On abortion

[imanihonjin]

Ah, but the devil's the details. What the hell do you mean by life? You keep saying you have no idea when it starts but it's kinda important, dontchathink? The only universally agreed standard at which a fetus' right to life equals the mother's is birth. Anything before--even third trimester fetus--relies on some extra worldly logic.

What are you even talking about? You should be more precise with what you are trying to say, which I think I know what you are trying to say but that isn't what you actually wrote.

[ERCougar]

What are you even talking about? You should be more precise with what you are trying to say, which I think I know what you are trying to say but that isn't what you actually wrote.

Ok, not my clearest moment. I'm just echoing what NWC has pointed out. The only point that we can all agree that a fetus acquires full human rights is birth--anything before that point relies on some moral/theological code that lacks any clear standard. You might have your point, but everyone else has theirs, ranging from fertilization to birth. You're not even able to define yours with any useful measure. Roe v Wade tried to with a viability standard, but that's not even going to work very soon, as technology advances.

[beefytee]

The Freakanomics guys have some interesting stats about this. YouTube has this section from their movie.

I think (I'm assuming oxcoug agrees) this correlation to the drop in violent crime is just as good of an explanation as abortion:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27067615?SThisFB

Also, watch the "Cosmos" episode about Clair Patterson as well. Interesting stuff.

[wuapinmon]

I think (I'm assuming oxcoug agrees) this correlation to the drop in violent crime is just as good of an explanation as abortion:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27067615?SThisFB

Also, watch the "Cosmos" episode about Clair Patterson as well. Interesting stuff.

Steven Pinker refutes the abortion/crime drop in The Better Angels of Our Nature.

[imanihonjin]

Ok, not my clearest moment. I'm just echoing what NWC has pointed out. The only point that we can all agree that a fetus acquires full human rights is birth--anything before that point relies on some moral/theological code that lacks any clear standard. You might have your point, but everyone else has theirs, ranging from fertilization to birth. You're not even able to define yours with any useful measure. Roe v Wade tried to with a viability standard, but that's not even going to work very soon, as technology advances.

So in your laid out plan then a baby only receives rights after birth? So a mother could terminate a baby at 40 weeks? You are a doctor, are you saying that you don't believe that baby is alive at that point in time? You are right I am not certain when life begins, but I don't think it should be out of the purview of society to determine when it is that a baby has certain rights that may not be violated. All laws are determinations based on questions of morality. Why should this one be any different?

[byu71]

Steven Pinker refutes the abortion/crime drop in The Better Angels of Our Nature.

Are there any statistics that show what sectors have the largest abortion rate? Poor, middle class, rich? Whites, blacks, hispanics, asians? Religious people, atheists?

If the highest rate of abortions is among the poor and minorities, why couldn't you conlcude that their is a correlation with the crime rate going down? Oh, oh. Is that a Paul Ryan moment? Am I antic poor and a racist for even asking the question?

[ERCougar]

So in your laid out plan then a baby only receives rights after birth? So a mother could terminate a baby at 40 weeks? You are a doctor, are you saying that you don't believe that baby is alive at that point in time? You are right I am not certain when life begins, but I don't think it should be out of the purview of society to determine when it is that a baby has certain rights that may not be violated. All laws are determinations based on questions of morality. Why should this one be any different?

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.

[TripletDaddy]

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.

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.

[byu71]

The only universally agreed standard at which a fetus' right to life equals the mother's is birth. Anything before--even third trimester fetus--relies on some extra worldly logic.

After the mother's life, then does the fetus have status with all others? My understanding is that if a mother is murdered and the fetus dies, it is considered a double homicide. Why isn't a homicide and then a theft of something the mother possessed?

If the fetus has as much rights after the mothers life, why is it a mother can choose to end the life even if hers is not in danger, but the husband can't.

[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

[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]

If we keep the horny toad we solve global warming.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[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).

[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.

[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.