[mack]

(although half identical),

Not even that, the RNA mixes around before the 1/2 cell is made.(sperm/egg).

 

[Velocity Girl]

alright.. why is the baby NOT its own entity if is has its own dna, and its consciouness is only temporarily unavailable???

say, you have a siamese twin attached to you, and your siamese is temporarily unconscious (say lack of oxygen)... can you dispose of her as your body??

it the baby is part of your body... would you chop only one of the baby´s leg just like you clip your nails, but then letting it grow into birth??

It's very simple why I don't believe a baby is it's own entity. The assumptions you've made in regards to when the baby is it's own entity, the moment of implantation, and your 2-point requirement of dna and consciouness to define a human are just that, your assumptions. Beliefs on this matter vary between individuals and mine vary from yours.

In the case of a siamese twin, it's already become a viable human that can survive outside the womb of the mother.

No, I wouldn't chop off a baby's leg and then let it grow until birth If I had to come up with answer for that then I would say the individual who did such a thing would be charged with the crime once the baby is born, or at the stage (3rd trimesterish) where it can survive outside the mother. Then it can be identified that a crime had been committed against a human (or what became a human). If the fetus is never allowed to become a human and aborted than it becomes a moot point.

And just as you asked me how could I possibly believe that these baby wasn't it's own entity at that point, I could ask you the same thing in reverse. How can you believe that the baby IS it's own entity when it can't survive without the mother? Why must the mother be forced to leave her body in a state that she doesn't desire?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

It's very simple why I don't believe a baby is it's own entity. The assumptions you've made in regards to when the baby is it's own entity, the moment of implantation, and your 2-point requirement of dna and consciouness to define a human are just that, your assumptions. Beliefs on this matter vary between individuals and mine vary from yours.

In the case of a siamese twin, it's already become a viable human that can survive outside the womb of the mother.

No, I wouldn't chop off a baby's leg and then let it grow until birth If I had to come up with answer for that then I would say the individual who did such a thing would be charged with the crime once the baby is born, or at the stage (3rd trimesterish) where it can survive outside the mother. Then it can be identified that a crime had been committed against a human (or what became a human). If the fetus is never allowed to become a human and aborted than it becomes a moot point.

And just as you asked me how could I possibly believe that these baby wasn't it's own entity at that point, I could ask you the same thing in reverse. How can you believe that the baby IS it's own entity when it can't survive without the mother? Why must the mother be forced to leave her body in a state that she doesn't desire?

no one argues the right of a one to do whatever she chooses.
but if as a result of doing whatever you choose, some "entity" dies, well, then you are liable for such death.

whether a person is or not "viable" outside the womb is irrelevant to the definition of this entity as human or not. you are not less human if you have 2 days of life left, or if you have 90 years left.

even if such reasoning would be relevant, then we have to define "viable". because according to such reasoning, a newborn, and a fetus dont have any difference, since BOTH are not capable or staying alive without external help (directly from the womb, or indirectly by breast feeding or whatever)

to define if the baby can survive on its own is irrelevant to the debate on whether the baby is a "entity" on itself... according to such reasoning, a 2yo is not an entity on itself either, because its not able to live without the mother.

my assumptions are based on the reasoning, that they provide me a thought frame that can be tested in different situations, giving consistent and mutually non-exclusive answers.

if you base your assumptions, on "i choose to believe so", you are pretty much basing your argument on tautologies made up by yourself. in that case is pretty much useless any argument.
like when arguing with a pro-lifer who believes in non-abortion because "god says so". you would play pretty much the same part in the other side of the fence.

and i sense you base your whole argument on not whether the fetus is a human or not, but you take for granted is not, thus making the issue about woman rights over this non-human entity....

when its actually more important for the sake of the debate to define whether the fetus is human or not...

so basically your criteria to define what makes an "entity" does not hold to a comparative test. because both a fetus, AND a child need support from someone to survive. yet one is an entity, and the other is not.

your right to deny supply to the baby is definately your right, but the liability from the resulting death is ALSO yours.
deny the food supply to a baby is the same, no matter if its by cutting the umbilical cord to it, or by not feeding the newborn. or not?

just because is your body, doesnt mean you are not liable from the consecuences of such action have on another living entity (which is still an entity, regardless it will survive or not outside the womb).

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

I
No, I wouldn't chop off a baby's leg and then let it grow until birth If I had to come up with answer for that then I would say the individual who did such a thing would be charged with the crime once the baby is born, or at the stage (3rd trimesterish) where it can survive outside the mother. Then it can be identified that a crime had been committed against a human (or what became a human). If the fetus is never allowed to become a human and aborted than it becomes a moot point.

why is it a moot point??
why do you make the tautology that the fetus "is not human" to being with?????

according to my 2point reasoning, the fetus is a human temporarily unconscious.
i mean, doctors use the same definition to decide on who to pull the plug on...
if you are in a deep coma, but showing progress and likeliness to regain consciouness, they DONT unplug you... in fact you could face a murder trial if you do so...
on the other hand, if you are in a deep comma, and there is no chance of you coming back, then they can aprove pulling the plug...

so, if its not a human, why would chopping it WOULD be a punishable crime, but killing it would not????

if you are right, then once the fetus turned into human, he could not charge anything to the leg-chopper.
how could you charge somebody for doing something to a non-human entity??
i dont think you could be charged with "mutilitating a future human", because that is just way too vague. toying with sperm before fertilization could also be judged as "mutilation of a future human"....

according to your reasoning, at the time of the "crime" or act, he was acting against something that didnt have human rights.
So, how could you be punished for doing something that isnt illegal in the first place????

 

[Changleen]

This is getting crazy....

 

[Changleen]

Surely the solution to this is: Legislation that allows abortion for those who want it, within sensible limits, such as the 'no 3rd trimester' model as proposed by myself and several others. Then, if you and your partner, or you personally if you're female, don't agree with abortion, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ONE! Wow. How about that? Just because you happen to believe abortion is wrong, doesn't mean I, or anyone else, has to agree with you - especially when your beliefs are based on religion or personal opinion about 'the value of humanity' which I may not share. I don't care if you don't have an abortion. It's your happiness in the end.

Demanding that no-one is allowed abortions just because you don't like them is tantamount to demanding everyone follows the same religion. And at the end of the day that is a fundamentally fascist thing to do.

 

[Silver]

Just to stir the pot a bit, I also think that while the man should not be able to make the decision on the abortion for a woman, I also think that he should be able to decline paternity (much like a football penalty.)

 

[Changleen]

Just to stir the pot a bit, I also think that while the man should not be able to make the decision on the abortion for a woman, I also think that he should be able to decline paternity (much like a football penalty.)

Only if she agrees though. That's not a bad idea actually. A legal recognition of non-fatherhood signed by both parties, giving him the right to walk away and never to have to pay for anything, but waiving any future rights to custody and so on.

 

[Silver]

Only if she agrees though. That's not a bad idea actually. A legal recognition of non-fatherhood signed by both parties, giving him the right to walk away and never to have to pay for anything, but waiving any future rights to custody and so on.

No, it's his choice. She's got the trump card, after all. If he wants the kid and she doesn't, he's out of luck, right?

And, and no custody for sure. You look the kid up in 18 years, because you feel lonely, you get to pay 18 years of back child support first...

 

[Changleen]

No, it's his choice. She's got the trump card, after all.

Hmm, I can't say I'm happy with that, but maybe I could agree if he was only allowed to opt out in the first trimester. Once it goes beyond that and he has still not declared that he want nothing to do with it, he has to face up to his responsibilities. After all he chose to bone her without protection. You gotta take some responsibility for your actions, or at least which hole you shoot your wad in.

If he wants the kid and she doesn't, he's out of luck, right?

Yup. True enough. He can always adopt though.

And, and no custody for sure. You look the kid up in 18 years, because you feel lonely, you get to pay 18 years of back child support first...

Sounds fair enough. To who though? 50/50 Mother and child?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Wow. How about that? Just because you happen to believe abortion is wrong, doesn't mean I, or anyone else, has to agree with you - especially when your beliefs are based on religion or personal opinion about 'the value of humanity' which I may not share.

Wow. How about that? Just because you happen to believe torture (on any invasion on other persons rights) is wrong, doesn't mean I, or anyone else, has to agree with you - especially when your beliefs are based on religion or personal opinion about 'the value of humanity' which I may not share.

 

[Silver]

Hmm, I can't say I'm happy with that, but maybe I could agree if he was only allowed to opt out in the first trimester.

For sure. You can't have this be a waiting game. You'd have issues with paternal notification, but nothing that is insurmountable.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Sorry - I've been so absent from the thread - I'm only popping in to lend my support to Velocity Girl's arguments - well said .

I'm definitely not in mental shape tonight to form even a somewhat coherent point - so I won't bother.

 

[Toshi]

my assumptions are based on the reasoning, that they provide me a thought frame that can be tested in different situations, giving consistent and mutually non-exclusive answers.

if you base your assumptions, on "i choose to believe so", you are pretty much basing your argument on tautologies made up by yourself. in that case is pretty much useless any argument.

your "logic" here doesn't hold up. your assumptions are just that: your assumptions. whether the rest of your pet theory is self consistent (and doesn't contain tautologies, your favorite word today ) is irrelevant if your assumptions are not accepted. same with any system of axioms...

 

[sanjuro]

I have not read any of the postings, but since so many of the smartest RM's are posting, I do want to say this:

No Way I'm Touching This Topic!!!


I am either, "no way I am getting baited on this one", or "who gives a sh*t what a bunch of dum ass mountain bikers think about a woman's right to choose".

And if my gf was thinking about an abortion, no way I put our dilemma on RM. Although the sicko in me was thinking about a poll, though....

 

[Changleen]

Wow. How about that? Just because you happen to believe torture (on any invasion on other persons rights) is wrong, doesn't mean I, or anyone else, has to agree with you - especially when your beliefs are based on religion or personal opinion about 'the value of humanity' which I may not share.

How can you torture something that cannot percieve pain? That cannot even percieve - period?

 

[$tinkle]

How can you torture something that cannot percieve pain? That cannot even percieve - period?

if you're a sadist, i don't think the receiver's influence is relevant.

back to the rack then...

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

your "logic" here doesn't hold up. your assumptions are just that: your assumptions. whether the rest of your pet theory is self consistent (and doesn't contain tautologies, your favorite word today ) is irrelevant if your assumptions are not accepted. same with any system of axioms...

alright. so lets recapitulate (if thats a word in english, because something similar is in spanish).

i develop my whole idea on the assumption that a fetus is just temporarily unconscious human being.

i back up the assumption on a similar criteria used today to define whether a human is alive or not. (i think defining a fetus as at least a chump of human cells is out of question).
you have to lack consciousness AND you must have no chance at all of gaining or regaining it to be considered "temporarily unconscious". otherwise you are dead.

i think the legal definition of death is "is irreversible cessation of brain activity" a fetus is missing the "irreversible" part.... so my frame thought is consistent with the current thought...

said that, would you unplug a person in a deep comma with hints of inminent of progress??

 

[Velocity Girl]

no one argues the right of a one to do whatever she chooses.
but if as a result of doing whatever you choose, some "entity" dies, well, then you are liable for such death.

- You're assuming the "entity" is human at this point, if that's not the case then it's not a "death".

whether a person is or not "viable" outside the womb is irrelevant to the definition of this entity as human or not. you are not less human if you have 2 days of life left, or if you have 90 years left.

- Again, we differ on what the definition of "human" is. To me the viability outside the womb is part of the defintion, to you it's not, and that is why debates like this continue to happen.

even if such reasoning would be relevant, then we have to define "viable". because according to such reasoning, a newborn, and a fetus dont have any difference, since BOTH are not capable or staying alive without external help (directly from the womb, or indirectly by breast feeding or whatever)

to define if the baby can survive on its own is irrelevant to the debate on whether the baby is a "entity" on itself... according to such reasoning, a 2yo is not an entity on itself either, because its not able to live without the mother.

my assumptions are based on the reasoning, that they provide me a thought frame that can be tested in different situations, giving consistent and mutually non-exclusive answers.

Yes, according to this reasoning there is a difference between a 2 year old and a fetus. A fetus can not survive without the birth mother in which to grow, a 2 year old can (hence why children can be adopted). If a fetus is taken out of the mother a week after implantation it would not survive.

if you base your assumptions, on "i choose to believe so", you are pretty much basing your argument on tautologies made up by yourself. in that case is pretty much useless any argument.
like when arguing with a pro-lifer who believes in non-abortion because "god says so". you would play pretty much the same part in the other side of the fence

and i sense you base your whole argument on not whether the fetus is a human or not, but you take for granted is not, thus making the issue about woman rights over this non-human entity....

when its actually more important for the sake of the debate to define whether the fetus is human or not.....

You're right, I do base my personal argument on when I believe the fetus is considered human. At the moment of implantation I don't think it's a human in the same definition as you or I. It has the potential of becoming a human, but it not at that point(IMO).

so basically your criteria to define what makes an "entity" does not hold to a comparative test. because both a fetus, AND a child need support from someone to survive. yet one is an entity, and the other is not.

See answer above.

your right to deny supply to the baby is definately your right, but the liability from the resulting death is ALSO yours.
deny the food supply to a baby is the same, no matter if its by cutting the umbilical cord to it, or by not feeding the newborn. or not?

just because is your body, doesnt mean you are not liable from the consecuences of such action have on another living entity (which is still an entity, regardless it will survive or not outside the womb).

Again, a difference in opinion over the definition of entity and when a fetus is a human.

 

[Velocity Girl]

why is it a moot point??
why do you make the tautology that the fetus "is not human" to being with?????

Why do you say it is human? We could go round and round about this one forever and probably never see eye to eye. You saying it is human because it's what you believe, or because of your 2 point reasoning, is the same as me saying it's not because of what I believe and my viable outside the womb reasoning. It's a complete difference of opinion that is why this is such a hot topic to begin with and one that opposite sides of the fence will most likely never see eye to eye on. It's too clouded with a mixture of religion, beliefs, and science to have a clear cut answer.

according to my 2point reasoning, the fetus is a human temporarily unconscious.
i mean, doctors use the same definition to decide on who to pull the plug on...
if you are in a deep coma, but showing progress and likeliness to regain consciouness, they DONT unplug you... in fact you could face a murder trial if you do so...
on the other hand, if you are in a deep comma, and there is no chance of you coming back, then they can aprove pulling the plug...=

And that is the defintion that doctors use for humans as we know them today as you and I are. We're discussing abortion at a point where, imo, the fetus is not yet considered human.

so, if its not a human, why would chopping it WOULD be a punishable crime, but killing it would not????

if you are right, then once the fetus turned into human, he could not charge anything to the leg-chopper.
how could you charge somebody for doing something to a non-human entity??
i dont think you could be charged with "mutilitating a future human", because that is just way too vague. toying with sperm before fertilization could also be judged as "mutilation of a future human"....

according to your reasoning, at the time of the "crime" or act, he was acting against something that didnt have human rights.
So, how could you be punished for doing something that isnt illegal in the first place????

I was just answering as best I could to a very far-out situation you presented. I think something of this nature would fall under the "malicious intent" category of crimes.

 

[-dustin]

Why do we need yet another thread on abortion when there has been a new one every six months or so since RM came online? Use the *search* function and stop picking at old scabs.

guess old scabs like to bleed.

 

[Changleen]

More from the conference on the Beijing declaration:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4841751,00.html
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-03/05/content_2652751.htm

U.S. Drops Demand for Abortion Reference

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Under intense global pressure, the United States on Friday dropped its demand to amend a declaration reaffirming the U.N. blueprint to achieve equality for women, saying it was satisfied the document did not guarantee the right to abortion.

U.S. Ambassador Ellen Sauerbrey said the United States would join other nations in approving the declaration endorsing the 150-page platform for action adopted at the 1995 U.N. women's conference in Beijing.

The proposed U.S. amendment would have reaffirmed the Beijing platform and a declaration adopted with it - but only ``while reaffirming that they do not create any new international human rights, and that they do not include the right to abortion.''

But the United States found itself virtually alone, with nations from Africa, Europe, Latin America and Asia all opposed.

The US proposal "was completely unnecessary, an effort to inject US politics into a broad international consensus. It distracted everyone here from the real issues," said Charlotte Bunch, executive director of the Center for Women's Global Leadership.

"They (Americans) are declaring victory and going home, as in Vietnam," she said. "The reality is that they heard loud and clearthe voices of 6,000 women here saying 'No,' echoing millions of other women worldwide."

The attempt to amend the one-page declaration had overshadowed the start of a two-week review of the Beijing platform that began Monday, angering many of the 130 governments and 6,000 representatives of women's and human rights organizations. They had hoped to focus on obstacles to women's equality in the economy, the family, education and political life - not on the abortion issue.

With the United States in agreement, delegates were scheduled to adopt the declaration by consensus later Friday.

Sauerbrey said the United States sought to amend the declaration because of concerns that advocacy groups were attempting to hijack the term ``reproductive health services'' in the document and define it in a way that guarantees the right to abortion.

On Thursday, Sauerbrey announced at a closed door meeting that the United States was prepared to drop the last phrase of the amendment referring to ``the right to abortion'' but still wanted affirmation that Beijing did not create any new human rights.

The reaction was again overwhelmingly negative.

The US attempt to amend the declaration was denounced by many other nations and NGO representatives as "playing politics with women's lives."

Nilcea Freire, Brazil's minister of state for women's affairs, said not a single country supported the revised U.S. amendment and every speaker insisted that the declaration be left untouched.

Sauerbrey had said then she would consult with Washington and await instructions.

On Friday morning, she reiterated that the U.S. goal was to clear up what the United States believes has been misinterpretation of the Beijing platform, and to make sure that decisions about abortion are made at the national level.

After a week of intense discussions, Sauerbrey said Friday that the United States was very pleased that other nations agreed with the U.S. position that the declaration did not guarantee a global right to abortion but left decisions on such subjects up to individual governments.

``We have heard from countries that our interpretation is their interpretation,'' Sauerbrey told reporters. ``So the amendment, we recognize, is really redundant, but it has accomplished its goals. We will be withdrawing the amendment and we will be joining consensus today on the declaration.''

Alexandra Arriaga, director of government relations at Amnesty International USA, welcomed the U.S. decision, saying, ``it reaffirms that women's rights are human rights.''

June Zeitlin, executive director of the Women's Environment and Development Organization, said she was pleased but not surprised that the United States dropped the amendment in the face of solid opposition.

``We're very pleased that the declaration can be approved today, and that we can now move to focus on how to achieve implementation on what kind of concrete actions government - which is what we all came here to talk about,'' she said.