Should Medical Abortion Be Restricted?

[mfbukowski]

On that we do not disagree. We only disagree on where the line should be drawn and why. I believe the line should be drawn at the first trimester and no sooner. Others appear to want to draw the line at conception.

I'll debate you on that one!

I think it should be drawn BEFORE the first trimester!

[AmorLibertas]

I think it should be drawn BEFORE the first trimester!

Why?

[mfbukowski]

I believe the line should be drawn at the first trimester and no sooner. Others appear to want to draw the line at conception.

Underlining added.

I'll make you a deal. I'll tell you why the line should be drawn before the first trimester if you tell me HOW it could possibly be drawn "sooner"!

I believe that abortion should be completely legal before conception, absolutely no holds barred.

The first trimester starts at conception!

Dude, I'm pulling your leg! I was giving you a hard time about your above post- I think you meant "and no later".

[AmorLibertas]

Underlining added.

I'll make you a deal. I'll tell you why the line should be drawn before the first trimester if you tell me HOW it could possibly be drawn "sooner"!

I believe that abortion should be completely legal before conception, absolutely no holds barred.

The first trimester starts at conception!

Dude, I'm pulling your leg! I was giving you a hard time about your above post- I think you meant "and no later".

Ah... I was thinking of how some would like to draw the line at conception and others at the imlpantation of a zygote in the uterine wall, and even others when the presence of a heart beat is first detected, etc. I should have stated at the end of the first trimester, or perhaps more precisely at 12 weeks of normal gestational development.

[Nathair/|\]

Ah... I was thinking of how some would like to draw the line at conception and others at the imlpantation of a zygote in the uterine wall, and even others when the presence of a heart beat is first detected, etc. I should have stated at the end of the first trimester, or perhaps more precisely at 12 weeks of normal gestational development.

So what changes between 72560 seconds and 72561 seconds? It seems to me that anytime you cut a life short, even if that life is merely a mushroom, you should have good cause and reverence for the life.

[thesometimesaint]

Blueadept:

"One-third less...

after 1973. "

That is a logical fallacy. To be true you'd have to include the infamous as well as the famous.

[blueadept]

Lighten Up.....we do seem to take each other's comments too seriously at times.

[thesometimesaint]

blueadept:

Unfortunately emotions really don't transfer well over the internet.

[USU78]

When you are going to cite one of the Documents upon whichever the laws of this nation are based, you'd do well to actually read it and not misquote it, much less refer to a completely different document. Secondly, you'd do well to actually make a cogent argument when doing so.

I was obviously messing with you . . . why so serious? Did you actually go to the Preamble and try to figure out which of the clauses refer to "property" and which refer to "life"? Obviously, the quote's from the Vth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Many of the Founders were, as you recall, untroubled by the lack of a Bill of Individual Rights in the original version of the Constitution because they were all implicit in the Preamble and elsewhere.

Please take the trouble to read and understand the argument before attempting to comment on it. The argument I am making is sentience and cognition as a defining characteristic of human life with inalienable rights.

I understand your argument just fine. I just think you make some silly points and irrational distinctions. Not to worry, though . . . you share a Weltanschauung with a whole lot of misanthropic folks on the Left: genetically unique human organisms are all flushable at the whim of those who ought most to care about their welfare.

Let me explain why it's silly: The things that make something "alive" are moving (not always necessary), eating, expelling waste, and reproducing. Even more fundamental, however, is existing, occupying space, and being unique. Two Aspen trees may both exist and be genetically identical, for example, but they do not occupy the same space. Thus they are unique.

A fertilized human ovum exists, it occupies space no other organism occupies, and it is genetically unique. Whether or not it is sentient is quite beside the point. It is a new thing in the world, wholly dependent, to be sure, upon "the kindness of strangers," strangest of which is his mother, without whom he cannot separately continue to live. A unique yet wholly dependent organism has an interest in its own continued existence: it has an expectation of life. The Constitution preserves to the individual, who is prior to the Constitution, the right to life. A human organism in its iteration as fertilized ovum has the same expectancy as a human organism that is born but not yet self aware, and a non-self-aware just-born human organism has the same expectancy as a fully cognizant 25-year-old.

At all stages before that "full cognizance," the human organism is dependent upon somebody. The same argument that makes a dependent human organism in its iteration as implanted mass of undifferentiated cells flushable is the argument that makes the mentally retarded 25-year-old who will never hold a job, never be permitted to marry or father other children, and always and ever dependent upon others for his wants and needs flushable.

This line-drawing the misanthropic Left engages in is cynical and highly dangerous: we're relying on unelected but highly politically successful individuals to draw those lines. Why?

[Pahoran]

So what changes between 72560 seconds and 72561 seconds? It seems to me that anytime you cut a life short, even if that life is merely a mushroom, you should have good cause and reverence for the life.

I agree in principle, but if you're referring to Amor's arbitrary 12-week cutoff, then you might have dropped a couple of digits.

So, what changes between 7257600 seconds and 7257601 seconds...?

Which highlights Amor's problem. "Sentience" and "cognition" are not binary states. Sometimes you can tell whether or not someone is aware of their environment and thinking about things, and sometimes you just can't. And a comatose adult is not experiencing "sentience and cognition" at the time, but she will later on -- but then again, so will the "clump of cells" that Amor regards as unworthy of consideration.

Regards,

Pahoran

[thesometimesaint]

Some were and some weren't. Thomas Jefferson strongly disagreed with John Adams on the need for a Bill of Rights. Going so far as threatening to pull the Virgina delegation if it was not included.

[Jeff K.]

Actually the Bill of Rights was not ratified with the Constitution, it came later. The Constitution came into effect in 1787, while the Bill of Rights were 1791. And originally the ten were considered to be 12, but were later cut down after much argument.

[LeSellers]

Some were and some weren't. Thomas Jefferson strongly disagreed with John Adams on the need for a Bill of Rights. Going so far as threatening to pull the Virgina delegation if it was not included.

Jefferson wasn't even there. Wasn't within a thousand miles. He was in France and had no direct influence on writing the Document itself.

Actually, I wish there were no Bill of rights, because, in spite of the IX, our governors don't seem to recognize that their only legitimate powers are the few in Article I, Section 8, and they work tirelessly to infringe and limit the "unalienable rights" we enjoy just because God gave them to us.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Actually the Bill of Rights was not ratified with the Constitution, it came later. The Constitution came into effect in 1787, while the Bill of Rights were 1791. And originally the ten were considered to be 12, but were later cut down after much argument.

Not exactly so. The II of the Bill of rights was eventually ratified, and it is unconstitutional to raise the legislature's pay until after an election of representatives has intervened. Of course, there is a mechanism that allows them to ignore the intended consequence of their raising their own pay.

Article the second [now the XXVII] ... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

.... the "unalienable rights" we enjoy just because God gave them to us.

Lehi,

I am interested in how you personally see that they are "God given". Do you feel that that is the case because the document was inspired?

Many feel that rights are actually "given" by laws designed to create them. No law, no rights, practically speaking. Just curious how you see it.

[LeSellers]

I am interested in how you personally see that they are "God given". Do you feel that that is the case because the document was inspired?

Thomas Jefferson said they were.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It was the basis on which USmerica rejected the "divine right of kings".

Many feel that rights are actually "given" by laws designed to create them. No law, no rights, practically speaking. Just curious how you see it.

They are wrong. Rights existed long before laws. Even when, as now, the government dishonors those rights, limits them, takes them away at the point of (or threat of) a gun, the rights remain, and they are and were God-given.

1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

Thomas Jefferson said they were.

It's just interesting to think of the Constitution as non-canonized scripture which gives us doctrine.

Never much thought of TJ as a "prophet"!

I would put these rights in the category of "natural law"- which is why the D&C passage "no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate" says what it says.

It is a natural law for peace among humans

Thanks for the chance to think about it a little bit!

[saemo]

That is not correct, as I pointed out, the difference is that one mass of cells and tissue is eventually capable of sentience and cognition, whereas the other is not. Before that time, however, neither are capable of sentience or cognition and neither should be afforded constitutional protections to their continued existence or development. It is our sentience and ability to think which is the critically significant difference between organisms that should be afforded constitutional protections and tumors and the like which should not.

Value is entirely subjective, dependent upon one valuing something. That you might value the zygote, embryo, or fetus growing in yourself or another person does not bestow upon it the qualities which I maintain are the critical distinguishing features between an organism that should be afforded the constitutional protections and a cluster of living cells or tissues that should not.

I believe all human life has an inherent dignity that exists as an absolute truth. There is nothing subjective about this, at all.

[LeSellers]

It's just interesting to think of the Constitution as non-canonized scripture which gives us doctrine.

I carry a copy of the Constitution in my scripture tote, along with the standard works and a hymnal. They're not all equal in value, but they are all inspired.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

I carry a copy of the Constitution in my scripture tote, along with the standard works and a hymnal. They're not all equal in value, but they are all inspired.

Lehi

Very cool idea!

[Vance]

The determining factor for whether or not a growing human life-form should be regarded as having inalienable rights protected under the Constitution is when that human life-form reaches a point of physiological development that it becomes capable of sentiency or cognition.

So, how do you propose to determine what this means and when this occurs?

[mfbukowski]

So, how do you propose to determine what this means and when this occurs?

And define it to the day and minute for all possible babies?

Yes, "babies"!

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Yes he was. So What? Letters were being sent long before Adams and Jefferson were gleams in their great great grandfathers eyes.

[AmorLibertas]

And define it to the day and minute for all possible babies?

Yes, "babies"!

Yes, that's right, once they have achieved the physiological capacity differentiating them from a non-sentient, non-cognizant being they are accurately termed babies. As to the question of precisely when for each individual baby, although there are generally recognized indicators of fetal development that can be used for verification, the most reasonable course of action would be to err on the side of caution and not perform elective terminations of pregnancy when the fetus shows readily identifiable physiological development indicating sentience and cognition are imminent but not necessarily yet present. Fetal development is fairly standard and uniform in its rate of development in humans with very little variation from individual to individual.

[AmorLibertas]

I believe all human life has an inherent dignity that exists as an absolute truth. There is nothing subjective about this, at all.

You are mistaken. Your belief is subjective and not all that can be considered human life possesses dignity except in the mind of the beholder.