Split from Economics thread - Abortion Discussions

[Cow Poke]

The legal distinction as to when life begins is not a philosophical judgement such as is the religious distinction. The legal distinction is based on the science which in this case isn't conclusive since science can not make that determination conclusively. What the ancients may have thought is irrelevant.

So, heck, let's just kill the baby until we can prove otherwise. I sure hope that sounded a lot better bouncing around in your big empty head.

[One Bad Pig]

The legal distinction as to when life begins is not a philosophical judgement such as is the religious distinction. The legal distinction is based on the science which in this case isn't conclusive since science can not make that determination conclusively. What the ancients may have thought is irrelevant.

The legal distinction currently allows for termination as long as a toenail is inside the mother. It is based purely on convenience. Science has zip to do with it. Even YOU don't think that science is conclusive here - so why bring it up?

[Jaecp]

The legal distinction currently allows for termination as long as a toenail is inside the mother. It is based purely on convenience. Science has zip to do with it. Even YOU don't think that science is conclusive here - so why bring it up?

Nobody actually does that though. >90% happens in the first trimester. Less than 100 happens in the third trimester every year and those are all health of the mother emergencies.

[One Bad Pig]

Nobody actually does that though. >90% happens in the first trimester.

What does this have to do with the legal distinction JimL brought up?

Less than 100 happens in the third trimester every year and those are all health of the mother emergencies.

I rather doubt this. In the third trimester the fetus is generally sufficiently well-developed to survive outside of the womb - and with a partial-birth abortion, the baby is already half-way born anyway.

[rogue06]

So, heck, let's just kill the baby until we can prove otherwise. I sure hope that sounded a lot better bouncing around in your big empty head.

ECREE!! I've always pictured him as a pinhead.

[Jaecp]

What does this have to do with the legal distinction JimL brought up?

I rather doubt this. In the third trimester the fetus is generally sufficiently well-developed to survive outside of the womb - and with a partial-birth abortion, the baby is already half-way born anyway.

Why doubt me on basic facts? We disagree on interpretation, but how often have you known me and how often do I get my basic research wrong?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/06...tatistics.html

"91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks' gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks' gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately .01 percent"

Apologies for the sloppy formatting, I'm on my phone and honestly didn't expect you to doubt me on something so basic

It's not like those 100 a year are people deciding to abort on a whim. There are medical conditions that can kill women, many of which also mean the fetus is a goner, but through abortion saves the mothers life.

Oh, and also some proportion is cases where the lungs or something failed to develop.

See, you're right. Most are sufficiently developed at that point. That's why there are only 100 per year in the 3rd trimester. Every single one of those 100 women wanted to bring their baby to term, but fate didn't agree.

[Tassman]

You can pretend all you want, Tazzy, and hide behind your technical legal definitions, but it's clear to anybody with a functioning brain that a fetus is a stage of development of the human being, there being no human beings on the planet that did not start out as a fetus.

And to call me dishonest merely for stating my logical opinion on the matter is quite gutless of you.

[JimL]

The legal distinction currently allows for termination as long as a toenail is inside the mother. It is based purely on convenience. Science has zip to do with it. Even YOU don't think that science is conclusive here - so why bring it up?

Your confusing the argument. I was refering to the legal distinction made by the courts as to when life begins, and at which point abortion becomes illegal, not the legal reasons under which abortions are allowed to be performed after that point due to health risks to the mother. I don't know exactly, and I doubt you know either, exactly what the law states concerning third trimester abortions, and under what circumstances they are allowed. If the law is vague, I suppose that is because the court concluded that the medical professionals themselves are better suited to determine what the health risks to the mother are.

But science does have to do with those decisions, it determines the onset of brain activity, and the onset of brain activity is the point at which the courts determined actual personhood to begin. So, the determination of when life begins isn't made by science, but it is determined by the courts based on the science.

[Cow Poke]

Ah, I see what you did there... once again, transitioning to "person" so you can go on your "personhood" kick.

You're quite the slippery one, Tazzy.

Spare me the mock outrage.

There is no "mock outrage" you drama queen.

Because that "insensate fetus" has a very high degree of probability of progressing one day to adulthood.

The latter is not tolerated in any society on earth (religious or secular), whereas the former is a minority position usually (not always) based on religious grounds.

Because I believe life is precious, Tazzy. Even yours.

[Bill the Cat]

In meaningful terms

Meaning let's skip the biology and go to philosophy, and hope no one notices...

the brain brain function IS the human being.

In your philosophical opinion. I'm not talking philosophy. I am talking biology.

When it ceases you die

The same can be said of the heart when it fails to restart. And did you know the body continues living up to 8 seconds after decapitation?

and before it develops there is no "you".

Depends on how you define "you". Biologically, as long as you are on the path of human growth and development, you are an individual living member of our species.

To say more than this is to argue from a philosophical/theological perspective, which you're entitled to do. But you are NOT entitled to impose your view on those who think differently.

Sorry, but it's you who is delving into the realm of philosophy with your "you aren't you" argument.

[Bill the Cat]

The legal distinction as to when life begins is not a philosophical judgement such as is the religious distinction. The legal distinction is based on the science which in this case isn't conclusive since science can not make that determination conclusively. What the ancients may have thought is irrelevant.

The science is only inconclusive in a very brief period of time between fertilization and implantation. There is no scientific disagreement after that stage, only philosophical.

[One Bad Pig]

Why doubt me on basic facts? We disagree on interpretation, but how often have you known me and how often do I get my basic research wrong?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/06...tatistics.html

"91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks' gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks' gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately .01 percent"

Apologies for the sloppy formatting, I'm on my phone and honestly didn't expect you to doubt me on something so basic

Um, I wasn't disputing any of that.

It's not like those 100 a year are people deciding to abort on a whim. There are medical conditions that can kill women, many of which also mean the fetus is a goner, but through abortion saves the mothers life.

I'm aware of that, thanks.

Oh, and also some proportion is cases where the lungs or something failed to develop.

Hrm. I'm not inclined to disagree with this possibility, but it's sort of vague, and I'd think that these sort of failures would tend to end in miscarriage.

See, you're right. Most are sufficiently developed at that point. That's why there are only 100 per year in the 3rd trimester. Every single one of those 100 women wanted to bring their baby to term, but fate didn't agree.

Here is where I get rather skeptical - especially when I know of people who survived in spite of an attempt to abort them.

If the life of the mother is at stake, and abortion is the only way to prevent the loss of both lives, I'm willing to countenance it. However, the vast majority of abortions don't pass that criterion.

[Tassman]

Ah, I see what you did there... once again, transitioning to "person" so you can go on your "personhood" kick.

You're quite the slippery one, Tazzy.

Because that "insensate fetus" has a very high degree of probability of progressing one day to adulthood.

potential to be a conscious, self-aware being is not the actuality of it.

Because I believe life is precious, Tazzy. Even yours.

[Tassman]

Meaning let's skip the biology and go to philosophy, and hope no one notices...

In your philosophical opinion. I'm not talking philosophy. I am talking biology.

Depends on how you define "you". Biologically, as long as you are on the path of human growth and development, you are an individual living member of our species.

Before the brain pattern develops there is no "you".

[JonathanL]

This is why we switch off life-support machines when there is no possible chance of restoring consciousness.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

And only abort fetuses who have no possible chance of developing a consciousness.