the "embryo-person"?

Even though these questions may seem extreme, if you really believe in the claim that a human embryo is already a living person, they are the logical ones to ask.

If the human embryo were really a person, I don't see how its implantation against a woman's will is not rape.

If the human embryo were really a person and its life had the value of a born person, I don't see how one could avoid trying to save its life by extreme means. Conversely, the violation of personal liberty implied by the second question is what one would have to do to safe its life when the woman really refused to consent.

By violating her liberty that much, would that violate any laws? Would it be so much of a violation of liberty that it would render her life completely meaningless?

I frankly don't think that a person's rights to life, liberty, and property were ever intended to be so hierarchized that it would be okay to do that to a woman.

 

[choiceone]

Personhood has nothing to do with viability. You will still be a person after you die. It is all about the answer to one yes or no question: Has the human life been born yet?

Au contraire. You will no longer be a person in this world after you die - instead, you will be a corpse. A corpse has no rights to life, liberty, and property. However, if you made a living legal will before you were a corpse, saying, e.g., that you did not will your body organs to medicine, or that you wanted to be cremated, etc., living people are obligated to follow it, because at the time you made it you were a person.

That means you have the right as a person to the disposition of your future corpse.

Why should you not have the right as a person to refuse to let an embryo/fetus mutilate your body?

 

[choiceone]

It’s not that you statement is wrong. It’s that you’re making a distinction without a difference.

Suppose State A bans abortions after week 15 claiming the compelling interest is the potential that the fetus will be a human being with rights once born. Then supposes State B bans abortions after week 15 citing its interest in the rights of the 15 week old human being.

In what meaningful way are these two laws different? Both are putting a fetal right to life ahead of the woman’s right to privacy after week 15.

And what if a woman 14 weeks pregnant goes from state A or B with a 15 week limit to state c with a 24 week limit and has an abortion in week 16 in state c?

And if state A or B wanted to arrest women who did that, suppose instead they moved permanently to state c before getting an abortion there?

It seems to me that the states putting a fetal right to life ahead of the woman's right to privacy are doing nothing but putting a fetal right to life in their own jurisdiction but have no justification for doing so in some other state's jurisdiction, so they're just telling the women to travel out of state or move.

 

[Torus34]

There is no meaningful discussion to be had. One either believes that abortion should be illegal or one believes that abortion should be legal.

The Right says that they care about the life but once it is born they don't really care any more.

The Left does not give a shit what you want to call it... just that I can get it out of my body if I so choose.

Hi, Bodi.

Thank you for taking time to post a response.

It is worth noting that situations in which two mutually-opposing, irreconcilable positions are affirmed can end in only one way.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.