Texas man files legal action to probe ex-partner’s out-of-state abortion

[maquiscat]

People should be compensated for the time they lose with an embryo that is destroyed?

Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. As I understood it, if it was a spouse that was lost in the wrongful death case, the compensation would be for all of the potential years left that they had as a couple. If it was a child, the same, only more so on the number of years since they were younger. And of course all that does account for the fact that the wrongfully terminated person could have even died the next day to some other cause. Therefore logically, the loss of an embryo can be a wrongful death as well given that the person has lost all that time of its potential life.

I could see a case to be made for some lost potential or a breach of contract, but it seems a far straw to grasp that were worried about wording it like it's already a person. Most embryos don't make it, even under ideal conditions.

Most don't even know it existed, according to current medical knowledge. Supposedly women miscarry far more than we suspected in the past, but because it happens so early, most never even knew they were pregnant, yet alone miscarried. But that seems to be under the natural causes of death, such as getting hit with a tree limb that breaks and falls on one's head while in the woods, for which there would not be a basis for wrongful death.

You've lost me. When we're talking about having supposed parental rights to the unborn it's not a separable entity to the person they exist inside, that is the issue.

That's where you are wrong. It is both a separate entity and a separable entity. The results of the separation might not include continuation of life, but it is separable.

You cannot separate the unborn you would like to make a claim on and the health and personal autonomy of the person they reside inside. If it were there would be no issue.

That is where the point of certain rights can override other rights in specific situation.

There is no claim to be made here for having rights where your rights do not extend to.

This is why I make the AW comparison. Does the man have rights to the unborn offspring while it is gestating in the AW? If the answer is yes, then his rights exist because of the existence of the offspring, both pre and post birth. Simply because in one situation those rights are overridden by other rights, it does not eliminate the original rights. Suprecedes, yes, eliminate no.

With cars, it's easy to chop them to pieces and replace them because they are things, owned property, non sentient and unliving systems that can easily be replaced. They shouldn't factor into your analogies with bodies or be the basis of how property rights should work with respect to our own bodies.

As noted before, parallels rarely are perfect replicas of the situations you are trying to use them for.

 

[Variant]

Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. As I understood it, if it was a spouse that was lost in the wrongful death case, the compensation would be for all of the potential years left that they had as a couple. If it was a child, the same, only more so on the number of years since they were younger. And of course all that does account for the fact that the wrongfully terminated person could have even died the next day to some other cause. Therefore logically, the loss of an embryo can be a wrongful death as well given that the person has lost all that time of its potential life.

The embryo only has a life in the case that it is implanted, survives and is gestated.

Until those things happen it doesn't have a definite future where as the others do.

Similarly down the ladder of contingency; sperm need a couple of things to happen to say they have a life, but it's a longer shot, so I guess we don't attempt to charge sperm banks for wrongful death.

Most don't even know it existed, according to current medical knowledge. Supposedly women miscarry far more than we suspected in the past, but because it happens so early, most never even knew they were pregnant, yet alone miscarried. But that seems to be under the natural causes of death, such as getting hit with a tree limb that breaks and falls on one's head while in the woods, for which there would not be a basis for wrongful death.

The process of IVF has the natural death component baked in. It is literally the reason they make more than one at a time because they need more to create one child. Otherwise no one would be storing anything.

That's where you are wrong. It is both a separate entity and a separable entity. The results of the separation might not include continuation of life, but it is separable.

The problem here is that you've just defined it this way.

If we can not separate the process and have the entity survive, it is not a separable process, the embryo and the mother are one process until they are actually separated.

That is where the point of certain rights can override other rights in specific situation.

"Rights" are dependent on our definitions and desires and they are subjective.

Where rights are overridden they don't exist. That's what overriding a right means, it means it doesn't apply in that circumstance.

This is why I make the AW comparison. Does the man have rights to the unborn offspring while it is gestating in the AW? If the answer is yes, then his rights exist because of the existence of the offspring, both pre and post birth. Simply because in one situation those rights are overridden by other rights, it does not eliminate the original rights. Suprecedes, yes, eliminate no.

Superseded rights are eliminated in circumstances where they don't apply..

If I have the right to vote unless I am a convicted felon, and I am a convicted felon, then I do not have the right to vote.

Rights are about whether you can do something, so when you can't, the right doesn't exist.

As noted before, parallels rarely are perfect replicas of the situations you are trying to use them for.

If analogies are imperfect in meaningful ways then they serve as bad arguments.

 

[Plasmaball]

If a man is set on having children he should only sleep with women who agree to have his children. There's your compromise.

I'd never recover from this

 

[Lursa]

The same with you. I have addressed the points repeatedly and you continue to not accept them and called them not addressing the points. That you will not accept them is on you and I will no longer further engage with you on this topic given that. Other topics are still open on other threads.

You have not been able to dispute the fact that there are rights in play here, 1A and 4A that require justification in violating. I have supported them with citations. You straight up have not brought justifications to violate those. What would that be?

If you want your 'points' validated, you also have to provide justification.

And of course such justification is necessary. Just because I dont know the reasons/justifications that some drugs are illegal and so is polygamy doesnt mean there are not justifications. That's ludicrous. Who is making laws for no reason?..is that your claim? They just made those things illegal for fun? For no reason? I dont feel like googling something so ridiculous, I'm sure there are justifications for those laws.

 

[Lursa]

This is why I make the AW comparison. Does the man have rights to the unborn offspring while it is gestating in the AW? If the answer is yes, then his rights exist because of the existence of the offspring, both pre and post birth. Simply because in one situation those rights are overridden by other rights, it does not eliminate the original rights. Suprecedes, yes, eliminate no.

Then why cant he demand her fertilized eggs be removed for IVF without her consent? Should he be able to? Why or why not?

 

[Jason Warfield]

This is a reasonable compromise. Men have an interest in their offspring and should be entitled to compensatory damages for a unilateral decision to terminate his offspring just as he would be held liable for financial support in the opposite case.

not when it violates laws.

 

[maquiscat]

The embryo only has a life in the case that it is implanted, survives and is gestated.

That is fully a matter of opinion, especially in saying what "a life" is. And this is in comparison to the objective status of having life processes.

Until those things happen it doesn't have a definite future where as the others do.

Nothing has a definite future. There is no knowing how long any of us will survive.

Similarly down the ladder of contingency; sperm need a couple of things to happen to say they have a life, but it's a longer shot, so I guess we don't attempt to charge sperm banks for wrongful death.

Sperm and eggs are at best described as half lifes. They are not complete entities (and that is intentionally setting aside the debate on "beings") as they do not possess complete DNA.

The process of IVF has the natural death component baked in. It is literally the reason they make more than one at a time because they need more to create one child. Otherwise no one would be storing anything.

That natural death component would only cover those that either fail to develop such that they can be stored, and those that fail to implant or naturally abort after implantation. "Natural death" does not apply to deliberate termination of a stored embryo

The problem here is that you've just defined it this way.

If we can not separate the process and have the entity survive, it is not a separable process, the embryo and the mother are one process until they are actually separated.

You have just as much defined it your way as well. The problem lies in that the phrase as you worded it is left up to interpretation by implication, which is too often not as clear as the one who makes the implication thinks. I think you and I would be in agreement with the phrase that it is not a survivable separation. And that is true currently. Who knows what the future will bring. But I have allowed myself to be pull too far off the topic towards that one already. I ended that. But my statement still stands as true.

It is both a separate entity and a separable entity. The results of the separation might not include continuation of life, but it is separable.

Where rights are overridden they don't exist. That's what overriding a right means, it means it doesn't apply in that circumstance.

I disagree. Here comes one of those parallels that are not perfect, but should illustrate the point. In an ER, triage is performed. It is determined which patient has priority. A patient arriving later may be given priority over one that arrived earlier. When that happens the other patient does not cease to exist. The other one just is given priority and overrides their place in the queue. Likewise, when a right has priority over another right, such as bodily autonomy over right of life (referring to my rape example earlier in the thread and not abortion) the overridden right does not cease to exist.

Superseded rights are eliminated in circumstances where they don't apply..

If I have the right to vote unless I am a convicted felon, and I am a convicted felon, then I do not have the right to vote.

Rights are about whether you can do something, so when you can't, the right doesn't exist.

Improper parallel. Loss of rights, permanent or temporary, is a function of the judicial process, and does not apply in the same context as one right overriding another. A right exists even when it is overridden or it cannot be exercised due to circumstance. My right to life exists even when it gets overridden to stop my violating another's bodily autonomy rights. And my right to engage in commerce with another exists even when no one will engage in it with me.

If analogies are imperfect in meaningful ways then they serve as bad arguments.

The problem with that argument is that meaningful is a subjective value. However, I will agree that if one does not comprehend the analogy, then it is ineffectual with that person, even while it may be effective with another.

 

[Lursa]

I disagree. Here comes one of those parallels that are not perfect, but should illustrate the point. In an ER, triage is performed. It is determined which patient has priority. A patient arriving later may be given priority over one that arrived earlier. When that happens the other patient does not cease to exist. The other one just is given priority and overrides their place in the queue. Likewise, when a right has priority over another right, such as bodily autonomy over right of life (referring to my rape example earlier in the thread and not abortion) the overridden right does not cease to exist.

But the patients being triaged all have rights, correct? With reference to abortion, IFV, unborn removal, etc, there would be no conflict of rights, correct?

 

[Variant]

That is fully a matter of opinion, especially in saying what "a life" is. And this is in comparison to the objective status of having life processes.

Having a life is the experience of having a life, so, no not really. Embryo's don't experience life. They lack any such capability and this is not a matter of opinion.

Nothing has a definite future. There is no knowing how long any of us will survive.

In the "wrongful death" sense they absolutely do, no further processing is required to turn a child or an adult into something with a life.

Sperm and eggs are at best described as half lifes. They are not complete entities (and that is intentionally setting aside the debate on "beings") as they do not possess complete DNA.

So? Why is it important to you that something has complete DNA?

My skin cells have that, they aren't turning into human beings. In the case of sperm they require a few steps, like embryos.

How many steps is the difference. Your line is essentially that embryonic fusion confers the same rights as a ten year old child, which I find kind of ridiculous but you seem OK with.

That natural death component would only cover those that either fail to develop such that they can be stored, and those that fail to implant or naturally abort after implantation. "Natural death" does not apply to deliberate termination of a stored embryo

As stated they only have potential life so they aren't technically alive in this scenario without some serious help.

You have just as much defined it your way as well. The problem lies in that the phrase as you worded it is left up to interpretation by implication, which is too often not as clear as the one who makes the implication thinks. I think you and I would be in agreement with the phrase that it is not a survivable separation. And that is true currently. Who knows what the future will bring. But I have allowed myself to be pull too far off the topic towards that one already. I ended that. But my statement still stands as true.

Hypothetically separable in some future scenario that isn't true now doesn't do much for separable now.

I might be able to separate and clone your stem cells or skin cells into new individuals in 30 years but that doesn't mean they have rights now.

I disagree. Here comes one of those parallels that are not perfect, but should illustrate the point. In an ER, triage is performed. It is determined which patient has priority. A patient arriving later may be given priority over one that arrived earlier. When that happens the other patient does not cease to exist. The other one just is given priority and overrides their place in the queue. Likewise, when a right has priority over another right, such as bodily autonomy over right of life (referring to my rape example earlier in the thread and not abortion) the overridden right does not cease to exist.

Being given priority medical attention isn't even a right, we do it because of a determination of the best use of limited resources.

The right that exists in that scenario is being treated equally so that the most can survive based upon limited resources.

Improper parallel. Loss of rights, permanent or temporary, is a function of the judicial process, and does not apply in the same context as one right overriding another. A right exists even when it is overridden or it cannot be exercised due to circumstance. My right to life exists even when it gets overridden to stop my violating another's bodily autonomy rights. And my right to engage in commerce with another exists even when no one will engage in it with me.

You can talk all day about having rights that mean nothing because of circumstance.

I will continue with the definition that you have rights when they are in force. That's how you can tell, you can act on them, you get the benefit of them, then, and only then, do you have rights.

The problem with that argument is that meaningful is a subjective value. However, I will agree that if one does not comprehend the analogy, then it is ineffectual with that person, even while it may be effective with another.

The use of the rhetoric of persuasive analogies is subjective to begin with. I am merely telling you that the quality of the analogy has to do with how well it fits/summarizes the situation you are describing.

Analogies are only useful if they explain something about the situation in question, so if it has differences that fundamentally change the situation it's misleading.

 

[Lursa]

Having a life is the experience of having a life, so, no not really. Embryo's don't experience life. They lack any such capability and this is not a matter of opinion.

You make a good point in that semantics is a favorite game on this issue. When it comes to things with more than one definition, each side picks which best supports it's agenda.

IMO you nailed it but many pro-life supporters just reduce a life to a heartbeat, breathing. If the unborn exits the vagina with a heartbeat...it's a win! That's all that matters, no matter what its condition or future prospects. I find that dehumanizing.

If the woman successfully does that and remains alive...that's all that matters to so many of them as well. Not her "life," every day that could have been completely ruined or sidetracked into poverty or l unable to maintain obligations and commitments to others. Not her health that could be so damaged that she's had a stroke or an aneurysm or may remain debilitated for life.

(Edit: I'm not saying this is Maq's view.)

 

[maquiscat]

Having a life is the experience of having a life, so, no not really. Embryo's don't experience life. They lack any such capability and this is not a matter of opinion.

Explain "having a life" to me in objective terms, including the use of the phrase "get a life".

In the "wrongful death" sense they absolutely do, no further processing is required to turn a child or an adult into something with a life.

Turning from a child to an adult is absolutely processing. We don't stop processing until we are dead. Certain specific processing might end, but other processing continues.

So? Why is it important to you that something has complete DNA?

Why is it so important to you that something have a life? Answer one, you've probably have answered the other.

Your line is essentially that embryonic fusion confers the same rights as a ten year old child, which I find kind of ridiculous but you seem OK with.

Nope, never made that claim. I have stated that even if an embryo did have rights, that they would not override the woman's bodily autonomy rights. The only other claim I've made is that of the man and woman both having parental rights and responsibilities even at the gestation stages, but have still pointed out that those do not override the woman's bodily autonomy rights.

As stated they only have potential life so they aren't technically alive in this scenario without some serious help.

They are as scientifically alive as any other singular or multi celled organism. Being alive and "having a life" are two very different things.

Hypothetically separable in some future scenario that isn't true now doesn't do much for separable now.

Again separable and surviably separable are two different things.

I might be able to separate and clone your stem cells or skin cells into new individuals in 30 years but that doesn't mean they have rights now.

Again, I've not claimed such. But as a point, you were able to separate those cells and they survived to be used in cloning. Given that you made surviving a factor in "having a life" earlier, by your own argument then they did have a life, or at least satisfied that factor.

Being given priority medical attention isn't even a right, we do it because of a determination of the best use of limited resources.

Didn't claim it as a right. The parallel showed how two things can exist even when one overrides the other, or the other doesn't apply.

You can talk all day about having rights that mean nothing because of circumstance.

I will continue with the definition that you have rights when they are in force. That's how you can tell, you can act on them, you get the benefit of them, then, and only then, do you have rights.

By that definition, then no one has any right, unless a specific situation comes up. But that is not how we define rights. One either has a right or they do not. The situation only determines if one can exercise that right, not whether they have it or not.

The use of the rhetoric of persuasive analogies is subjective to begin with. I am merely telling you that the quality of the analogy has to do with how well it fits/summarizes the situation you are describing.

That's still leaving a subjective claim. That fact that you not feel it fits/summarizes the situation does not mean that another won't feel that it does.

Analogies are only useful if they explain something about the situation in question, so if it has differences that fundamentally change the situation it's misleading.

You still have to show that those difference change the situation of the points being compared. Looking back at the car example. My claim is that with both the car (assuming both people on the title) and the offspring, there is a joint decision making right to the car/offspring. You cannot sell/give up for adoption the subject without the consent of both (noting that it can be physically done with legal consequences). However, if the subject is in your house/body, you have the right to have it removed, and if it would be destroyed in the process, I cannot stop it because I cannot override your property/bodily autonomy right. Nothing else has to match between the two situations to show that the principle I am making the point about holds true in the different situations.

 

[renee]

Well, it's a good thing the right wing doesn't think women are chattel or anything.

Their Bible is hand maids tale