Message auto-removed

[Name removed]

[Warren DeMontague]

1. Roe V. Wade established a Trimester system which was subsequently modified in the Casey decision.

http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/643/The__Casey__Case__Roe__Revisited

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey

[Warren DeMontague]

4. I believe so.

[quinnox]

3. No idea

I am like you said, clueless, when it comes to this topic

[Barack_America]

5. Viability is still 24 weeks. Fetal development does not change with the times.

Anything less than 24 weeks and the fetus has less than a 50% chance of survival and will not be cared for aggressively (except in rare circumstances).

[idwiyo]

9. No it doesn't.

[Barack_America]

13. Viability is defined at greater than 50% survival with maximum intervention.

And that number has held firm at 24 weeks and will continue to do so until we develop womb transplants or artificial wombs. Incubators, for all of their advances, are not wombs.

The lungs, among other organs, are simply not developed enough to be exposed to air prior to this point.

[Daemonaquila]

27. Nope.

First, extraordinary measures that might add a few percentage points of survivability while all the developmental problems remain don't amount to squat in this argument. The real question is what would happen to a fetus in the natural course of things, with relatively basic support, not exotic multimillion dollar interventions. When we talk about technological innovation, we're talking about exotic and extremely expensive means to make a body do something other than what it has been biologically engineered to do. That basic biology is at the heart of the definition.

Second, let's take a silly trip to the future where thanks to artificial wombs, cutting edge imaging, and virtually risk-free microsurgery are commonplace. When a woman misses a period, it's easy as can be to detect that little clump of cells, pop it out without damage, risk, pain, or cost to the mother, and transplant it into an in vitro environment that will cook it up into a healthy baby 8 months or so later, whereupon it will be adopted by one of a long line of waiting prospective parents. I'll still say it's the woman's right to decide what happens to that fetus, and whether she should be required to subject herself to the risk-free, pain-free, cost-free procedure. There is no moral or ethical reason, no "value," to assume that saving that fetus for someone that wants it is preferable to terminating it. In fact, it's just the opposite - negative population growth is the ethical choice for our world.

The only reason that 24 weeks has any traction at all with anyone who has thought it through, is that that's the point where if the fetus fell out on its own, it might have a significant chance of surviving and maturing into a healthy human. At that point it's just a fair play argument -
"Meh, if it lives it lives, and if it dies it dies, but no point in going out and killing it if it would otherwise have made it after all that effort."

[Daemonaquila]

20. Nope.

Technology might slightly alter survivability at a given age, but it doesn't alter the kinds of developmental problems that come with extremely premature birth.

[Warpy]

63. No, it doesn't, not really

While extreme heroics have allowed 22 weeks and older to survive, the treatment itself causes huge problems for the kids later on. When the outcome is life without much quality of life, medical science tends to shy away from such heroics unless it's a young doc trying to be some sort of hero.

After 24 weeks, the fetus has a slightly >50% chance of survival, so terminations of pregnancies at that stage are premature births, not abortions.

I've seen late term cases in the right wing's 20-24 week period. All the pregnancies were wanted but they were threatening the woman's life. There was no way she could wait another month or two, the pregnancies had to be ended right then. Right wingers would rather the woman die along with her fetus than terminate the pregnancy.

In fact, none of the antiabortionists recognize that a living breathing female human being has any civil rights of her own as soon as she becomes pregnant.

Pushing back the viability date beyond what it actually is by forbidding doctors to act in the best interests of their patients. While those laws stand, they will kill women.

[elehhhhna]

94. on a side note,

when the Unwanted Children Demanders can remove that thing and keep it viable, they can have it.


OK not really. Interesting to think what they'd do in that case. Probably do exactly what they do about kids in foster care, etc.- i.e., call they Mama a slut and keep walking.

[Barack_America]

96. If and when we ever do achieve womb transplants...

I fully expect the "vessels of God" to step up and put their uteri where their mouths are.

Or shut their frickin traps once and for all.

[Puzzledtraveller]

6. My head hurts.

[cali]

7. a fetus in NOT viable at 20 weeks

and viability is very unlikely to occur at 16 weeks. In fact, only 20 to 30% survive at 23 weeks.

And you say in one breath "hat a multiplying ball of cells does not a life make." and in the next that there is 9 months of gray area. which is it?

The 20 week ban is all about whether or not the fetus feels pain. forced birthers claim, without scientific evidence, that it does.

No, there isn't a blanket right to abortion, but most late term abortions are done because a fetus has a severe abnormality or because the mother's life or health is endangered.

[etherealtruth]

11. Ok, I will answer with questions

At what point (if any) does a woman surrender her rights? Is there a point when the fertilized egg, embryo or fetus' "rights" supersedes the woman's?

[etherealtruth]

22. Logically ...?

What if a woman drinks alcohol, smokes cigarettes, eats tons of processed "lunch" meats and hot dogs ... or works a job where there is the potential for exposure to pathogens or carcinogens , or teratogens exists .... lets say from ground zero through day 279.5.

Does a woman lose her right to engage in legal behavior at any point ?

[etherealtruth]

30. This is relevant in that in your scenario

... if you choose a point in time where the fertilized ovum, zygote, embryo, or fetus is considered a separate entity or being with rights that equal or supersede its mother's how can any of the things I listed be acceptable ... or even legal? The point in time is arbitrary, be it day 2 or day 200 or day 282 .... in order for the fertilized ovum, zygote, embryo, or fetus to be afforded the same rights as you or I ... by necessity the mother must surrender hers ... ?

I am not asking these questions to be an ass ... I understand you are looking for answers ... in these conversations I want to point out that the answers are not simple and that at no point should a woman be arbitrarily denied her right to autonomy ... creating fast and hard lines of demarcation do exactly that.

For the record I am the mother of three. Three children I wanted with all of my heart, three children that, for me, no sacrifice is too great.

[Daemonaquila]

36. If the state was an interested party, it would promote abortion.

The state's interest is in not growing the population of this planet any more than it is now, risking all human life. Depending on what party you belong to, the state's interest may be defined as not feeding, housing, or providing health care to another human. The state's interest is in a healthy environment and nearly full employment. It is in healthy children nurtured in a system with sufficient educational and other resources.

So, where does this silly business of there being any state interest in forcing women to carry a baby come from? Religious ideology, which is NOT a legitimate state interest. Granted, at various times in the past there have been wars, plagues, and other events that have decimated the population. Then, and only then, can there be any argument about the state having an interest in protecting the unborn.

[JaneyVee]

12. The central nervous system isn't intact until 24 weeks in utero. Therefore,

The fetus feels no pain before this time. Anyone saying differently is bullshitting you. 24 weeks is current law and I agree with the federal law on this one.

[handmade34]

45. some

women's rights advocates have come to accept that at 24 weeks, the right to terminate a pregnancy ends…

people are different with different opinions… I am of the opinion that a woman should have the right to control her body AT ALL TIMES (NO restriction on abortions)…

[Auntie Bush]

97. I concur.

A pregnancy is between a women, her Dr. and her husband...It's a medical condition and not any one else's business...certainly not a politicians.!

[Blue_Roses]

102. and certainly not a bunch of male politicians

who will never know what it feels like to be in this situation. They shouldn't even be allowed to vote on it!

[Zorra]

17. Legally Mandated Forced Birthing. Is it really ever OK to legally enslave a woman? nt

[gollygee]

25. The moment of. n/t

[gollygee]

31. I would call it aggravated assault

but it isn't murder.

And yes, at any time. Women don't go to 9 months without wanting a baby. If a pregnancy is terminated at 8 months or later, it's because something has gone horribly wrong. Why don't you trust women and doctors to know what to do in emergencies and desperate circumstances? Why would you allow a woman to go home with a baby after birth if you have so little confidence in her ability to make a good decision?

[gollygee]

39. OK so obviously you don't think women CAN be trusted with children

if you think that stupid hypothetical false scenario is a valid question.

[athena]

73. This is about whether the government should be involved.

Woman meets great guy, gets married. Gets pregnant. Shops for clothes and plans the next 5 decades of life. 8.5 months later finds out new husband is Son of Satan, the worst man ever. Ok to terminate? No judgement here... just yes or no?

Setting aside your incredibly naive view of how abortions normally happen, you're confusing what is moral or immoral behavior with what should be legal or illegal.

The question is not whether it is OK for a woman to make such a choice. It is whether the government should be in the business of putting women in jail for making such a choice. This is about banning abortion, making it a crime.

Let me ask you a question: supposing such a woman got an abortion, would you put her in jail? If so, for how long? Would you give her a life sentence? If not, why not? Would you give her the death penalty? If not, why not?

[athena]

80. Let me ask you another question.

We understand that you claim to only be interested in other people's judgments. You claim you can't decide whether a woman who (hypothetically) has an abortion at 8.5 months because she just broke up with her boyfriend should go to jail.

Do you think the members of Congress are in a good position to decide whether she goes to jail?

And don't forget the other question I asked: if you think that Congress should be in the business of sending women to jail for abortions, why should they not send you to jail for refusing a government-mandated organ donation at great risk to your health?

[gollygee]

86. The spouse is a separate person who isn't getting all the necessities of life

from their spouse's body. The spouse doesn't have any physical risk involved in the cheating spouse continuing to remain alive. The spouse isn't going to face a crisis if the cheating spouse remains alive, unless the cheating spouse attacks him/her or something like that, in which case the government would recognize the spouse's need to handle that crisis.

[athena]

90. No one is saying Congress should not make any laws.

What many people are saying is that Congress should not make detailed and specific laws about health-related procedures like abortion and organ donation.

Abortion is a complicated issue. Since the woman's health or life may be at stake, the issue is too complicated for Congress to be making specific laws about it. If, for example, Congress decides abortion is OK if the woman's health is at stake, how would such a law be implemented? Should the government really be in the business of cross-checking whether each health exemption was justified? Most people would be against allowing government that much interference in medical issues.

Note that if you kill someone who is trying to rape or injure you, that is self-defense, not murder. The only way you can compare abortion to murder or theft is if you don't recognize the personhood of the woman, and her right to her bodily integrity.

[MattBaggins]

101. yes

[gollygee]

49. Because it is a separate person at 1 minute

The only people who know what is happening in that woman's body and how that pregnancy and labor and birth are affecting the woman are that woman and her healthcare providers. No one else has any say and if a crisis comes up at the end of a pregnancy, the woman and her healthcare providers need to have the power to deal with the crisis without government interference.

Women don't get that far along unless they want a baby. If it becomes an issue that late, there's an emergency. And you need to just trust women and their healthcare providers.

[Niceguy1]

33. tou won't gwt an answer in that

Because the purists feel that any intervention or laws covering the time between 24 weeks and birth violates the woman's rights.

[gollygee]

37. Purists?

I believe that women own their own bodies. I assume by your statement that you think the state has some level of ownership of women's bodies?

[Niceguy1]

41. no, the state is charged with looking

Out for the interests after viability is reached. It isn't about control of her body...its about competing interests of the baby and the mother. Tou can't deny that there is a life there once viability is reached.

[gollygee]

43. So long as that baby is getting all food, oxygen, and everything from the women

whose body it is in, and the woman is not getting all food, oxygen, or anything else from it, they are not parallel or equal in rights.

[Niceguy1]

50. ys they are because it is a viable life.

You you think it is ok for a woman to show up at the birthing center stoned or drunk? Have you had to care for a drug baby?

[ZombieHorde]

75. "I believe that women own their own bodies."

Though really, you believe that people who match your definition of woman own their bodies.

[gollygee]

78. This is in the context of pregnancy

so I'm discussing women who can get pregnant, though those are not the only people or the only women who own their own bodies.

[Zorra]

51. In the realm we are discussing, it has no legal interest except post natal interest.

You tell me ~ when does the state have a legal interest in mandating what a slave can do with her or his body?

[MattBaggins]

100. A second after birth.

[PeaceNikki]

18. Here's a great piece I refer to often...

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-personhood.htm

Argument

One of the most common pro-life claims is that "life begins at conception." Beyond the obvious controversy of this statement, there is actually a second and more subtle error here. And that is that human life began only once: at the dawn of humanity, with the rise of the first human beings. Since then, there has been a continuum of human life: every sperm, every egg and every zygote have been full-fledged signs of human life, complete with all the characteristics of normal cellular activity, and all 46 human chromosomes. (Half of these chromosomes go unused in the case of sperm and eggs, but all 46 are there nonetheless.) The correct question is not "When does human life begin?" but "When does personhood begin?"

Pro-life advocates claim that personhood begins when the sperm and egg join to form a zygote. The zygote is genetically unique and complete and will be the grandparent of every other cell this person will ever have. The fact that the zygote is the first entity to have all 46 chromosomes of a future person seems -- at first -- to be good evidence of personhood. But consider the counter-examples.

There are many entities which are genetically complete, which contain all 46 human chromosomes, which we nonetheless do not recognize as persons: ancient fossils, blood samples, hair cuttings, fingernail clippings, even skin cultures grown in burn centers. This is proof that genetic completeness, in and of itself, does not constitute personhood.

....

Viability as a test for personhood

If pro-choice advocates reject conception as the first moment of personhood, then the question becomes: when do pro-choice advocates believe that personhood begins? One of the best tests of personhood is viability, upon which the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade was based. Viability is defined as the ability to live outside the womb. It is based upon the broader logic that "a person is as a person does." In other words, people normally breathe on their own, circulate blood on their own, fight off most germs on their own and sustain normal cellular activity on their own. A fetus is able to achieve these functions once it reaches a weight of about 5 pounds. This usually occurs between the 7th and 8th month of pregnancy -- coincidentally, about the time that the baby has finished its brain and central nervous system. The extra womb time appears to be a biological courtesy.

Critics charge that a baby cannot survive outside the womb for long without a mother's feeding, care and protection. Certainly the child is a person by now, so how can viability be a test for personhood? This common objection is based upon a confusion of the terms viability and dependency. They are not at all the same thing, although both are needed for human survival. Viability is defined as an individual's ability to survive as a person. Dependency is defined as one's reliance upon society to survive as a person. Remember our broader definition that "a person is as a person does." The newborn baby breathes, circulates, perspires, digests, immunizes and sustains bodily and cellular functions just like a normal person. But it is also normal for people to depend on each other for food, shelter and survival, from the day they are conceived until the day they die.


more at link

[athena]

26. I assume you are in favor of forced organ donations.

In this case, we have a real, live, breathing, and thinking human being who will die if he is not provided with the organ he needs. There is no question as to his personhood. (Moreover, he happens to be male, which, I'm sure, makes him more of a "person" in your eyes.)

Would you like to implement a government program that randomly picks people to donate organs to save the lives of these beings?

Or are you against this because the person who might have to undergo a major medical procedure against his will might be a male, like you? Perhaps you would only be in favor of such a program if the donors are exclusively female?

Somehow, people like you like to ignore the existence of a living, breathing human being who is being forced by the government to undergo a serious medical procedure against her will. All that matters to people like you is the foetus, which might be male.

Unless you are also in favor of forced organ donation, implemented by the government, with rules and regulations made up by Congress rather than by doctors, you are nothing but a troll and a hypocrite.

[athena]

34. So you are in favor of forced abortion but against forced organ donation!

Just as I thought!


In other words, when the question is whether a woman should be denied an abortion by the government, your focus is the foetus. When the question is whether a man should be forced to donate an organ against his will, your focus is the man.

This conclusion is pretty clear based on your comments earlier on the thread -- i.e., your insistent focus on the foetus even when people try to get you to consider the perspective of the woman. In your eyes, clearly, the woman does not exist. Yet you are against forced organ donation, since, in this case, we are no longer talking only about women's right to their bodily integrity but also men's. This is a typical attitude among men who love to go on at length about viability. They usually think they're very clever, but they only demonstrate to everyone who is watching that they don't consider women their equals.

[gollygee]

35. You think people don't own their own bodies

and that they themselves aren't as important as some other being that needs their parts. The state owns their bodies and can dole them out to others who need them to survive.

[etherealtruth]

52. Don't be silly gollygee

Not 'people' ("You think people don't own their own bodies&quot ... he is referring solely to women.

I am still waiting for an answer to a question i posed upthread ... at what point does the fertilized ovum, zygote, embryo, fetus' rights supersede that of the woman ... in his scenario that point exists

[Pretzel_Warrior]

59. good luck. you're gonna need it.

I always love when the psuedo-logical come on here and act like they're going to dazzle everyone with their logical tautologies.

[MattBaggins]

103. That's a bit harsh

The OP is doing his best

[etherealtruth]

62. Where do you place that point?

At that point does the fetuses assigned rights equal that of the woman's.

I am asking questions in order to determine consistency. If a woman smokes while pregnant after a certain point (for the sake of discussion/ 24 weeks gestation) and gives birth to a baby with low birth weight can she be charged with "child' endangerment?

[etherealtruth]

72. I am sure we can agree smoking is a legal activity

From your answer I believe I hear you saying that an autonomous adult may be prohibited from engaging in legal activities ....?

We can substitute any number of legal activities into the mix ... during the course of my job I am exposed to for more volatile organic compounds, semi volatiles, polynuclear hydrocarbons and a host of other nasty chemicals ... should a pregnant woman be banned from doing my job?

[etherealtruth]

91. I am one of those funny people that believe woman ...

... regardless of reproductive status enjoy all the rights of other autonomous adults. Women are not second class citizens with a list of rights and freedoms that can be taken away at will.

[athena]

74. I note that you have neglected to answer my questions.

Please explain why you are going on and on about the point at which a woman's personhood is less than that of a fetus, but not about the point at which your personhood is less than that of someone who needs an organ you happen to have.

[etherealtruth]

82. Organ donation preserves existing life

"I'm trying to learn, not trying to judge or influence others." ... Many are simply pointing out the massive inconsistencies in your reasoning

[etherealtruth]

89. It is necessary to look at inconsistencies in the reasoning

By your posts (and I could be wrong), it appears you do not want to examine inconsistencies in reasoning.

[gollygee]

83. What if part of an organ or tissue were needed for a newborn baby?

Why is a pregnancy more important than a life that's been around a while anyway? In that case we're talking about someone who is someone's mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, etc., and who has a number of people who will grieve their loss. In the case of the pregnancy, just the mother, and maybe the mother and father depending on the relationship, will be aware of the loss.

[athena]

84. People die because of organ unavailability.

People die all the time from not getting organs they need. Yet you are not in the least concerned about that. All you seem to care about is fetuses.

See here: http://organdonor.gov/about/data.html

Each day, an average of 79 people receive organ transplants. However, an average of 18 people die each day waiting for transplants that can't take place because of the shortage of donated organs.

If you were really trying to learn, as you claim, you would be responding with more than content-free one-liners to the very thoughtful questions people have asked you.

[MattBaggins]

105. If the technology existed to transplant the fetus to a male

and a mother were to die; should we force the father of the fetus to carry the it?

[kydo]

32. I'm thinking the same thing

Athena wrote:

Unless you are also in favor of forced organ donation, implemented by the government, with rules and regulations made up by Congress rather than by doctors, you are nothing but a troll and a hypocrite.

I'm thinking the same thing.

[Daemonaquila]

40. Perfectly said.

[etherealtruth]

44. Sounds accurate to me

[cyberswede]

47. You lost me at "Women have the right to choose whether they will get pregnant or not."

That often isn't the case.

[kydo]

55. what about rape? n/t

[kydo]

61. yeah but what about the fetus? n/t

[kydo]

66. then why are you bothering us with this thread? n/t

[kydo]

71. right ....

and I have swamp land in florida for sale.

[uppityperson]

99. What about contraceptive failure?

[Blue_Roses]

106. also, something that many women on birth control

don't know about is how certain medications can interfere with the pill. Like antibiotics. It totally wipes out the pill. I worked as a counselor for Planned Parenthood after college and this happened often. Women and teenagers would come in and not realize they were pregnant because they were on the pill, but because of taking antibiotics, they were shocked to find their pill had stopped working. The doctor and pharmacist were not all that good about spreading the word.

There are so many different reasons for terminating a pregnancy, but it is never a decision that is taken lightly. And it should only be between a woman and her doctor.

[seabeyond]

56. let me simplify it for you. choice. that simple. nt

[LittleBlue]

60. I suppose whenever viability outside the womb occurs

the fetus gains a protected status. That's the way it is in my state (Washington), and I think most pro-choice people agree that at that point, the fetus gains some rights.

[mike_c]

64. probably an unpopular view, but it's mine so I'll express it regardless....

My view is that until parturition, a fetus is part of a woman's body, and therefore at any time prior to birth her right to control her own body takes precedence over any other rights and responsibilities, including those of the fetus. The State's only interest in the matter should be insuring that abortions are safe and humane whenever women choose to seek them. No rationalization about fetal rights or women's sexual choices is relevant, IMO. Or at least none alter her fundamental right to choose.

That's my $0.02.

[etherealtruth]

67. I love your two cents!

[Walk away]

104. You can add mine in and make it 4 cents. nt

[REP]

79. Viability will never be 20 weeks or less

I'm not sure what kind of lung-growing technology you're envisioning, but it's not likely.

[uppityperson]

98. It is impossible to "terminate a pregnancy after birth" because there is NO pregnancy then.

"Their right to choose is governed by the definition of life and at what time that life becomes... well, alive. "

No. It does not. It is governed by viability, not "life" since "life" has too many different definitions.

And a lot of what Roe v Wade did is rule on having equal care for women regardless of economic conditions. Women with money have always been able to get abortions. This ruling make it more equal so those without that money or power could have equal access.