Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A Non-Religious Abortion Debate

page: 12
4
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

How can you be for "killing" sperm yet against "killing" a fertilized egg? Sperm are just as alive as an egg, maybe even more so. So why are you not against using spermicide but are against using contraceptives? You have set a double standard, and your argument falls apart because of it.


Let me make it simple for you...

Prior to fertilization, YOU did not exist! Killing your father's sperm does not kill YOU. Killing your mother's egg does not kill YOU. Killing the egg once it is fertilized kills YOU. YOUR life began at the moment of conception. There is no way around that fact.

That's not a double standard on my part. You just simply refuse to acknowledge the truth.




posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Nephalim
 


Are you saying that women are not people or citizens who qualify for equal protection under the law?


We should all qualify for those rights from the moment we're created, not the moment we're born. That's what he's saying and you know it.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 


We are not citizens until we're born. A woman can't be two people. Rights can't be extended to someone who is not yet born.

You keep asserting that life begins at fertilization and that's just not true. A woman is born with all of her (living) eggs already formed and each containing a copy every gene in the human genome. The introduction of the sperm doesn't create new life, it transforms existing life, setting off a chemical chain reaction, setting a DNA blue print into motion.

It's interesting to note, that sperm are constantly being created and can be created in a laboratory from female stem cells! Men No Longer Needed to Create Sperm



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Nephalim
 


Are you saying that women are not people or citizens who qualify for equal protection under the law?


No. You said this:


The real fight between the two factions are much more about limiting legal abortion, by putting up obstacles, making it harder and harder for poor and young women to access these services.


I replied. are abortions safe?



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Ok are you then saying a baby is foreign?



We are not citizens until we're born.


what are we then? and where is this baby? what country are we in? You know? If the mother is not two people, then clearly there is another person inside of the woman. You are saying now that a baby is alien to our land, like an immigrant. Thats not true either because your denying a citizen his/her birthright. The law says different there too.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

You keep asserting that life begins at fertilization and that's just not true.


Your life began the moment you were able to be killed. Your mother could have killed you before you developed a brain or a nervous system, but she could not have killed you before YOU were conceived. The moment you face death is when you come to life.

edit on 7-7-2013 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Dear windword,

I've really been away from this thread for more than a day? Sorry that it's taken so long to get back to you.

I've got an idea! Let's get married. I know, it sounds crazy at first, but I 've got great respect for your mind, your passion, and your ability to be gentle when that's appropriate. Besides, we'd never get bored. Think of all the great conversations we'd have. And if you're already married, no problem. Polygamy is the wave of the future.

(The preceding was not intend as a serious offer of matrimony. It instead reflects only a fantasy on the part of the sponsor of this message, and should not be construed as legally binding upon either party. Nor was it paid for by, or produced in cooperation with, any candidate or candidate's committee. All applicable taxes are the responsibility of the purchaser. Do not use this product while operating heavy machinery. Offer good only for legal residents of the United States.)

Where was I? Got a little carried away there. Oh, yeah, abortion.

One of the difficulties we may be having is that the question can be addressed on many levels. What does the law say? What does science say? What about general morality? How about "fairness," and "rights?" And, don't forget religion, that's a factor for many people.

If I read it correctly Roe says that after viability the state may take into consideration the rights of the "about to be born." That tells me that, at some point while the baby is still in the mother, the law sees that the baby has seperate and different rights, thereby becoming "legally" a seperate person.

Science says that a fertilized egg has a different DNA from the mother's, and as any cop show fan will tell you, seperate DNA means a different person.

As far as I can see, the Roe court said that the baby and the mother are different and have different rights, but to balance the rights they'll let the mother's rights supercede the baby's until viability. Ok, I've got that, but there are some areas in dispute that come from that decision.

One is the weighting of rights. The mother has a right to privacy, the baby has a right to life. Many say that life is a more important "right" than privacy and should be given much more consideration. I know I'd sign up for Facebook if my alternative was getting shot.

The other problem is line drawing. The court could only have picked viability as a compromise. Viability is, as we know, a line that fluctuates with each new scientific advance. That's an awkward, vague, and unusual place to draw a line. Choosing fertilization as a start at least has the benefits of being definite and scientifically determinable. (Not that I'm recommending it at this point in the discussion.) And, as has been pointed out, the word "viabilty" itself is open to debate. This is where we get questions such as "If it's still connected to the umbilical, can it be considered viable?" and "What about really sick people who only have the "potential," not certainty, of being cured? Can we "abort" them?"

I think it's these problems that are causing most of the fuss, and are the hardest to discuss coolly.

Do we have agreement to this point? Or am I going wrong?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952


Science says that a fertilized egg has a different DNA from the mother's, and as any cop show fan will tell you, seperate DNA means a different person.





I'm looking forward to Windword's response to you, but I just had to jump in here and comment that an organ donor recipient will have two separate DNA's: the organ they receive will have the donor's DNA, but that organ is not considered a whole complete person. Same is true with the parasitic twin example brought up earlier in the thread. Separate DNA in one person does not automatically mean two complete humans in one body.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Charles,

You make me laugh! But I don't think we have an agreement. Let's start with "fetal rights".



If I read it correctly Roe says that after viability the state may take into consideration the rights of the "about to be born." That tells me that, at some point while the baby is still in the mother, the law sees that the baby has separate and different rights, thereby becoming "legally" a separate person.

As far as I can see, the Roe v Wade court said that the baby and the mother are different and have different rights, but to balance the rights they'll let the mother's rights supercede the baby's until viability. Ok, I've got that, but there are some areas in dispute that come from that decision. One is the weighting of rights. The mother has a right to privacy, the baby has a right to life.


I'm not a lawyer, I'm just an arm chair researcher, but I can't see where Roe V Wade establishes that an unborn fetus is a person with rights. Perhaps you can show me how you came to that conclusion? In the meantime, I found this site, that breaks down the Supreme Court decision in way that I can understand.

www.phschool.com...


Arguments For Roe: Under the Bill of Rights, a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy. It is improper for a State to deny individuals the personal, marital, familial, and sexual right to privacy. Moreover, in no case in its history has the Court declared that a fetus—a developing infant in the womb—is a person. Therefore, the fetus cannot be said to have any legal "right to life." Because it is unduly intrusive, the Texas law is unconstitutional and should be overturned.

For Wade: The State has a duty to protect prenatal life. Life is present at the moment of conception. The unborn are people, and as such are entitled to protection under the Constitution. The Texas law is a valid exercise of police powers reserved to the States in order to protect the health and safety of citizens, including the unborn. The law is constitutional and should be upheld.



Decision and Rationale
By a vote of 7–2, with Justices White and Rehnquist in dissent, the Court agreed with Roe and upheld her right to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester (90 days). The Court observed that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment contained three references to "person." In his majority opinion, Justice Blackmun noted that, for nearly all such references in the Constitution, "use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible prenatal application."



Blackmun's opinion carefully steered between the right to privacy and the question of compelling State interest. On the first point, he wrote, the majority of the justices "do not agree" with Texas that the State "may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake." On the other hand, the State does have an "important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life" and in protecting the mother's health. Blackmun's decision revolved around the development of the fetus during pregnancy. He held that during the first trimester, or three months, of a pregnancy, the woman in consultation with her physician had an unrestricted right to an abortion. During the second trimester, States could regulate abortion to protect a woman's health. Finally, during the third trimester, the State's interest in protecting the potential life of the fetus was sufficient to justify severe restrictions.

Approaching the matter of when life begins, Blackmun was clearly hesitant to commit the Court to any position.


The court never agreed the pre-born have personal rights, not even the right to life.


Many say that life is a more important "right" than privacy and should be given much more consideration.


From what I understand, the court had the problem of deciding whether the mother's right to privacy was greater than the state's "compelling and overriding interest in regulating the health, safety, and morals of the community". The court ruled that it doesn't, and that the constitution only applies after birth.



Science says that a fertilized egg has a different DNA from the mother's, and as any cop show fan will tell you, seperate DNA means a different person.


Not necessarily.


A baby might have its mother's eyes, but the mother has the child's DNA in her blood, at least during pregnancy. Researchers have now used this DNA to test for a genetic disease before birth. The technique might allow doctors to perform prenatal screening from only a sample of the mother's blood.
news.sciencemag.org...


Also, placental tissue is made up of both the mother's and fetal cells.

Given this information, it's impossible for me to believe that a pregnant woman and her fetus are two separate people.

edit on 7-7-2013 by windword because: stupid typos



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 

Dear kaylaluv,

You're absolutely right, and that is a fine example. Maybe I should make the same offer to you that I did to windword. Make sure you read both paragraphs, though.


Your example started a train of thought. Let me go stream of consciousness for a minute.

"Hmmm. What about brain transplants? We can't be that far away. Who will it be then, the body or the brain? Abortion and end of life discussions seem to keep coming back to the brain as most important, maybe the body will have to take on the identity of the brain. What about fingerprints and retina scans? If it's not the brain and it's not the heart, what is a person? Potential? Current activity? Hey! Charles! Wake up! Get back to the thread."

Separate DNA in one person does not automatically mean two complete humans in one body.
I absolutely agree with you. You're right, and I don't think anyone can argue. But whatever it is inside the mother, the Court has ruled that it has rights at some point. I mentioned that to say that, legally, the baby has recognized rights while it is still in the mother.

So when should those rights obtain? The Court took one swing at it, but now, you're back to my post with what I thought two difficult questions are.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 





Your life began the moment you were able to be killed. Your mother could have killed you before you developed a brain or a nervous system, but she could not have killed you before YOU were conceived. The moment you face death is when you come to life.


Eggs die. My mother could have had an hysterectomy and all her eggs would have been killed.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Sorry, gotta run. Be back in about four hours.

I thought Roe said in the last trimester the state could protect the baby's rights. I'll look it up when I get back.

(Maybe I can marry both of you.)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Bone75
 





Your life began the moment you were able to be killed. Your mother could have killed you before you developed a brain or a nervous system, but she could not have killed you before YOU were conceived. The moment you face death is when you come to life.


Eggs die. My mother could have had an hysterectomy and all her eggs would have been killed.


... which would have ended no one's life. You're sidestepping the point as usual.

edit on 7-7-2013 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 


A woman's eggs are part of a woman's body and are living things, that when fertilized become potential people. The egg IS the vessel which develops into a new body after certain chemical ingredients are introduced. The egg is the potential person's body that is being transformed through fertilization.

The sperm itself dies after contributing it's donation. This is why the woman's choice is hers and hers alone. It's her body and the sperm donor can't claim any part of it to be his.


edit on 7-7-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by kaylaluv
 

Dear kaylaluv,

You're absolutely right, and that is a fine example. Maybe I should make the same offer to you that I did to windword. Make sure you read both paragraphs, though.


Your example started a train of thought. Let me go stream of consciousness for a minute.

"Hmmm. What about brain transplants? We can't be that far away. Who will it be then, the body or the brain? Abortion and end of life discussions seem to keep coming back to the brain as most important, maybe the body will have to take on the identity of the brain. What about fingerprints and retina scans? If it's not the brain and it's not the heart, what is a person? Potential? Current activity? Hey! Charles! Wake up! Get back to the thread."

Separate DNA in one person does not automatically mean two complete humans in one body.
I absolutely agree with you. You're right, and I don't think anyone can argue. But whatever it is inside the mother, the Court has ruled that it has rights at some point. I mentioned that to say that, legally, the baby has recognized rights while it is still in the mother.

So when should those rights obtain? The Court took one swing at it, but now, you're back to my post with what I thought two difficult questions are.

With respect,
Charles1952


I think Windword is right - the Supreme Court never ruled that the unborn had rights - they ruled that the states had rights (the right to have an interest in protecting the potential life of an unborn child). They ruled that the states COULD restrict abortion during third trimester - not that they MUST restrict abortion at that time. Yes, the Court picked a time frame in which the fetus was most "viable" to allow restrictions. And by viable, I take that to mean a full-fledged human capable of living outside the womb. Your example of a sick person with little to no potential to live doesn't really compare, because the sick person is a born, full-fledged human at that point. But, as I'm sure you're aware, the next of kin to that sick person COULD legally decide to take him/her off life support (which isn't really killing them, but letting them die naturally - different topic).

I think the court was right in implying that the child (rather, the fetus as a potential child) does not have inalienable rights until it is born, but the states have rights to protect the potential of that child at the point which it could survive being born (with the exception of the mother's life being in danger). Before that point, it is not a child, but a developing fetus - part of the mother's body - and therefore under the domain of the mother's decisions.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv and windword
 

Ladies,

Excellent work, thank you. I really appreciate the effort you've put into this. I also think it helps that you've introduced the idea of "potential child." It seems to clear away some emotion and confusion, at least in my first impression.


I think Windword is right - the Supreme Court never ruled that the unborn had rights - they ruled that the states had rights (the right to have an interest in protecting the potential life of an unborn child). They ruled that the states COULD restrict abortion during third trimester - not that they MUST restrict abortion at that time.
I think you're basically right with that, although I don't think we're talking about "potential life." I'm willing, for now, to go along with "potential child," but there can be no dispute that we're talking about actual life. And, as I promised to look it up, I might as well post the relevant portion of the Court's holding:

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [p165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Remember that some of this is legalese. The reason we have laws against murder is to promote the state's interest in the life of it's citizens. Any law passed by a state, has to be in the state's interest in some way. So, you can say you have a right to avoid being clobbered about the head and shoulders, but actually, it's only a crime because it violates the state's interest in the peace and safety of its citizens. In the same way, the Court said the state had an interest in "the potentiality of human life," freeing up the path for states to ban abortion except in limited circumstances.

Whether or not you want to say the unborn have rights after viability. The Court said states can tell mothers that they have no right to an abortion, so that the state can protect the "potential life."


the states have rights to protect the potential of that child at the point which it could survive being born (with the exception of the mother's life being in danger). Before that point, it is not a child, but a developing fetus - part of the mother's body - and therefore under the domain of the mother's decisions.
And, I would argue, at least at this point in the discussion, that after that point it is no longer. Certainly it's not the mother's property after viability. If not property, is it a person? Some argue yes, some argue no. If it's a person, end of discussion. If it's not a person, and it's not property, what is it?

This is where we have to say good-bye to the word "potential." It is no longer useful to the pro-choice argument. One thing we know with absolute, scientific, certainity is that a fertilized egg is a "potential child." The question is, why did the Supreme Court pick viability as the moment the state could start protecting the "potential child?' And now, we're back to the two problems from my earlier post.

The Court's position was just an attempt to please everyone. The idea of a right to privacy overriding a right to life wasn't based on anything except expediency. I don't want to look up the references, just believe me that when I say, if you ask a knowledgeable attorney about Roe they may say they like the result or they hate it, but they will all say is it was one of the ten least coherent decisions, logically and legally, that the Court has ever handed down.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Bone75
 


A woman's eggs are part of a woman's body and are living things, that when fertilized become potential people. The egg IS the vessel which develops into a new body after certain chemical ingredients are introduced. The egg is the potential person's body that is being transformed through fertilization.

The sperm itself dies after contributing it's donation. This is why the woman's choice is hers and hers alone. It's her body and the sperm donor can't claim any part of it to be his.


edit on 7-7-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



woah woah man we're all sitting right here!
gah
besides you cant be right there can you? because women claim child support. If what youre saying there is true, the father is not liable nor responsible for the child.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Nephalim
 


Technically a man not responsible for any pre-natal or birth costs. He's only liable for child support after the baby is born.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Nephalim
 


Technically a man not responsible for any pre-natal or birth costs. He's only liable for child support after the baby is born.


This is why the woman's choice is hers and hers alone. It's her body and the sperm donor can't claim any part of it to be his.

O.o think maybe you or someone just slipped up a little? Because if you got that from some court, no dude ever has to pay child support again, let alone pre natal costs.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Nephalim
 



- The father has no rights or responsibilities until the child is born so the father is not responsible for the medical bills. Once the baby is born the mother can file for child support and a sharing of non covered medical expenses so at that point the father can be responsible for future medical bills but during pregnancy the father is not responsible for the bills nor does he have any rights to the child or decisions made by the mother.
Family Law Answers






top topics



 
4
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join