Late Term Abortions (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

Well, CBA, no wishing required on my part. I will present the facts as I understand them. Please tell me what I am missing.

In humans, the reproductive cycle of the species shows that a haploid cell from each parent, is fused into one diploid cell (now called a zygote). Before this zygote is created the gametes are merely 'potential humans'...they gotta combine or else they proceed through their own, natural life cycle and die as gametes. The zygote, however, is now a complete human organism, distinguishable from all other humans (yes, through the unique genetic material it possesses).

Hence, without any judgement required, the human zygote is the earliest possible existance of any complete human there can be. That is a fact. I don't have to wish about it, it just is. You might wish it otherwise, but that doesn't make it so.

I bolded the parts that are not facts. They are labels.Fact: Pluto's mass is just over 1/6 that of the earth's moon.

Possible Label: Pluto is a planet.

Alternative label: Pluto is not a planet.

Fact: A zygote has all the genetic material it will ever need to become a carpenter.

Possible Label: A zygote is therefore a complete person.

Alternative label: A zygote still isn't a complete person since it doesn't have a brain.

Fact: A zygote is the youngest human form that has all the genetic material it will ever need to become a carpenter.

Possible Label: A zygote is the youngest possible form of complete human.

Alternative Label #1: An ovum is the youngest possible form of complete human, since it is the youngest human form that can maintain its own physical continuity (while absorbing various chemicals from its environment) on its way to becoming a carpenter.

Alternative Label #2: A fetus 24 weeks after conception is the youngest possible form of complete human, since that's when its brain becomes functional.

"Complete" isn't a factual observation. It's a judgment call. If I think parts A, B, C, and D are required for something to be "complete," while you think only parts A and B are needed and timscochet thinks parts A through L are needed, there's no way to resolve our difference by appealing to mere facts. It's not a matter of fact; it's a matter of labeling; which is a matter of judgment.

 

[timschochet]

Care to answer the question?

I'll answer it. You're not gonna like it though.Yes, there would be murder charges, or the equivalent, because in that instance, the mother has decided to carry the baby to term. If you terminate the pregnancy by punching her in the stomach, then YOU, not her, have made the decision as to what will become of that baby. This is in fact the same principle as you attempting to prevent her from having an abortion if she so desires it. In both instances you are preventing her from deciding what will become of her fetus. So there is no "trap" to your question. We can regard a fetus as a live human being with rights under the law IF the mother chooses to do so. If the mother does not choose to do so, then we cannot. Because it's the mother's body we're discussing, only she has control over it.

 

[Christo]

Care to answer the question?

I'll answer it. You're not gonna like it though.Yes, there would be murder charges, or the equivalent, because in that instance, the mother has decided to carry the baby to term. If you terminate the pregnancy by punching her in the stomach, then YOU, not her, have made the decision as to what will become of that baby. This is in fact the same principle as you attempting to prevent her from having an abortion if she so desires it. In both instances you are preventing her from deciding what will become of her fetus. So there is no "trap" to your question. We can regard a fetus as a live human being with rights under the law IF the mother chooses to do so. If the mother does not choose to do so, then we cannot. Because it's the mother's body we're discussing, only she has control over it.

Well hello, Mr. Hypocrite.

 

[timschochet]

Care to answer the question?

I'll answer it. You're not gonna like it though.Yes, there would be murder charges, or the equivalent, because in that instance, the mother has decided to carry the baby to term. If you terminate the pregnancy by punching her in the stomach, then YOU, not her, have made the decision as to what will become of that baby. This is in fact the same principle as you attempting to prevent her from having an abortion if she so desires it. In both instances you are preventing her from deciding what will become of her fetus. So there is no "trap" to your question. We can regard a fetus as a live human being with rights under the law IF the mother chooses to do so. If the mother does not choose to do so, then we cannot. Because it's the mother's body we're discussing, only she has control over it.

Well hello, Mr. Hypocrite.

I said you wouldn't like it...And no there's no hypocrisy involved, no matter what you might think there is. Not for me, anyhow. There might be for someone who argued that a fetus is not a viable human being. But remember, my whole point is I am NOT arguing that. For me, the viability is irrelevant.

 

[The Commish]

Yes, although if you look through this thread, you will find I support a person's rights to their body in such situations where another person is partly inside their body as well. I won't get into details here- you can look it up.

So one of two conjoined twins wants to kill him/herself, but the other doesn't. Since this is a black/white issue for you, who gets their way and why? The reality is....none of this is black and white to those willing to challenge themselves by looking at all sides of the issue.

Your core convictions should always be black and white. It is the application of those convictions that should force you to look at all sides of any given issue. I knew somebody would eventually bring up the conjoined twins. The answer is, if one wishes to kill himself, he should have the right to do so. I would hope he does not, but I do not recognize the moral authority of the state to step in and prevent such an action.

So he/she can kill themselves and too bad for the sibling, they have to die too??

 

[The Commish]

Care to answer the question?

I'll answer it. You're not gonna like it though.Yes, there would be murder charges, or the equivalent, because in that instance, the mother has decided to carry the baby to term. If you terminate the pregnancy by punching her in the stomach, then YOU, not her, have made the decision as to what will become of that baby. This is in fact the same principle as you attempting to prevent her from having an abortion if she so desires it. In both instances you are preventing her from deciding what will become of her fetus. So there is no "trap" to your question. We can regard a fetus as a live human being with rights under the law IF the mother chooses to do so. If the mother does not choose to do so, then we cannot. Because it's the mother's body we're discussing, only she has control over it.

What if she hired someone to punch her in the stomach and was ok with getting punched in the stomach?

 

[Christo]

Care to answer the question?

I'll answer it. You're not gonna like it though.Yes, there would be murder charges, or the equivalent, because in that instance, the mother has decided to carry the baby to term. If you terminate the pregnancy by punching her in the stomach, then YOU, not her, have made the decision as to what will become of that baby. This is in fact the same principle as you attempting to prevent her from having an abortion if she so desires it. In both instances you are preventing her from deciding what will become of her fetus. So there is no "trap" to your question. We can regard a fetus as a live human being with rights under the law IF the mother chooses to do so. If the mother does not choose to do so, then we cannot. Because it's the mother's body we're discussing, only she has control over it.

Well hello, Mr. Hypocrite.

I said you wouldn't like it...And no there's no hypocrisy involved, no matter what you might think there is. Not for me, anyhow. There might be for someone who argued that a fetus is not a viable human being. But remember, my whole point is I am NOT arguing that. For me, the viability is irrelevant.

Of course it's hypocritical. You've already stated that your position on late-term abortions is based upon your opinion that a fetus "cannot be granted rights by the state." If the state cannot grant the fetus rights, then there is nothing for the state to protect. Until it's born, a fetus is no different than a woman's big toe.I also find your position funny given the fact that you think a woman has the right to choose up until the time of birth. Under your scenario, a woman could be contemplating an abortion when she's attacked. Lose the baby. And the decision on whether murder charges can be filed would depend on how she answered the question on whether she intended to keep the baby. Pure nonsense.

 

[vnel8tn]

The zygote, however, is now a complete human organism, distinguishable from all other humans (yes, through the unique genetic material it possesses).

the human zygote is the earliest possible existance of any complete human there can be.

I bolded the parts that are not facts. They are labels.

FIXED

Fact: A zygote has all the genetic material it will ever need to become a carpenter.

Possible Label: A zygote is therefore a complete person.

Alternative label: A zygote still isn't a complete person since it doesn't have a brain.

Sorry, Maurile, but according to Wiki, you are wrong (I know, I know...Wiki=Weak)From Wiki:

A zygote (from Greek ζυγωτός zygōtos "joined" or "yoked", from ζυγοῦν zygoun "to join" or "to yoke"),[1] or zygocyte, is the initial cell formed when a new organism is produced by means of sexual reproduction. A zygote is synthesized from the union of two gametes, and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism's development.

Fact: A zygote is the youngest human form that has all the genetic material it will ever need to become a carpenter.

Possible LabelFACT: A zygote is the youngest possible form of complete human.

Alternative Label MISDIRECTION ATTEMPT#1: An ovum is the youngest possible form of complete human, since it is the youngest human form that can maintain its own physical continuity (while absorbing various chemicals from its environment) on its way to becoming a carpenter. Sorry, this fails the test of "complete" since it is not even a diploid cell, for it has not absorbed any of the 'various chemicals'.

Alternative Label MISDIRECTION ATTEMPT#2: A fetus 24 weeks after conception is the youngest possible form of complete human, since that's when its brain becomes functional.

FIXEDAre you stipulating that the brain doesn't function until after viability? So those 23-week gestation babies who have been born and are living, are not human?

C'mon...really???

 

[Christo]

Care to answer the question?

You should be judged by your local governance.You dont get to make the choices for that woman. Thats her body, thats her placenta thats her embryo thats her uterus; thats only for her to decide.

Care to answer the question?

 

[timschochet]

Of course it's hypocritical. You've already stated that your position on late-term abortions is based upon your opinion that a fetus "cannot be granted rights by the state." If the state cannot grant the fetus rights, then there is nothing for the state to protect. Until it's born, a fetus is no different than a woman's big toe.

I also find your position funny given the fact that you think a woman has the right to choose up until the time of birth. Under your scenario, a woman could be contemplating an abortion when she's attacked. Lose the baby. And the decision on whether murder charges can be filed would depend on how she answered the question on whether she intended to keep the baby. Pure nonsense.

Not nonsense at all. The status of the fetus is up to the woman. I have been consistent throughout.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Are you stipulating that the brain doesn't function until after viability? So those 23-week gestation babies who have been born and are living, are not human?

I'm saying that the brain doesn't function until it emits brainwaves -- i.e., until its neurons fire -- i.e., until its reading on an EEG is something other than a flatline.

 

[Orange Crush]

Ok, and just to verify how committed you are to that position, you thus have no problem with the morning after pill or any other forms of contraceptives designed to prevent a fertilized egg from successful implantation. Correct?

If that's the extent of it, sure.

Ok. Now for the sake of vnel8tn, The Commish, and fsword, who all appear to be saying fertilization is the point in time that matters and not implantation, can you please explain why you think implantation is the key point in time?

 

[The Commish]

Ok, and just to verify how committed you are to that position, you thus have no problem with the morning after pill or any other forms of contraceptives designed to prevent a fertilized egg from successful implantation. Correct?

If that's the extent of it, sure.

Ok. Now for the sake of vnel8tn, The Commish, and fsword, who all appear to be saying fertilization is the point in time that matters and not implantation, can you please explain why you think implantation is the key point in time?

I've never said a such thing. I merely said I can see how one could see fertilization is the "beginning" I can also see how one could see implantation as the point in time as well.

 

[The Commish]

Care to answer the question?

I'll answer it. You're not gonna like it though.Yes, there would be murder charges, or the equivalent, because in that instance, the mother has decided to carry the baby to term. If you terminate the pregnancy by punching her in the stomach, then YOU, not her, have made the decision as to what will become of that baby. This is in fact the same principle as you attempting to prevent her from having an abortion if she so desires it. In both instances you are preventing her from deciding what will become of her fetus. So there is no "trap" to your question. We can regard a fetus as a live human being with rights under the law IF the mother chooses to do so. If the mother does not choose to do so, then we cannot. Because it's the mother's body we're discussing, only she has control over it.

What if she hired someone to punch her in the stomach and was ok with getting punched in the stomach?

Like she went and did three 5-minute rounds in the mma ring? Nothing. Thats her choice. She makes the dicisions for her body.

Did you read Tim's post before responding or did you just read mine and respond? You know, for context and all.....

 

[Orange Crush]

Ok, and just to verify how committed you are to that position, you thus have no problem with the morning after pill or any other forms of contraceptives designed to prevent a fertilized egg from successful implantation. Correct?

If that's the extent of it, sure.

Ok. Now for the sake of vnel8tn, The Commish, and fsword, who all appear to be saying fertilization is the point in time that matters and not implantation, can you please explain why you think implantation is the key point in time?

I've never said a such thing. I merely said I can see how one could see fertilization is the "beginning" I can also see how one could see implantation as the point in time as well.

That's why I said "appear to be". You were a little nebulous on the subject. Care to enlighten us?

 

[Christo]

Of course it's hypocritical. You've already stated that your position on late-term abortions is based upon your opinion that a fetus "cannot be granted rights by the state." If the state cannot grant the fetus rights, then there is nothing for the state to protect. Until it's born, a fetus is no different than a woman's big toe.

I also find your position funny given the fact that you think a woman has the right to choose up until the time of birth. Under your scenario, a woman could be contemplating an abortion when she's attacked. Lose the baby. And the decision on whether murder charges can be filed would depend on how she answered the question on whether she intended to keep the baby. Pure nonsense.

Not nonsense at all. The status of the fetus is up to the woman. I have been consistent throughout.

No, you have not. Your position has been that the baby doesn't have any rights because the rights of the woman are paramount.With your new position, you are not only giving a woman the right to determine her unborn baby's legal status but the legal status of others as well. I am a mugger and I want to steal a woman's purse. I grab it and knock her down not knowing she's pregnant. It causes a scraped knee and a miscarriage. My legal rights should not be determined based upon what the woman says she was going to do with the baby. Especially when the law as you believe it should be would have given her the right to change her mind about whether she wanted to have the baby at a later date.

One individual cannot confer individual rights on another. That has to be done by the state. And since you have taken that ability away from the state when it comes to unborn children, one individual cannot change such an important aspect of all of our lives on a mere whim.

 

[Christo]

Care to answer the question?

You should be judged by your local governance.You dont get to make the choices for that woman. Thats her body, thats her placenta thats her embryo thats her uterus; thats only for her to decide.

Care to answer the question?

I did. The local governance should decide upon the case.You may be charged with murder or you may not. Case by case. Was your intent to damage the fetus so the mother could not produce the life she was intending to prodcue? If so, you may very well get murder charges.

No, you did not.

 

[Christo]

Ok, and just to verify how committed you are to that position, you thus have no problem with the morning after pill or any other forms of contraceptives designed to prevent a fertilized egg from successful implantation. Correct?

If that's the extent of it, sure.

Ok. Now for the sake of vnel8tn, The Commish, and fsword, who all appear to be saying fertilization is the point in time that matters and not implantation, can you please explain why you think implantation is the key point in time?

I never said implantation was the key point in time.

 

[CBusAlex]

Sorry, Maurile, but according to Wiki, you are wrong (I know, I know...Wiki=Weak)

From Wiki:

A zygote (from Greek ζυγωτός zygōtos "joined" or "yoked", from ζυγοῦν zygoun "to join" or "to yoke"),[1] or zygocyte, is the initial cell formed when a new organism is produced by means of sexual reproduction. A zygote is synthesized from the union of two gametes, and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism's development.

Even your own source doesn't support your argument. The first stage in building a house is to lay down a foundation, but no reasonable person would label a foundation as a "complete house" or expect it to be treated as such.

The zygote, however, is now a complete human organism, distinguishable from all other humans (yes, through the unique genetic material it possesses).

the human zygote is the earliest possible existance of any complete human there can be.

I bolded the parts that are not facts. They are labels.

FIXED

I am beginning to rembember why I had you on ignore. Blindly insisting that your own opinion is unquestionable fact simply does not lead to a very productive discussion. Backing it up with circular logic like "a zygote is a complete human because a zygote is a complete human" does not lead to a productive discussion.Your stance seems to be that a complete set of human DNA is the sole requirement to be considered a complete human. Do you have any justification for this at all? And please don't answer with "because it is!".

 

[timschochet]

No, you have not. Your position has been that the baby doesn't have any rights because the rights of the woman are paramount.

With your new position, you are not only giving a woman the right to determine her unborn baby's legal status but the legal status of others as well. I am a mugger and I want to steal a woman's purse. I grab it and knock her down not knowing she's pregnant. It causes a scraped knee and a miscarriage. My legal rights should not be determined based upon what the woman says she was going to do with the baby. Especially when the law as you believe it should be would have given her the right to change her mind about whether she wanted to have the baby at a later date.

One individual cannot confer individual rights on another. That has to be done by the state. And since you have taken that ability away from the state when it comes to unborn children, one individual cannot change such an important aspect of all of our lives on a mere whim.

You think you've trapped me into hypocrisy, but you haven't. I don't have any new position. There is a difference between rights and value. For example, a four year old child does not have the right to make his own financial decisions. The state says that is the right of his parents. But if that four year old is murdered, the state deems correctly that this is an act of murder. The state does not value the four year old any less simply because he does not possess the rights of an adult. One has nothing to do with the other.In the case of a fetus, it is my position that the state should not afford the fetus any rights. The mother has the right to decide what she wants to do with her own body. However, if somebody else causes a situation against the mother's will which destroys that fetus, the state can set a value on that fetus, irrespective of the fetus' rights, and that action can be considered murder.

Game, set, and match, Christo.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I never said implantation was the key point in time.

It looks to me like you said that conception (i.e., fertilization and implantation) is the single non-arbitrary, non-magical, no-judgment-needed, no-variables-involved point where people become actual people.How is that different from being key?

(Alternatively, in case this is the direction you're going, how is implantation different from fertilization and implantation?)

Sorry, but you are the only one making a judgment here. You are arbitrarily judging when a person becomes a person. Everyone here is a person and we became people at conception. There was nothing magical about our births that catapulted us to personhood.

There's no judgment in my statement. Before conception, we do not exist. Afterwards, we do--whatever form that may be.

Nothing occurs without fertilization [read: conception]. Birth can happen in a number of ways. And in some cases it may never occur. The brain may or may not fully develop. There are a lot of variables. But as far as humans are concerned, [conception] is not one of them.

When I said conception I meant fertilization and implantation because you had a problem with just fertilization.

 

[Orange Crush]

I never said implantation was the key point in time.

I know your general refusal to take a stand on any issue and instead attack the minutia of others' arguments is your modus operandi. I often try to do the same. But, point of fact, a reading of your statements can only come to the conclusion that you think implantation is the key point in time.

There's no judgment in my statement. Before conception, we do not exist. Afterwards, we do--whatever form that may be.

You're missing the point. Nothing occurs without fertilization. Birth can happen in a number of ways. And in some cases it may never occur. The brain may or may not fully develop. There are a lot of variables. But as far as humans are concerned, fertilization is not one of them.

Should be conception not fertilization.

When I said conception I meant fertilization and implantation because you had a problem with just fertilization.

So you say conception is the key. Then you say fertilization is the key. But then you go back to conception, defining it as fertilization plus implantation.Since just fertilization isn't enough, but "conception is", and because conception = fertilization + implantation, and because implantation takes place after fertilization, then ... according to your statements ... implantation must be the key point in time.

ETA: Darn. Maurile beat me to the punch.

 

[Christo]

No, you have not. Your position has been that the baby doesn't have any rights because the rights of the woman are paramount.

With your new position, you are not only giving a woman the right to determine her unborn baby's legal status but the legal status of others as well. I am a mugger and I want to steal a woman's purse. I grab it and knock her down not knowing she's pregnant. It causes a scraped knee and a miscarriage. My legal rights should not be determined based upon what the woman says she was going to do with the baby. Especially when the law as you believe it should be would have given her the right to change her mind about whether she wanted to have the baby at a later date.

One individual cannot confer individual rights on another. That has to be done by the state. And since you have taken that ability away from the state when it comes to unborn children, one individual cannot change such an important aspect of all of our lives on a mere whim.

You think you've trapped me into hypocrisy, but you haven't. I don't have any new position. There is a difference between rights and value. For example, a four year old child does not have the right to make his own financial decisions. The state says that is the right of his parents. But if that four year old is murdered, the state deems correctly that this is an act of murder. The state does not value the four year old any less simply because he does not possess the rights of an adult. One has nothing to do with the other.In the case of a fetus, it is my position that the state should not afford the fetus any rights. The mother has the right to decide what she wants to do with her own body. However, if somebody else causes a situation against the mother's will which destroys that fetus, the state can set a value on that fetus, irrespective of the fetus' rights, and that action can be considered murder.

Game, set, and match, Christo.

 

[The Commish]

No, you have not. Your position has been that the baby doesn't have any rights because the rights of the woman are paramount.

With your new position, you are not only giving a woman the right to determine her unborn baby's legal status but the legal status of others as well. I am a mugger and I want to steal a woman's purse. I grab it and knock her down not knowing she's pregnant. It causes a scraped knee and a miscarriage. My legal rights should not be determined based upon what the woman says she was going to do with the baby. Especially when the law as you believe it should be would have given her the right to change her mind about whether she wanted to have the baby at a later date.

One individual cannot confer individual rights on another. That has to be done by the state. And since you have taken that ability away from the state when it comes to unborn children, one individual cannot change such an important aspect of all of our lives on a mere whim.

You think you've trapped me into hypocrisy, but you haven't. I don't have any new position. There is a difference between rights and value. For example, a four year old child does not have the right to make his own financial decisions. The state says that is the right of his parents. But if that four year old is murdered, the state deems correctly that this is an act of murder. The state does not value the four year old any less simply because he does not possess the rights of an adult. One has nothing to do with the other.In the case of a fetus, it is my position that the state should not afford the fetus any rights. The mother has the right to decide what she wants to do with her own body. However, if somebody else causes a situation against the mother's will which destroys that fetus, the state can set a value on that fetus, irrespective of the fetus' rights, and that action can be considered murder.

Game, set, and match, Christo.

wait....wat??Does a fetus have rights or not in your "black/white" world??

 

[Christo]

I never said implantation was the key point in time.

It looks to me like you said that conception (i.e., fertilization and implantation) is the single non-arbitrary, non-magical, no-judgment-needed, no-variables-involved point where people become actual people.How is that different from being key?

Conception has been my position all along. I told OC that I meant conception when I mis-used fertilization earlier in the thread. Conception = the process of fertilization & implantation. Not implantation alone. I just said I had no problem with OC's position that medical science looks at implantation as the most important stage when he started asking me about birth control. Because conception isn't complete without implantation.

 

[Orange Crush]

I never said implantation was the key point in time.

It looks to me like you said that conception (i.e., fertilization and implantation) is the single non-arbitrary, non-magical, no-judgment-needed, no-variables-involved point where people become actual people.How is that different from being key?

Conception has been my position all along. I told OC that I meant conception when I mis-used fertilization earlier in the thread. Conception = the process of fertilization & implantation. Not implantation alone. I just said I had no problem with OC's position that medical science looks at implantation as the most important stage when he started asking me about birth control. Because conception isn't complete without implantation.

Wait. We're talking about the legal implications of when to officially recognize when life begins. You say its conception that matters, and that conception = fertilization + implantation. Therefore, it isn't complete until the time of implantation. So how does that not mean "implantation is the key point in time"?

 

[vnel8tn]

I never said implantation was the key point in time.

It looks to me like you said that conception (i.e., fertilization and implantation) is the single non-arbitrary, non-magical, no-judgment-needed, no-variables-involved point where people become actual people.How is that different from being key?

Conception has been my position all along. I told OC that I meant conception when I mis-used fertilization earlier in the thread. Conception = the process of fertilization & implantation. Not implantation alone. I just said I had no problem with OC's position that medical science looks at implantation as the most important stage when he started asking me about birth control. Because conception isn't complete without implantation.

Wait. We're talking about the legal implications of when to officially recognize when life begins. You say its conception that matters, and that conception = fertilization + implantation. Therefore, it isn't complete until the time of implantation. So how does that not mean "implantation is the key point in time"?

OC, you seem to want to be playing a game of 'gotcha' with Christo, and I since he and I seem to be on the same side, I will put in my unsoliced $0.02:LINK

con·cep·tion (kn-spshn)

n.

1.

a. Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization.

b. The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote

Hope this helps...

 

[The Commish]

No, you have not. Your position has been that the baby doesn't have any rights because the rights of the woman are paramount.

With your new position, you are not only giving a woman the right to determine her unborn baby's legal status but the legal status of others as well. I am a mugger and I want to steal a woman's purse. I grab it and knock her down not knowing she's pregnant. It causes a scraped knee and a miscarriage. My legal rights should not be determined based upon what the woman says she was going to do with the baby. Especially when the law as you believe it should be would have given her the right to change her mind about whether she wanted to have the baby at a later date.

One individual cannot confer individual rights on another. That has to be done by the state. And since you have taken that ability away from the state when it comes to unborn children, one individual cannot change such an important aspect of all of our lives on a mere whim.

You think you've trapped me into hypocrisy, but you haven't. I don't have any new position. There is a difference between rights and value. For example, a four year old child does not have the right to make his own financial decisions. The state says that is the right of his parents. But if that four year old is murdered, the state deems correctly that this is an act of murder. The state does not value the four year old any less simply because he does not possess the rights of an adult. One has nothing to do with the other.In the case of a fetus, it is my position that the state should not afford the fetus any rights. The mother has the right to decide what she wants to do with her own body. However, if somebody else causes a situation against the mother's will which destroys that fetus, the state can set a value on that fetus, irrespective of the fetus' rights, and that action can be considered murder.

Game, set, and match, Christo.

wait....wat??Does a fetus have rights or not in your "black/white" world??

The mother has rights that govern the fetus.

Are you a Tim alias or something??

 

[Christo]

I never said implantation was the key point in time.

It looks to me like you said that conception (i.e., fertilization and implantation) is the single non-arbitrary, non-magical, no-judgment-needed, no-variables-involved point where people become actual people.How is that different from being key?

Conception has been my position all along. I told OC that I meant conception when I mis-used fertilization earlier in the thread. Conception = the process of fertilization & implantation. Not implantation alone. I just said I had no problem with OC's position that medical science looks at implantation as the most important stage when he started asking me about birth control. Because conception isn't complete without implantation.

Wait. We're talking about the legal implications of when to officially recognize when life begins. You say its conception that matters, and that conception = fertilization + implantation. Therefore, it isn't complete until the time of implantation. So how does that not mean "implantation is the key point in time"?

Let me type this slowly. Conception is the key point in time.

 

[Christo]

I am a mugger and I want to steal a woman's purse. I grab it and knock her down not knowing she's pregnant. It causes a scraped knee and a miscarriage. My legal rights determinations should not be determined based upon what the woman says she was going to do with the baby.

Yes they should.And truth be told - it doesnt matter whether or not she will take the baby to to term.

All that matters, in regards to your actions *inflicted* upon her, is that she was pregnant and then lost the pregnancy because of your actions.

What if I knock her down on her way into an abortion clinic?

 

[Orange Crush]

Conception has been my position all along. I told OC that I meant conception when I mis-used fertilization earlier in the thread. Conception = the process of fertilization & implantation. Not implantation alone. I just said I had no problem with OC's position that medical science looks at implantation as the most important stage when he started asking me about birth control. Because conception isn't complete without implantation.

Wait. We're talking about the legal implications of when to officially recognize when life begins. You say its conception that matters, and that conception = fertilization + implantation. Therefore, it isn't complete until the time of implantation. So how does that not mean "implantation is the key point in time"?

OC, you seem to want to be playing a game of 'gotcha' with Christo, and I since he and I seem to be on the same side, I will put in my unsoliced $0.02:LINK

con·cep·tion (kn-spshn)

n.

1.

a. Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization.

b. The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote

Hope this helps...

I'm not playing a game of gotcha. I'm trying to get him to say, in explicit and precise terms, what he believes and why. Instead he's poking holes in other's arguments but playing word games when anyone asks him questions. He's acting like fertilization and implantation aren't indivisible, when they most certainly are and have serious policy impacts based on which one you favor.And BTW vnel8tn, your definition of conception is different than Christo's. It appears that under your definition, fertilization is all that matters.

Edited to fix an incomplete sentence.

 

[Orange Crush]

I never said implantation was the key point in time.

It looks to me like you said that conception (i.e., fertilization and implantation) is the single non-arbitrary, non-magical, no-judgment-needed, no-variables-involved point where people become actual people.How is that different from being key?

Conception has been my position all along. I told OC that I meant conception when I mis-used fertilization earlier in the thread. Conception = the process of fertilization & implantation. Not implantation alone. I just said I had no problem with OC's position that medical science looks at implantation as the most important stage when he started asking me about birth control. Because conception isn't complete without implantation.

Wait. We're talking about the legal implications of when to officially recognize when life begins. You say its conception that matters, and that conception = fertilization + implantation. Therefore, it isn't complete until the time of implantation. So how does that not mean "implantation is the key point in time"?

Let me type this slowly. Conception is the key point in time.

I give up. For once I thought it was worthwhile to debate you, but I see I was wrong.

 

[Axisofevil]

What is "Glenn Beck's Mom should have had one" ?

 

[Christo]

I am a mugger and I want to steal a woman's purse. I grab it and knock her down not knowing she's pregnant. It causes a scraped knee and a miscarriage. My legal rights determinations should not be determined based upon what the woman says she was going to do with the baby.

Yes they should.And truth be told - it doesnt matter whether or not she will take the baby to to term.

All that matters, in regards to your actions *inflicted* upon her, is that she was pregnant and then lost the pregnancy because of your actions.

What if I knock her down on her way into an abortion clinic?

Already answered.You should be judged by your local governance. Case by case.

In this new scenario -- was it a complete accident where you were not negligent? A: Probably nothing.

And the abortion clinic simply doesnt matter. "...it doesnt matter whether or not she will take the baby to to term."

What does this even mean?

 

[Christo]

Let me type this slowly. Conception is the key point in time.

I give up. For once I thought it was worthwhile to debate you, but I see I was wrong.

WTF is your problem with what I said? Conception is the process of fertilization and implantation. Conception is the key point in time. It's been my position from the start.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Let me type this slowly. Conception is the key point in time.

I give up. For once I thought it was worthwhile to debate you, but I see I was wrong.

WTF is your problem with what I said? Conception is the process of fertilization and implantation. Conception is the key point in time. It's been my position from the start.

Conception isn't a point; it's a span. It's fine to say that it's the key span, but lines have to be drawn at points. Certain birth control methods, for example, cause an abortion after fertilization but before implantation -- i.e., right in the middle of your span. So is that cool or uncool? It depends on where the key point is.

 

[Christo]

And truth be told - it doesnt matter whether or not she will take the baby to to term.

All that matters, in regards to your actions *inflicted* upon her, is that she was pregnant and then lost the pregnancy because of your actions.

What if I knock her down on her way into an abortion clinic?

Already answered.You should be judged by your local governance. Case by case.

In this new scenario -- was it a complete accident where you were not negligent? A: Probably nothing.

And the abortion clinic simply doesnt matter. "...it doesnt matter whether or not she will take the baby to to term."

What does this even mean?

It means to continue this discussion you need to improve your comprehension level -- or we will just be be stuck at an impass with your one-liners. Someone else alluded to it in post #442.

If you don't want to explain, just say so.

 

[Christo]

Let me type this slowly. Conception is the key point in time.

I give up. For once I thought it was worthwhile to debate you, but I see I was wrong.

WTF is your problem with what I said? Conception is the process of fertilization and implantation. Conception is the key point in time. It's been my position from the start.

Conception isn't a point; it's a span. It's fine to say that it's the key span, but lines have to be drawn at points. Certain birth control methods, for example, cause an abortion after fertilization but before implantation -- i.e., right in the middle of your span. So is that cool or uncool? It depends on where the key point is.

As I've already said, for the purpose of this discussion I'm fine with birth control that interrupts conception. But it doesn't change the fact that the key point in time as far as I'm concerned is conception.

 

[The Commish]

No. No need to try and deflect the discussion towards me personally. This is a public forum.And the mother really does have rights that govern the fetus.

I'm TRYING to ask Tim questions, but you keep butting in. That's the only reason I asked. I haven't a clue what your thoughts are on this....no offense.

 

[timschochet]

I'm TRYING to ask Tim questions, but you keep butting in. That's the only reason I asked. I haven't a clue what your thoughts are on this....no offense.

Commish, please restate your question for me, and I'll do my best to answer you.

 

[The Commish]

No. No need to try and deflect the discussion towards me personally. This is a public forum.And the mother really does have rights that govern the fetus.

I'm TRYING to ask Tim questions, but you keep butting in. That's the only reason I asked. I haven't a clue what your thoughts are on this....no offense.

Tim was in discussion on the topic with Christo... when you "butted in" and asked him the question. (see post #426). You could always send him a PM, as Im sure you understand how the back and forth in an open forum typically works.

okSo much for not deflecting towards you

 

[The Commish]

I'm TRYING to ask Tim questions, but you keep butting in. That's the only reason I asked. I haven't a clue what your thoughts are on this....no offense.

Commish, please restate your question for me, and I'll do my best to answer you.

Thanks

 

[timschochet]

No, you have not. Your position has been that the baby doesn't have any rights because the rights of the woman are paramount.

With your new position, you are not only giving a woman the right to determine her unborn baby's legal status but the legal status of others as well. I am a mugger and I want to steal a woman's purse. I grab it and knock her down not knowing she's pregnant. It causes a scraped knee and a miscarriage. My legal rights should not be determined based upon what the woman says she was going to do with the baby. Especially when the law as you believe it should be would have given her the right to change her mind about whether she wanted to have the baby at a later date.

One individual cannot confer individual rights on another. That has to be done by the state. And since you have taken that ability away from the state when it comes to unborn children, one individual cannot change such an important aspect of all of our lives on a mere whim.

You think you've trapped me into hypocrisy, but you haven't. I don't have any new position. There is a difference between rights and value. For example, a four year old child does not have the right to make his own financial decisions. The state says that is the right of his parents. But if that four year old is murdered, the state deems correctly that this is an act of murder. The state does not value the four year old any less simply because he does not possess the rights of an adult. One has nothing to do with the other.In the case of a fetus, it is my position that the state should not afford the fetus any rights. The mother has the right to decide what she wants to do with her own body. However, if somebody else causes a situation against the mother's will which destroys that fetus, the state can set a value on that fetus, irrespective of the fetus' rights, and that action can be considered murder.

Game, set, and match, Christo.

wait....wat??Does a fetus have rights or not in your "black/white" world??

Sorry, I DID see this the first time, but I thought you were being rhetorical and simply criticizing my previous statement. First off, I do not regard my world as "black and white." Certain of my principles are black and white, but the application of those principles is a more complex matter, and I'm certainly not always sure of myself in regards to this. The answer is no. I don't believe a fetus has rights. I do believe a fetus can have value, which is a different thing. So if you punch a mother in the stomach and cause a miscarriage (per Christo's question) the state can place a value on that fetus and make the act equal to murder. This does NOT mean that the state can grant legal rights to the fetus independent of the woman carrying that fetus, at least IMO. Christo seems to believe the two concepts are contradictory to each other. I admit they are close, but they are not the same thing and are not contradictory, and I can believe in one and not in the other without being disingenous.

 

[The Commish]

No, you have not. Your position has been that the baby doesn't have any rights because the rights of the woman are paramount.

With your new position, you are not only giving a woman the right to determine her unborn baby's legal status but the legal status of others as well. I am a mugger and I want to steal a woman's purse. I grab it and knock her down not knowing she's pregnant. It causes a scraped knee and a miscarriage. My legal rights should not be determined based upon what the woman says she was going to do with the baby. Especially when the law as you believe it should be would have given her the right to change her mind about whether she wanted to have the baby at a later date.

One individual cannot confer individual rights on another. That has to be done by the state. And since you have taken that ability away from the state when it comes to unborn children, one individual cannot change such an important aspect of all of our lives on a mere whim.

You think you've trapped me into hypocrisy, but you haven't. I don't have any new position. There is a difference between rights and value. For example, a four year old child does not have the right to make his own financial decisions. The state says that is the right of his parents. But if that four year old is murdered, the state deems correctly that this is an act of murder. The state does not value the four year old any less simply because he does not possess the rights of an adult. One has nothing to do with the other.In the case of a fetus, it is my position that the state should not afford the fetus any rights. The mother has the right to decide what she wants to do with her own body. However, if somebody else causes a situation against the mother's will which destroys that fetus, the state can set a value on that fetus, irrespective of the fetus' rights, and that action can be considered murder.

Game, set, and match, Christo.

wait....wat??Does a fetus have rights or not in your "black/white" world??

Sorry, I DID see this the first time, but I thought you were being rhetorical and simply criticizing my previous statement. First off, I do not regard my world as "black and white." Certain of my principles are black and white, but the application of those principles is a more complex matter, and I'm certainly not always sure of myself in regards to this. The answer is no. I don't believe a fetus has rights. I do believe a fetus can have value, which is a different thing. So if you punch a mother in the stomach and cause a miscarriage (per Christo's question) the state can place a value on that fetus and make the act equal to murder. This does NOT mean that the state can grant legal rights to the fetus independent of the woman carrying that fetus, at least IMO. Christo seems to believe the two concepts are contradictory to each other. I admit they are close, but they are not the same thing and are not contradictory, and I can believe in one and not in the other without being disingenous.

Sorry...trying to understand here. How, in your view, can the state place "value" on a fetus in one scenario but not another? Also, does this "value" theory of yours just apply to this situation or do you believe the "value" of the individual should matter in other circumstances as well? Meaning, do you believe a low life scum bag should be looked at differently than an upstanding citizen when it comes to determining their fate/punishment?

 

[timschochet]

Sorry...trying to understand here. How, in your view, can the state place "value" on a fetus in one scenario but not another? Also, does this "value" theory of yours just apply to this situation or do you believe the "value" of the individual should matter in other circumstances as well? Meaning, do you believe a low life scum bag should be looked at differently than an upstanding citizen when it comes to determining their fate/punishment?

I think that in making judgement value is always considered. For example, person A robs a candy bar from a liquor store, while person B robs a $30,000 diamond bracelet. Do you suppose they receive the same punishment? Of course not. In large part, the punishment received in this instance is based upon the value of the item stolen. As far as giving value to individuals, I think the law does do this to a certain extent. Again, let's take two examples: in the first, a man murders a murderer already in prison. In the second, a man murders an 8 year old girl. I have a feeling the judge is going to put a higher value on the 8 year old girl, and the second man is going to receive a harsher punishment than the first man, don't you? That's simply the way it is. A fetus is something that should be highly valued, ESPECIALLY if it is the mother's intent to deliver it into a baby. But again, this does not bestow any rights upon the fetus.

 

[The Commish]

Sorry...trying to understand here. How, in your view, can the state place "value" on a fetus in one scenario but not another? Also, does this "value" theory of yours just apply to this situation or do you believe the "value" of the individual should matter in other circumstances as well? Meaning, do you believe a low life scum bag should be looked at differently than an upstanding citizen when it comes to determining their fate/punishment?

I think that in making judgement value is always considered. For example, person A robs a candy bar from a liquor store, while person B robs a $30,000 diamond bracelet. Do you suppose they receive the same punishment? Of course not. In large part, the punishment received in this instance is based upon the value of the item stolen. As far as giving value to individuals, I think the law does do this to a certain extent. Again, let's take two examples: in the first, a man murders a murderer already in prison. In the second, a man murders an 8 year old girl. I have a feeling the judge is going to put a higher value on the 8 year old girl, and the second man is going to receive a harsher punishment than the first man, don't you? That's simply the way it is. A fetus is something that should be highly valued, ESPECIALLY if it is the mother's intent to deliver it into a baby. But again, this does not bestow any rights upon the fetus.

Something still isn't adding up for me. If one allows the court to place "value" on the fetus, then that introduces the possibility of that happening in an abortion situation. It seems you'd be ok with a civil suit being brought by a father against the mother who chose to have the child aborted and the court could assign "value" to the fetus and award damages accordingly. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Christo]

You should be judged by your local governance. Case by case.

In this new scenario -- was it a complete accident where you were not negligent? A: Probably nothing.

And the abortion clinic simply doesnt matter. "...it doesnt matter whether or not she will take the baby to to term."

What does this even mean?

It means to continue this discussion you need to improve your comprehension level -- or we will just be be stuck at an impass with your one-liners. Someone else alluded to it in post #442.

If you don't want to explain, just say so.

You obviously wont comprehend something as simple as being judged by your local governance.

So simple, you can't explain it.

 

[Christo]

No, you have not. Your position has been that the baby doesn't have any rights because the rights of the woman are paramount.

With your new position, you are not only giving a woman the right to determine her unborn baby's legal status but the legal status of others as well. I am a mugger and I want to steal a woman's purse. I grab it and knock her down not knowing she's pregnant. It causes a scraped knee and a miscarriage. My legal rights should not be determined based upon what the woman says she was going to do with the baby. Especially when the law as you believe it should be would have given her the right to change her mind about whether she wanted to have the baby at a later date.

One individual cannot confer individual rights on another. That has to be done by the state. And since you have taken that ability away from the state when it comes to unborn children, one individual cannot change such an important aspect of all of our lives on a mere whim.

You think you've trapped me into hypocrisy, but you haven't. I don't have any new position. There is a difference between rights and value. For example, a four year old child does not have the right to make his own financial decisions. The state says that is the right of his parents. But if that four year old is murdered, the state deems correctly that this is an act of murder. The state does not value the four year old any less simply because he does not possess the rights of an adult. One has nothing to do with the other.In the case of a fetus, it is my position that the state should not afford the fetus any rights. The mother has the right to decide what she wants to do with her own body. However, if somebody else causes a situation against the mother's will which destroys that fetus, the state can set a value on that fetus, irrespective of the fetus' rights, and that action can be considered murder.

Game, set, and match, Christo.

wait....wat??Does a fetus have rights or not in your "black/white" world??

Sorry, I DID see this the first time, but I thought you were being rhetorical and simply criticizing my previous statement. First off, I do not regard my world as "black and white." Certain of my principles are black and white, but the application of those principles is a more complex matter, and I'm certainly not always sure of myself in regards to this. The answer is no. I don't believe a fetus has rights. I do believe a fetus can have value, which is a different thing. So if you punch a mother in the stomach and cause a miscarriage (per Christo's question) the state can place a value on that fetus and make the act equal to murder. This does NOT mean that the state can grant legal rights to the fetus independent of the woman carrying that fetus, at least IMO. Christo seems to believe the two concepts are contradictory to each other. I admit they are close, but they are not the same thing and are not contradictory, and I can believe in one and not in the other without being disingenous.

There's nothing "close" about it. They are contradictory.

 

[phthalatemagic]

I'm a pro-abortion guy and I think Christo is kicking all of your asses

 

[timschochet]

I'm a pro-abortion guy and I think Christo is kicking all of your asses

He isn't. He's full of one liners, and when he does argue a point, he has no idea what he's talking about. But he is sincere.