On abortion

[ERCougar]

For the same reason that you and I have rights that are protected from infringement upon. Once human life has been established a baby in utero should be afforded the protection against their life. You have clearly established that once the baby is able to live independently from its mother it should be given certain protections (which makes me wonder how you would feel if the mother gave birth alone in a rural area and the baby came out fine, but the mother didn't do anything from the time of birth to take care of the baby and it subsequently died....is she guilty of murder or just a post birth abortion, does she have the affirmative obligation to take care of the child by clothing it and feeding it? Why? Two seconds before birth under your theory she was able to terminate the child's life). I simply believe that those protections should be afforded at some point before birth as a human life has been created prior to the baby breathing its first breath.

Ugh. We can't keep having this discussion about "life". A fertilized egg is "alive", if we define life as spontaneously growing with some sort of coordination. It's just not an interesting definition legally. So either throw out a different one or stop talking about it.
And your hypothetical mother would be guilty of murder or neglect. Next?

That's an interesting analogy, but it doesn't fit the termination at 40 weeks. What could possibly be a competing interest in the mother (other than her own health) to not deliver a baby at that point in time?

I can't think of anything, which is why this really never happens and is sort of a silly hypothetical. Despite that, I see a legal need to address it and have done so.
The termination at 40 weeks is analagous to the starving man across the street. Minimal effort to preserve his life, certainly the morally decent thing to do, but no one would claim you are legally required to do it.

[imanihonjin]

This is actually a more relevant point. Just because a mother's rights should supercede a fetus' doesn't mandate the legalization of abortion. We have animal cruelty laws, for example, despite the clear standard of human rights superceding animal ones. It's a question of balance.

A relevant hypothetical: Suppose there was someone 100 miles away starving to death. You have plenty of food storage. Should you be legally obligated to feed him? What if he's across the street?
Certainly, it's the morally decent thing to do. But at what point does it become a legal requirement?

That's an interesting analogy, but it doesn't fit the termination at 40 weeks. What could possibly be a competing interest in the mother (other than her own health) to not deliver a baby at that point in time?

[imanihonjin]

I'm assuming by "life", you mean "equal rights" (I hate to keep harping on this, but you keep using the term that is completely useless here.). If that's what you mean, then why should it begin before birth? I'm not asking argumentatively, just to hear your reason.

For the same reason that you and I have rights that are protected from infringement upon. Once human life has been established a baby in utero should be afforded the protection against their life. You have clearly established that once the baby is able to live independently from its mother it should be given certain protections (which makes me wonder how you would feel if the mother gave birth alone in a rural area and the baby came out fine, but the mother didn't do anything from the time of birth to take care of the baby and it subsequently died....is she guilty of murder or just a post birth abortion, does she have the affirmative obligation to take care of the child by clothing it and feeding it? Why? Two seconds before birth under your theory she was able to terminate the child's life). I simply believe that those protections should be afforded at some point before birth as a human life has been created prior to the baby breathing its first breath.

[ERCougar]

I haven't followed the back and forth closely. Are you for the mother having a choice even if her life is in no danger?

I don't think you can throw out the life of the mother is more important unless you are arguing a mothers right to abort is only if she is in danger.

Otherwise it is a freedom argument, not a life and death argument. Is the mother free to carry this thing or not based on how she feels.

This is actually a more relevant point. Just because a mother's rights should supercede a fetus' doesn't mandate the legalization of abortion. We have animal cruelty laws, for example, despite the clear standard of human rights superceding animal ones. It's a question of balance.

A relevant hypothetical: Suppose there was someone 100 miles away starving to death. You have plenty of food storage. Should you be legally obligated to feed him? What if he's across the street?
Certainly, it's the morally decent thing to do. But at what point does it become a legal requirement?

[ERCougar]

As to your fertilized egg question, I simply don't know. What are the competing interests? Does life begin then? I simply don't know. I have claimed over an over again, that I don't know when life begins but I do believe that it is before birth.

I'm assuming by "life", you mean "equal rights" (I hate to keep harping on this, but you keep using the term that is completely useless here.). If that's what you mean, then why should it begin before birth? I'm not asking argumentatively, just to hear your reason.

[imanihonjin]

You don't know that--birth is a significant even physiologically. Probably the most important and significant physiologic change that occurs.

And you're unconsciously alluding to a viability standard. That's fine...that's what roe v wade did too. But again, that'd becoming increasingly irrelevant. There will be a time where we will be able to claim the same "potential independence" of a fertilized egg. Then what?

The mortality rates are so low at that point there is every justification in the world to afford a baby the right to life at that point in time. I am not unconsciously alluding to a viability standard, I think that without question viability is an indicator of life but I am not certain that it a necessary component to determine life.

As to your fertilized egg question, I simply don't know. What are the competing interests? Does life begin then? I simply don't know. I have claimed over an over again, that I don't know when life begins but I do believe that it is before birth.

[ERCougar]

A 40 week baby in utero would be able to be completely independent, given the opportunity.

You don't know that--birth is a significant even physiologically. Probably the most important and significant physiologic change that occurs.

And you're unconsciously alluding to a viability standard. That's fine...that's what roe v wade did too. But again, that'd becoming increasingly irrelevant. There will be a time where we will be able to claim the same "potential independence" of a fertilized egg. Then what?

[byu71]

There are huge differences between a 40 week fetus and a baby--it's no longer completely dependent on the mother for its oxygenation and nourishment, for one.

The third trimester is becoming increasingly arbitrary as our technological capabilities improve.

I haven't followed the back and forth closely. Are you for the mother having a choice even if her life is in no danger?

I don't think you can throw out the life of the mother is more important unless you are arguing a mothers right to abort is only if she is in danger.

Otherwise it is a freedom argument, not a life and death argument. Is the mother free to carry this thing or not based on how she feels.

[imanihonjin]

There are huge differences between a 40 week fetus and a baby--it's no longer completely dependent on the mother for its oxygenation and nourishment, for one.

A 40 week baby in utero would be able to be completely independent, given the opportunity.

[ERCougar]

Who is claiming that the babies right to life is more important than the mothers. If that is what you believe I have been arguing then I apologize for not being clearer. What I am talking about is when the rights of the mother to not have to be pregnant any more are subordinate to the rights of a baby's life. There is almost no difference between baby at 40 weeks still inside the womb is no different than a 3 week old baby on the outside of the womb in terms of viability. I know the better question is when does a fetus acquire fully human rights....many states can an do set that mark at the 3rd trimester of pregnancy (other than issues dealing with the life of the mother-which I agree with btw).

There are huge differences between a 40 week fetus and a baby--it's no longer completely dependent on the mother for its oxygenation and nourishment, for one.

The third trimester is becoming increasingly arbitrary as our technological capabilities improve.

[imanihonjin]

Another reason such a standard is impractical is that is raises the question of who advocates on behalf of the fetus over the rights of the mother? Does the mother incur liability towards the fetus since her rights are subordinate to the fetus? Can the state sue a woman for negligence when she miscarries? Ridiculous and untenable to give superior right to a fetus.

You both are acting like there is no precedent for a baby to be given rights prior to being born. It happens in most states in this country this very day. And all those cases where a baby is given "superior" rights in regards to negligence on the mothers behalf are sure causing quite the ruckus aren't they.

[imanihonjin]

You really need to let go of this "alive" language. Of course it's alive. So is a fertilized egg. The better question is when does the fetus acquire fully human rights, equal to the mother. And no, that doesn't occur until birth.

As a physician, if I'm treating a pregnant woman, the woman's life comes first, then the fetus'. This is the standard of care--they are not treated equally.

Who is claiming that the babies right to life is more important than the mothers. If that is what you believe I have been arguing then I apologize for not being clearer. What I am talking about is when the rights of the mother to not have to be pregnant any more are subordinate to the rights of a baby's life. There is almost no difference between baby at 40 weeks still inside the womb is no different than a 3 week old baby on the outside of the womb in terms of viability. I know the better question is when does a fetus acquire fully human rights....many states can an do set that mark at the 3rd trimester of pregnancy (other than issues dealing with the life of the mother-which I agree with btw).

[Topper]

If we keep the horny toad we solve global warming.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[byu71]

Equating unborn rights with the rights of the mother is impractical in all aspects. Any other balancing test cannot be implemented without impinging upon the liberties of the mother.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Too bad we can't get mothers to agree on aborting the horny toad in Nevada. Certainly mothers rights take precedent over a horny toad. It is probably because men are also part of the human race that makes it so the horny toad has as much rights as humans.

[Topper]

Equating unborn rights with the rights of the mother is impractical in all aspects. Any other balancing test cannot be implemented without impinging upon the liberties of the mother.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk