VA senate pushes through ultrasound/personhood bill (abortion related, slightly rapey)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

Seekster:
Where in the heck do you get the idea that MY arguments are the ones being demolished? I've yet to see a single argument in favor of abortion that can stand on its own merits.

Respectfully, you don't have an argument. Neither do your opponents.

You have the opinion that the fetus has a right to life which is more important that the mother's right to choose (if any), your opponents have the opinion that the mother's right to choose is more important than the fetus' right to life (if any).

As such, any oppsoing argument or reasoning based on that is totally unsound, based on "obviously" flawed premises.

Short of drawing knives and hacking each other to bits, there's no way for either side to win this, as they both don't see anything of substance opposing them.

Seekster:

cobra_ky:

Seekster:

Logic does not dictate that life has any value at all so it is good that logic is not the key determining method in this conversation. Logic is good but unless balanced by reason and morality logic can lead to some very dangerous things (for example its illogical to take care of the old or permanently disabled as they cannot contribute enough to society to justify the cost of caring for them. Obviously we take care of them anyway).

I am not sure if my belief that human life is worth more than the life of other creatures is based on religious beliefs or species bias (I am a human so obviously I am going to be biased in favor of humans) but look at it this way. If an animal attacks and kills a human being then that animal is automatically hunted down and killed. Humans can be executed for murdering other humans, but since both the killer and the victim or human more care is taken with punishing the killer and their life may actually be spared.

Of course there are degrees of sacredness, how can there not be? Is not the right to life more sacred than the right to say own a firearm or even to vote?

do you accept that people may judge these "degrees of sacredness" differently? that the 'life' of a human embryo may not be as sacred as that of a newborn infant? that it may not be as sacred as a woman's right to make medical decisions about her own body?

Well yes everyone has different variations of generally accepted morality but surely even pro-choice people can see some importance in the life of a fetus or unborn baby. My counter to the "woman's body" argument is that 1. Its not JUST her body we are talking about in most cases. 2. Since we do not know conclusively when life begins it is best to err on the side of caution. One can make amends if there is a violation of privacy but you cannot bring the dead back to life. If we make a mistake it is better to make one we know we can make amends for than one that cannot be reversed.

what makes the life of a fertilized zygote any more important than the individual sperm and egg that comprised it? It doesn't have a nervous system yet so it certainly doesn't have any more capacity to feel pain. For the first few weeks, there really isn't much to distinguish it from any other clump of cells in the body other than it has a unique combination of DNA.

Now who knows, maybe the christian conservatives are right and God crams a soul into every fertilized egg at conception, and that magically makes them "alive" and deserving of rights. But we don't know that. We do know the pregnant woman has rights and feelings pertaining to what's happening in her body, and i believe those take precedence over the hypothetical rights of an embryo.

On the other hand, once a fetus is viable outside the womb, i only support abortion in extreme circumstances. Currently that point occurs at around 24 weeks, and what little research i've done has turned up little evidence of significant cognitive development prior to that time. As 98.4% of all abortions are performed prior to the 20th week, i have absolute no ethical misgivings about the vast majority of abortions performed in the U.S. (Nor do i oppose abortions at any point to save the life of the mother. i believe someone earlier in this thread posted the Jewish tradition regarding the value of a fetus, while the periods of time mentioned are only rough guidelines, my stance on abortion draws heavily from that.)

Seekster:
No hang on we havnt cleared that up.

"Under moral absolutism, if an action is considered wrong or immoral then it is NEVER justifiable."

On what basis do you say this? Remember I never said "morally justifiable".

What do you mean on what basis? That's the definition of moral absolutism. An action which is wrong is never, under any circumstances, justifiable, be it morally or otherwise. Now that we cleared that up, answer my question.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
No hang on we havnt cleared that up.

"Under moral absolutism, if an action is considered wrong or immoral then it is NEVER justifiable."

On what basis do you say this? Remember I never said "morally justifiable".

What do you mean on what basis? That's the definition of moral absolutism. An action which is wrong is never, under any circumstances, justifiable, be it morally or otherwise. Now that we cleared that up, answer my question.

Ill answer it once we get this cleared up.

I looked it up and I couldnt find any definition that said something can't be justifiable though I will give you that moral absolutism holds something is immoral no matter the circumstances.

thaluikhain:

Seekster:
Where in the heck do you get the idea that MY arguments are the ones being demolished? I've yet to see a single argument in favor of abortion that can stand on its own merits.

Respectfully, you don't have an argument. Neither do your opponents.

You have the opinion that the fetus has a right to life which is more important that the mother's right to choose (if any), your opponents have the opinion that the mother's right to choose is more important than the fetus' right to life (if any).

As such, any oppsoing argument or reasoning based on that is totally unsound, based on "obviously" flawed premises.

Short of drawing knives and hacking each other to bits, there's no way for either side to win this, as they both don't see anything of substance opposing them.

I think you will find that I do, proof, we are arguing.

cobra_ky:

Seekster:

cobra_ky:

do you accept that people may judge these "degrees of sacredness" differently? that the 'life' of a human embryo may not be as sacred as that of a newborn infant? that it may not be as sacred as a woman's right to make medical decisions about her own body?

Well yes everyone has different variations of generally accepted morality but surely even pro-choice people can see some importance in the life of a fetus or unborn baby. My counter to the "woman's body" argument is that 1. Its not JUST her body we are talking about in most cases. 2. Since we do not know conclusively when life begins it is best to err on the side of caution. One can make amends if there is a violation of privacy but you cannot bring the dead back to life. If we make a mistake it is better to make one we know we can make amends for than one that cannot be reversed.

what makes the life of a fertilized zygote any more important than the individual sperm and egg that comprised it? It doesn't have a nervous system yet so it certainly doesn't have any more capacity to feel pain. For the first few weeks, there really isn't much to distinguish it from any other clump of cells in the body other than it has a unique combination of DNA.

Now who knows, maybe the christian conservatives are right and God crams a soul into every fertilized egg at conception, and that magically makes them "alive" and deserving of rights. But we don't know that. We do know the pregnant woman has rights and feelings pertaining to what's happening in her body, and i believe those take precedence over the hypothetical rights of an embryo.

On the other hand, once a fetus is viable outside the womb, i only support abortion in extreme circumstances. Currently that point occurs at around 24 weeks, and what little research i've done has turned up little evidence of significant cognitive development prior to that time. As 98.4% of all abortions are performed prior to the 20th week, i have absolute no ethical misgivings about the vast majority of abortions performed in the U.S. (Nor do i oppose abortions at any point to save the life of the mother. i believe someone earlier in this thread posted the Jewish tradition regarding the value of a fetus, while the periods of time mentioned are only rough guidelines, my stance on abortion draws heavily from that.)

Since we don't know if a fertilized egg or a fetus is alive or not it only makes since to err on the side of caution. A violation of privacy can be corrected and restitution made, a violation of life cannot be corrected.

Olrod:

Seekster:

Look in the solar system, how many worlds other than Earth support life (possibly a handful but as far as we know right now none)? How many support intelligent life (hopefully just Earth)? Now expand both questions to the galaxy or even the universe. Even IF life is as prevalent in the Universe as the most optimistic estimates predict, its still the exception and not the rule and so life should be treated with at least some degree of reverence, not savagely violated and then tossed in the garbage.

You mean like what nature has been doing for millions upon millions of years?

Seekster:

Nobody has refuted my points (trying is nice but nobody has succeeded).

You've yet to make a single point that is valid to begin with. Trying is nice but you've not succeeded.

On this planet sure.

Valid does not equal you agree with it. There are several points people on this site make that I don't agree with but due to intellectual honesty I have to acknowledge they still have a valid point.

Seanchaidh:

Seekster:

PercyBoleyn:

Let me make it very clear. Under moral absolutism, if an action is considered wrong or immoral then it is NEVER justifiable. If a guy came into your house, fucked your wife, killed your dog, ate your dinner, pissed on your lawn and set fire to your house, if you subscribe to the idea that all life is sacred which is based on moral absolutism, killing that person is not, under any circumstances, justifiable.

Now that we've cleared that up you'll hopefully answer my question. I'll quote it in case you're lazy:
"Since you believe that taking a life can be morally justifiable which directly contradicts this philosophy, a more appropiate wording would be "only intelligent life is sacred" since that would make more sense when taking into account your beliefs, mainly that human life is more important than animal life. Do you agree?"

No hang on we havnt cleared that up.

"Under moral absolutism, if an action is considered wrong or immoral then it is NEVER justifiable."

On what basis do you say this? Remember I never said "morally justifiable".

It is an odd idea of morality that allows that sometimes a good thing to do-- something that ought be (or have been) done-- can be immoral. If it's immoral, you shouldn't do it. No?

Your right, you shouldnt do it but it can be socially justifiable. I again point to the killing of Bin Laden. For all intents and purposes we broke into that man's house in the middle of the night and shot him in the head and then dumped his body off a ship. I would say we were completely justified in that though technically its still immoral.

Seekster:

Since we don't know if a fertilized egg or a fetus is alive or not it only makes since to err on the side of caution. A violation of privacy can be corrected and restitution made, a violation of life cannot be corrected.

See this is why people are saying you don't have an argument. Your entire argument is based on 'we don't know' when the FACT is we do know. We know exactly what period of development a fetus begins to develop the basic neural connections required to even consider it to be 'alive'. Just because you say we don't know does not make it so.

This is the problem with the entire conservative population of America. You ignore evidence. Conservatives typically don't believe in climate change, despite overwhelming evidence, they typically don't believe in evolution despite overwhelming evidence and they typically believe that a 6 week old fetus is a person, despite overwhelming evidence. There is a pattern here.

pyrate:

Seekster:

Since we don't know if a fertilized egg or a fetus is alive or not it only makes since to err on the side of caution. A violation of privacy can be corrected and restitution made, a violation of life cannot be corrected.

See this is why people are saying you don't have an argument. Your entire argument is based on 'we don't know' when the FACT is we do know. We know exactly what period of development a fetus begins to develop the basic neural connections required to even consider it to be 'alive'. Just because you say we don't know does not make it so.

This is the problem with the entire conservative population of America. You ignore evidence. Conservatives typically don't believe in climate change, despite overwhelming evidence, they typically don't believe in evolution despite overwhelming evidence and they typically believe that a 6 week old fetus is a person, despite overwhelming evidence. There is a pattern here.

Ok then if you know tell me. At what point exactly does a fetus go from being not alive to being alive. Which week?

I wont even dignify the irony in the second bit, it will get us too far off topic.

Seekster:

pyrate:

Seekster:

Since we don't know if a fertilized egg or a fetus is alive or not it only makes since to err on the side of caution. A violation of privacy can be corrected and restitution made, a violation of life cannot be corrected.

See this is why people are saying you don't have an argument. Your entire argument is based on 'we don't know' when the FACT is we do know. We know exactly what period of development a fetus begins to develop the basic neural connections required to even consider it to be 'alive'. Just because you say we don't know does not make it so.

This is the problem with the entire conservative population of America. You ignore evidence. Conservatives typically don't believe in climate change, despite overwhelming evidence, they typically don't believe in evolution despite overwhelming evidence and they typically believe that a 6 week old fetus is a person, despite overwhelming evidence. There is a pattern here.

Ok then if you know tell me. At what point exactly does a fetus go from being not alive to being alive. Which week?

I wont even dignify the irony in the second bit, it will get us too far off topic.

There is no single point. This is a problem conservatives have with evolution as well, they dismiss it because for some reason they think evolution involves one animal turning into another in one step, that is not how it works.

Just like evolution the process of becoming 'alive' happens over time. There is a reason most countries do not allow 3rd trimester abortions unless it is medically necessary though, the reason is the 3rd trimester is when the steps really begin. Prior to the neural development the fetus is no different from any other growth. It is the 3rd trimester when the development of neural connections really kick in (they are not completed until about 2 years old) so this is where we draw the line. The line can be blurry though because there is no exact starting moment, in some it might start at 24 weeks in others 21 weeks and so on. This is the reason some countries have limits such as 12-20 weeks.

On a personal note, I think 18 weeks should be the latest for abortion, with a preference for within 16 weeks if possible. I think anything 20+ weeks is cutting the line to close for comfort.

Seekster:
Ok then if you know tell me. At what point exactly does a fetus go from being not alive to being alive. Which week?

Around 24 weeks it becomes possible for a fetus to survive outside the mother without a huge medical operation being involved. And that sounds about right for setting a limit.

Possible doesn't make a guarantee though. Exceptions still need to be made for life-threatening situations, as no country has something like a death penalty for being pregnant in their criminal law books.

thaluikhain:

It certainly should. Whether or not it does is quite another matter, though I'm jealous of your optimism there.

You're right that i'm optimistic but given the US laws regarding rape I say the federal courts have no choice but to overturn this.

(2) the term "sexual act" means -
(A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, and for purposes of
this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight;
(B) contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the mouth and
the anus;
(C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening of another by a hand or
finger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

Section 2241. Aggravated sexual abuse (1/5/99)
(a) By Force or Threat. - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the
United States or in a Federal prison, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act -
(1) by using force against that other person; or
(2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to
death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; or attempts to do so.

link

While this document dates from 1999 I would put money on the definitions of both of these things still being the same. While there was no mention of punishment in the articles in the OP (that i can remember seeing) there is bound to be some threat of punishment for women who refuse the procedure which i would say fall under point (2) in the second quote.

Add to that the fact that consent is sacrosanct in the western world, and there is no real alternative course of action.

Consent, particularly informed consent, is the cornerstone of patients' rights. Consent is based on the inviolability of one's person. It means that doctors do not have the right to touch or treat a patient without that patient's approval because the patient is the one who must live with the consequences and deal with any dis-comfort caused by treatment. A doctor can be held liable for committing a Battery if the doctor touches the patient without first obtaining the patient's consent.

link

It is a case of the Federal courts overturning this or spending the next decade dealing with court cases of women suing the state senate.

Seekster:

Ill answer it once we get this cleared up.

I looked it up and I couldnt find any definition that said something can't be justifiable though I will give you that moral absolutism holds something is immoral no matter the circumstances.

Moral absolutism is an ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. It's an absolute Seek. An action considered wrong can never be justified. If you could justify it then it wouldn't be an absolute anymore.

Blablahb:

Seekster:
Ok then if you know tell me. At what point exactly does a fetus go from being not alive to being alive. Which week?

Around 24 weeks it becomes possible for a fetus to survive outside the mother without a huge medical operation being involved. And that sounds about right for setting a limit.

Possible doesn't make a guarantee though. Exceptions still need to be made for life-threatening situations, as no country has something like a death penalty for being pregnant in their criminal law books.

So the implication is that prior to 24 weeks survival is impossible?

Well of course it is, after all the experts say it is so:

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/18/science/survival-of-the-fetus-a-barrier-is-reached.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

"ALTHOUGH doctors have made great progress in helping severely premature infants survive, they have been unable to overcome a seemingly impenetrable barrier: if a baby is born before 23 or 24 weeks of pregnancy, experts say, it simply cannot survive. And nothing that medical science can do will budge that boundary in the foreseeable future."

That was 1989...of course in 1989, just as today, we know what is possible and impossible that is why the next story must be a mistake, a baby surviving birth at 21 weeks is of course impossible right?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-02-20-tiny-baby_x.htm

image

Yes according to you the "thing" in the photo above is not alive and is most certainly not human.

One should never be so quick to claim something is impossible because if it happens even once it means you are wrong. If it happens once then it can happen again.

pyrate:

Seekster:

pyrate:

See this is why people are saying you don't have an argument. Your entire argument is based on 'we don't know' when the FACT is we do know. We know exactly what period of development a fetus begins to develop the basic neural connections required to even consider it to be 'alive'. Just because you say we don't know does not make it so.

This is the problem with the entire conservative population of America. You ignore evidence. Conservatives typically don't believe in climate change, despite overwhelming evidence, they typically don't believe in evolution despite overwhelming evidence and they typically believe that a 6 week old fetus is a person, despite overwhelming evidence. There is a pattern here.

Ok then if you know tell me. At what point exactly does a fetus go from being not alive to being alive. Which week?

I wont even dignify the irony in the second bit, it will get us too far off topic.

There is no single point. This is a problem conservatives have with evolution as well, they dismiss it because for some reason they think evolution involves one animal turning into another in one step, that is not how it works.

Just like evolution the process of becoming 'alive' happens over time. There is a reason most countries do not allow 3rd trimester abortions unless it is medically necessary though, the reason is the 3rd trimester is when the steps really begin. Prior to the neural development the fetus is no different from any other growth. It is the 3rd trimester when the development of neural connections really kick in (they are not completed until about 2 years old) so this is where we draw the line. The line can be blurry though because there is no exact starting moment, in some it might start at 24 weeks in others 21 weeks and so on. This is the reason some countries have limits such as 12-20 weeks.

On a personal note, I think 18 weeks should be the latest for abortion, with a preference for within 16 weeks if possible. I think anything 20+ weeks is cutting the line to close for comfort.

Don't dodge the question, you said we "know" for a fact when life begins. Blab said its about 24 weeks. Unlike Blab you knew ahead of time what story I had waiting in the wings or at least you suspected.

I will of course accept any limit or restrictions on when an abortion can be performed because in the end it brings us closer to a day when abortion will either be banned in nearly all cases (yes you can soundly argue for an exception to be made in a few drastic cases) or rendered obsolete and falls almost completely out of practice due to the availability of less immoral methods such as contraceptives.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:

Ill answer it once we get this cleared up.

I looked it up and I couldnt find any definition that said something can't be justifiable though I will give you that moral absolutism holds something is immoral no matter the circumstances.

Moral absolutism is an ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. It's an absolute Seek. An action considered wrong can never be justified. If you could justify it then it wouldn't be an absolute anymore.

Nothing in your definition mentions justification. You simply tried to attach that to the implications in a way that doesnt really work.

Remember I said that just because something can be justified doesnt make it moral. A man who is starving can justify stealing food from a market. A father can justify killing someone who raped his daughter. A mother can justify aborting a baby that was the result of a rape. All of these things are immoral yet all of them can be justified by the individual committing the act. Now do you see what I mean? Society for example can justify killing Bin Laden but that doesnt make it moral (and for the record I don't think American society is overly concerned with the morality question in that particular case).

Seekster:
So the implication is that prior to 24 weeks survival is impossible?

Indeed it is not.

You're purposely ignoring the point I was trying to make by bringing in the maximum term possible to possibly save a fetus using a huge amount of medical intervention. My criterium, like I said, was more or less independant survival being possible. This is the sole good criterium to judge if something is a separate organism or not.

Your attempt to blur the lines with senseless appeal to emotion is rather laughable, especially considering your own views.

Seekster:
*Hands Stagnant some coffee*

Must have been some dream, how does that smell?

I got laid last night; I'm in too good of a mood for this. ^_^ I'll come back to this when I'm slightly less happy.

Seekster:
snip

Moral absolutism is an ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them.

It's in the definition. If an action is wrong regardless of context then, according to moral absolutism, it can never be justified. If you can justify an absolute immoral action then that action ceases being an absolute because justification proves that under cetain circumstances, the action ceases being immoral. If you believe that all life is sacred, a moral absolute, but believe that murder can be justified then you are contradicting your belief that all life is sacred. If all life is sacred then murder is never justified.

Blablahb:

Seekster:
So the implication is that prior to 24 weeks survival is impossible?

Indeed it is not.

You're purposely ignoring the point I was trying to make by bringing in the maximum term possible to possibly save a fetus using a huge amount of medical intervention. My criterium, like I said, was more or less independant survival being possible. This is the sole good criterium to judge if something is a separate organism or not.

Your attempt to blur the lines with senseless appeal to emotion is rather laughable, especially considering your own views.

So your test is to see if a baby can survive the birth with no medical intervention what so ever? Does that include having a doctor on hand when the baby is born?

Seekster:

Seanchaidh:

Seekster:

No hang on we havnt cleared that up.

"Under moral absolutism, if an action is considered wrong or immoral then it is NEVER justifiable."

On what basis do you say this? Remember I never said "morally justifiable".

It is an odd idea of morality that allows that sometimes a good thing to do-- something that ought be (or have been) done-- can be immoral. If it's immoral, you shouldn't do it. No?

Your right, you shouldnt do it but it can be socially justifiable. I again point to the killing of Bin Laden. For all intents and purposes we broke into that man's house in the middle of the night and shot him in the head and then dumped his body off a ship. I would say we were completely justified in that though technically its still immoral.

So we should have killed Osama Bin Laden and we should not have killed Osama Bin Laden.

A & ~A

Law of non-contradiction; yet another reductio.

Seanchaidh:

Seekster:

Seanchaidh:

It is an odd idea of morality that allows that sometimes a good thing to do-- something that ought be (or have been) done-- can be immoral. If it's immoral, you shouldn't do it. No?

Your right, you shouldnt do it but it can be socially justifiable. I again point to the killing of Bin Laden. For all intents and purposes we broke into that man's house in the middle of the night and shot him in the head and then dumped his body off a ship. I would say we were completely justified in that though technically its still immoral.

So we should have killed Osama Bin Laden and we should not have killed Osama Bin Laden.

A & ~A

Law of non-contradiction; yet another reductio.

If all life is sacred then killing Bin Laden was immoral because killing anyone was immoral though killing Bin Laden was considered justified by the people of the United States (and hopefully by most people by-and-large).

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
snip

Moral absolutism is an ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them.

It's in the definition. If an action is wrong regardless of context then, according to moral absolutism, it can never be justified. If you can justify an absolute immoral action then that action ceases being an absolute because justification proves that under cetain circumstances, the action ceases being immoral. If you believe that all life is sacred, a moral absolute, but believe that murder can be justified then you are contradicting your belief that all life is sacred. If all life is sacred then murder is never justified.

This is what I find strange, I am trying to explain my viewpoint to you because you don't understand it so why then are you trying to explain my viewpoint to me?

Murder is never morally justified no but i never said it was morally justified, just that it can be justified. The inference being that sometimes society or individuals can justify doing things that are immoral, often times they really shouldnt but that is the world we live in.

Seekster:

Seanchaidh:

Seekster:

Your right, you shouldnt do it but it can be socially justifiable. I again point to the killing of Bin Laden. For all intents and purposes we broke into that man's house in the middle of the night and shot him in the head and then dumped his body off a ship. I would say we were completely justified in that though technically its still immoral.

So we should have killed Osama Bin Laden and we should not have killed Osama Bin Laden.

A & ~A

Law of non-contradiction; yet another reductio.

If all life is sacred then killing Bin Laden was immoral because killing anyone was immoral though killing Bin Laden was considered justified by the people of the United States (and hopefully by most people by-and-large).

So either people should not consider the killing of Osama Bin Laden justified or life isn't actually sacred. If something ought to be done, it isn't immoral. Things which are immoral are only those which ought not be done.

Seanchaidh:

Seekster:

Seanchaidh:

So we should have killed Osama Bin Laden and we should not have killed Osama Bin Laden.

A & ~A

Law of non-contradiction; yet another reductio.

If all life is sacred then killing Bin Laden was immoral because killing anyone was immoral though killing Bin Laden was considered justified by the people of the United States (and hopefully by most people by-and-large).

So either people should not consider the killing of Osama Bin Laden justified or life isn't actually sacred. If something ought to be done, it isn't immoral. Things which are immoral are only those which ought not be done.

We ought not to have killed Bin Laden and in a perfect world we wouldnt feel the urge to because in a perfect world he never would have done the things he did. This is an example of why human morality is flawed, because it has to deny something like "life is sacred" in order to justify it.

By the way I am part of society and have been corrupted too, because I don't see anything wrong with killing someone if its Bin Laden for example.

Seekster, please define:
"Justified"
"Moral"
Because I think you're making a distinction where there is none.

Karma168:

You're right that i'm optimistic but given the US laws regarding rape I say the federal courts have no choice but to overturn this..

You missed a key part of the definition in your analysis:

"with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person"

So, unless the abortion doctor is intending to "abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire" then there is no crime. This already is one valid way to do the medical procedure, and is used by OBs to check on the health of fetuses when they can't get what they want from an external unit.

I don't agree with this law, but I find it silly to try and call it sexual assault.

Seekster:
Since we don't know if a fertilized egg or a fetus is alive or not it only makes since to err on the side of caution. A violation of privacy can be corrected and restitution made, a violation of life cannot be corrected.

You're just repeating yourself now. How can we be any more certain that a sperm cell isn't alive? What does the word "alive" even mean?

Seekster:

Blablahb:

Seekster:
So the implication is that prior to 24 weeks survival is impossible?

Indeed it is not.

You're purposely ignoring the point I was trying to make by bringing in the maximum term possible to possibly save a fetus using a huge amount of medical intervention. My criterium, like I said, was more or less independant survival being possible. This is the sole good criterium to judge if something is a separate organism or not.

Your attempt to blur the lines with senseless appeal to emotion is rather laughable, especially considering your own views.

So your test is to see if a baby can survive the birth with no medical intervention what so ever? Does that include having a doctor on hand when the baby is born?

That's not what he said at all. Of course there isn't a hard and fast boundary where a fetus becomes viable. There is a point, however, before which the odds of survival plummet rapidly, and at 24 weeks a fetus has around a 50% chance of survival. The story you linked is the first known case of an infant surviving after less than 23 weeks.

But let's stop talking about barely viable fetuses for the time being, hmmm? let's talk about why this thing supposedly has human rights:

image

Kendarik:

Karma168:

You're right that i'm optimistic but given the US laws regarding rape I say the federal courts have no choice but to overturn this..

You missed a key part of the definition in your analysis:

"with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person"

So, unless the abortion doctor is intending to "abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire" then there is no crime. This already is one valid way to do the medical procedure, and is used by OBs to check on the health of fetuses when they can't get what they want from an external unit.

I don't agree with this law, but I find it silly to try and call it sexual assault.

the entire purpose of the law is to harass and humiliate women seeking an abortion.

cobra_ky:

Kendarik:

Karma168:

You're right that i'm optimistic but given the US laws regarding rape I say the federal courts have no choice but to overturn this..

You missed a key part of the definition in your analysis:

"with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person"

So, unless the abortion doctor is intending to "abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire" then there is no crime. This already is one valid way to do the medical procedure, and is used by OBs to check on the health of fetuses when they can't get what they want from an external unit.

I don't agree with this law, but I find it silly to try and call it sexual assault.

the entire purpose of the law is to harass and humiliate women seeking an abortion.

That's an opinion, but not a fact of law.

While I personally see it as abusive, I could walk into court and argue with a straight face that the intent is to ensure the patient has sufficient information to give informed consent.

mdk31:
Isn't non-consensual penetration considered rape? Good to know the GOP are proponents of rape.

Strictly speaking, this would be consentual. The woman would have knowledge, or the access to the knowledge, that they would recieve a trans-vaginal ultrasound as part of their abortion and by accepting the abortion they consent to any procedure that coincides. From a legal point of view, this is par for the course.

I'm actually more okay with this than I thought I would be soley because of the alternative, which is an outright ban on abortion. In a state with a Republican supermajority this would be an incredibly easy process, but the fact that the bill they've passed so far is only biased is nice. To play devil's advocate a bit, they're only trying to help people make informed choices, even if they think "informed" is "exactly what we want you to do". That being said, I still don't like this law and think it's quite terrible that proponants of less government intervention in people's lives are so directly imposing themselves on people.

Seekster:
This is what I find strange, I am trying to explain my viewpoint to you because you don't understand it so why then are you trying to explain my viewpoint to me?

I'm not trying to explain your viewpoints to you, I'm pointing out the very obvious contradictions between your beliefs.

Seekster:
Murder is never morally justified no but i never said it was morally justified, just that it can be justified. The inference being that sometimes society or individuals can justify doing things that are immoral, often times they really shouldnt but that is the world we live in.

Moral absolutism does not allow for that. If murder is always wrong then it can never be justified, be it morally or otherwise. If you can justify an absolute action, morally or otherwise, then that means the action in question was never an absolute to begin with.

Kendarik:

cobra_ky:

Kendarik:

You missed a key part of the definition in your analysis:

"with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person"

So, unless the abortion doctor is intending to "abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire" then there is no crime. This already is one valid way to do the medical procedure, and is used by OBs to check on the health of fetuses when they can't get what they want from an external unit.

I don't agree with this law, but I find it silly to try and call it sexual assault.

the entire purpose of the law is to harass and humiliate women seeking an abortion.

That's an opinion, but not a fact of law.

While I personally see it as abusive, I could walk into court and argue with a straight face that the intent is to ensure the patient has sufficient information to give informed consent.

and then you'd have to explain why you voted down an amendment that required the consent of the patient prior to the procedure, and would have allowed a medical professional to determine whether a transvaginal ultrasound was actually necessary.

Stagnant:
Seekster, please define:
"Justified"
"Moral"
Because I think you're making a distinction where there is none.

I assume you mean in my own words since you are asking me to define them.

Moral I wont define because its one of those words like freedom that you cant really define comprehensively.

Justified though in a general sense means an individual or group can come up with some reasoning to do something. It can be anything from justifying calling in sick to work when you arent to something with much more sound reasoning like justifying not buying a car you can't afford and buying a somewhat older model instead.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked