Poll: Is Georgias new "death warrant" on abortions a good idea?

[St Leo]

Abortion as a means of contraception is stupid.

Those Stop-Train-Emergency-Use-Only levers you see in subways are stupid as a means of getting off.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Ogalthorpe is totally on the money.

I feel so dirty.

Shudder.....

No amount of bathing helps.....

I know I've tried.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
What makes you think the baby belongs to you?
Never mind. I forgot totally for a second your thoughts on other things.
My error. Only a person of faith would recognize and acknowledge the fact that the baby was a "loaner".

Really? So when my daughter becomes a surly teenager, I can just return her to someone? You got an address?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by DetroitDave


Exactly, and what does that say for equal protection for the fetus under the law? It's the circumstances of the pregnancy that dictate whether the fetus has "death warrant'" protection or not, while others are expendable.

I don't follow your point here. Call me daft.

You concede a fetus has no legal rights?

If so why the need for a court sanctioned abortion? or are we simply having the court decide what is a legal pregnancy and thereby legislating morality?

Going this route to me seems exceedingly shaky grounds, at least when pro-life uses the arguement that a fetus is human or destined to be human there is no pretense about legislating morality wrt cause of pregnancy as they take the high ground saying all humans deserve the right to live. (again I don't buy that arguement either but it at least is more defensible IMHO)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
What makes you think the baby belongs to you?

Because it's not a baby yet. Babies have brains and forming minds.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Because it's not a baby yet.

When would you say it becomes one then?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
When would you say it becomes one then?

Technically, once its born. However, I'm kinda of the opinion that once the fetus begins "thinking" that abortion should be off limits. It's not yet senitent yet, but I'm uncomfortable with killing human flesh which has awareness.

[Jac de Molay]

You concede a fetus has no legal rights?

The problem I have is the court wants it both ways. It's willing to grant a fetus human status from the outset of a "death warrant" hearing, but just as willing to deny "human" status in granting abortions for pregnancies in certain circumstances completely beyond its control.

That's the problem with calling the fetus human to begin with. It can't speak and defend on its behalf, like fully-developed people, whether the court rules in its favor or not. I guess that's what I meant by equal protection.
Its tried in absentia no matter what, and it becomes even more screwed up when the mother's health is at stake.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
However, I'm kinda of the opinion that once the fetus begins "thinking" that abortion should be off limits.

When would you say that happens?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I grog D. Dave.

The point is the same only I chose the phrase situational ethics.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
When would you say that happens?

More or less around the six month point of the pregnancy. At that point, thought is still just random nerve firings and its debatable whether or not that the fetus has awareness. Even live born children have incoherent minds and aren't really sentient.

It is our consciousness, however, that defines us as human more so than anything else. Once the fetus has awareness, even as limited as it is, it has become human.



Edit: CBEAST!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Once the fetus has awareness, even as limited as it is, it has become human.

I think that you are going to have to come up with a better limit than that considering the fact you just said that even children born alive aren't sentient.

[David Floyd]

Floyd? Floyd thinks it's his right to burn the framing.

Of course, your example has nothing to do with the issue of abortion. You see, I, as a living human, paid for the framing, and it is mine. If you burn it down, you are burning my property.

When you look at a fetus and the issue of abortion, it's a totally separate matter. It's not clear that the fetus retains any rights, because it is not clear whether the fetus is a human, and on top of that, the issue is further complicated by the fetus having to totally rely on the mother to stay alive.

Oh, and Slowwhand - if everyone is using "David's logic", then perhaps my logic is correct, and your's is not. Ever consider that possibility?

Didn't think you did.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I think that you are going to have to come up with a better limit than that considering the fact you just said that even children born alive aren't sentient.

I am aware there is a flaw in my definition, since logically it would allow the killing of born-babies. I'm not sure how to deal with it yet.

[SlowwHand]

Hate to burst your bubble buddy, but your property or not, you'd go to jail .
Yeah, Che used the same faulty comeback.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Consider me now a libertarian. Smaller government in all aspects including lack of involvement in the bedroom.

Og

Originally posted by Chegitz Guevara

Ogalthorpe is totally on the money.

Another convert from Communism. My work here is done. Welcome to the Libertarian party Che.

(gotta read the fine print on these things....)

Mayhap have to put a Che quote in my sig as well.

[chequita guevara]

ARGH!

[David Floyd]

Hate to burst your bubble buddy, but your property or not, you'd go to jail .

Yeah, no **** you'd go to jail, because I own the framework you'd be burning down. I fail to see how that supports your argument, though

[David Floyd]

Oh, I see the point you're making...if I burned my own framework, I'd go to jail.

Well, that depends on where you live. Certainly you shouldn't go to jail for that, as long as you don't damage anyone else's property. If the fire spreads, you should be liable for the damage. And if you try to claim insurance money, you should go to jail, because you are committing fraud.

But I fail to see the problem with burning your own house down, provided that it is done in such a way that it doesn't hurt anyone else or damage your property.

Of course, that's essentially impossible if done in a populated area, and if you do it on your own ranch all by yourself no one will care, so your argument is pretty much moot.

Not to mention, again, having nothing to do with the abortion issue.

[SlowwHand]

Of course you have a problem understanding, David.
One has to understand the basics of (again) responsibility and accountability, and you don't.

You're all the things I used to accuse Boddington's of being, only you're minus the Limey accent.

[David Floyd]

Actually, I just got what you were saying, and I posted a response.

[SlowwHand]

I know about your "response".
I saw it before I made comment.

[David Floyd]

Then I fail to see how you made any point at all. You didn't - and as far as I can tell - can't refute my basic point. I'm not arguing in favor of abortion, or against abortion - I'm arguing that the issue should be decided primarily based upon the medical definition of when life begins, as well as answering the question of can the mother be required to use her body to keep someone else alive. How can that be a controversial position, to any non-fundamentalist, reasonable person?

[Arrian]

Sloww, the "framework analogy" has, as Floyd and Che pointed out, nothing to do with Abortion. Why are you harping on it?

The reason it is illegal for me to go set fire to the framework of Floyd's house (under construction) is that I would be destroying Floyd's property. The reason people want abortion to be illegal is that they see it as murder, not property damage.

The central issue w/regard to abortion is whether or not abortion is murder, and with that comes the debate about when a fetus is considered human and thus granted the rights of a human. If one argues that abortion is wrong except for rape victims, then you have a MAJOR contradiction to deal with, as Ogie pointed out.

I'm not entirely sure of the timing issue (when it becomes human) myself, but bear in mind that very few pro-choice people advocate late-term abortions.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
I'm not entirely sure of the timing issue (when it becomes human) myself, but bear in mind that very few pro-choice people advocate late-term abortions.

So che is a rarity?

[David Floyd]

Actually, I don't even think someone who isn't a doctor is even QUALIFIED to have an opinion on when a fetus becomes a human.

Certainly, the fundamentalist pastors who harp about abortion aren't qualified to have one.

Let's see what the doctors think, and then we'll get to deciding if abortion is wrong or not.

If the doctors can't reach a consensus, then I would advocate keeping abortion legal - we should not restrict someone's rights without clear proof that what they are doing is harming someone else.

So basically, for me to support an abortion ban, what it would take is a majority of doctors being able to provide clear evidence that a fetus is a human, and when it becomes a human. Further, I would have to be convinced that a woman can be forced to use her body to keep someone else alive.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Further, I would have to be convinced that a woman can be forced to use her body to keep someone else alive.

If this is the case, what do you care if "it" is human or not?

[SlowwHand]

Precisely.

[David Floyd]

If this is the case, what do you care if "it" is human or not?

Very true - but the fact is, I haven't thought the issue through to any great degree, and I think a good argument can be made either way. So I'm deferring judgment on that issue until I hear what others have to say.

But if it can be proven that a fetus isn't human, that would render any such discussion irrelevant, while demonstrating that a woman SHOULD be forced to keep a fetus alive isn't particularly relevant or useful without first demonstrating that the fetus is human. Either way, that seems to be the logical first step.

[Ned]

Just let me amplify my remarks a tad. I do not believe this issue has anything to do with whether the fetus is human or not, or when it becomes conscious. It is human. However, until it becomes viable without the consent of the mother, it actually has no ability to live without her consent. The question then becomes whether the state has a right to control the woman's body for the benefit of a non viable fetus. Can it force her to become a mother against her will?

The Supreme Court held, and I agree, that this issue is for the woman herself to decide and that the state should not interfere. When, however, the fetus becomes viable, the woman's consent is no longer necessary to carry the fetus to full term Her actions to terminate the pregnancy can be thought of as murder.