ronstar
.357 mag
Nope. Its a life at day one. But only becomes viable and able to survive on its own, at around week 18.
Report: Fox News Banning Trump From Network
- Thread starter Dr. Evil
- Start date
spat
.700 Nitro Express
OK, there you go.
If the government ruled you are officially a person at 18 weeks from conception, then that's it.
No laws necessary, no arguments about rights.
Before 18 weeks, it's cosmetic surgery "doctor, can you remove this unsightly blemish on my uterus before it gets bigger".
After 18 weeks, you are a legally equivalent to a pair of conjoined twins. You can no more execute the baby than one twin could have her sister killed because she was tired of sharing the bathroom.
See, no rights issues at all. Nearly everyone agrees that cosmetic surgery is nobody else's business (unless you expect them to pay for it, that's a whole 'bother ball of wax).
Everyone also agrees that you don’t get to murder people just because you find their existence inconvenient.
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
The viability argument is also nonsense. 18 days, 18 weeks, 18 months. Still can't survive on it's own.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
ronstar
.357 mag
A one day old embryo is not a "person". Not under US law. Rights in this country are bestowed upon birth.
So who answers the question? Then who enforces the answer because it will be in continuous contention?
Please tell me why after the fertilization is the time to act and not before. I'm talking normal, not cases where rape, incest, life or death to the pregnant.
healthcare.utah.edu
Are you saying an adult on life saving medication or equipment is now good to end?
When Is It Safe to Deliver Your Baby?
At U of U Health, our knowledgeable providers will be with you every step of the way to ensure a safe and successful preterm birth.
ronstar
.357 mag
AFAIC, as long as the fetus is 100% dependent upon the body of the mother and literally cannot survive without it, its part of the mother and mom has the right to choose its fate. That time period may change as technology progresses but right now its about 20 weeks. I honestly believe this is about persecuting women and taking away their rights. Many folks who want to ban abortion also want to take away women's right to vote, give states the right to ban gay and interracial marriage, etc.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
That is not correct.
In many states if you kill a pregnant woman, you will be prosecuted for 2 murders.
And that inconsistency is the problem. The beginning of life needs to be a clearly defined legal concept, not this nebulous "we know it when we see it" bullshit.
And especially shouldn't be attached to the whim of the person holding the baby.
I do not believe a dozen cells can be a person.
But at the same time I don't think that the personhood of a 24 week fetus should depend on it's proximity to a uterus.
Viability is a very problematic place to draw such a line for many reasons. Not the least of which is that it's a moving target that depends on the state of medical technology, and could quite easily get pushed back to conception in a few decades.
I do think somewhere in the 20 week neighborhood is probably right, but for brain function reasons, not Viability.
I think the legal definition for the start of life should mirror the one for the end.
If the lack of certain brain activity signifies death, then it's presence should be proof of a new life.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
That is the hard part of the whole problem.
I think a reasonable answer for that question will limit the number of militant dissenters to a minimum, but they will always be there.
Both the hardcore "conception" and "birth" crowds are zealots who will not accept any other answer. They each have their reasons, but neither position is acceptable to a majority of people (not that such a question should be decided by a vote).
I think the answer *has* to be one that provides the most consistency. To include matching the definition of the end of life.
ronstar
.357 mag
Federal law only recognizes rights for born persons. Ever heard of "natural born citizen"??? It's in the Constitution.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Yes, I wholeheartedly support the prohibition on fetuses running for POTUS.
I do not think that a baby old enough to survive in an incubator should he killed just because the mother finds it inconvenient.
ronstar
.357 mag
Cute.
There are 18 year olds who can't survive on their own.
The end of life is pretty easy. The beginning is the large bone of contention.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Why aren't they exactly the same ?
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
Why not?
It's her decision if she wants to keep it or not.
But if she's on her way to an abortion clinic she can't realistically claim she wanted to keep it for purposes of getting richer through lawsuits.
I agree.
I've always felt that there should be three stages to this:
1) First trimester = whatever the female wants to do. It's her fertility and health she is putting at risk if she likes to sleep around and constantly abort unwanted pregnancies.
2) Second trimester = (for the novice among us, that's TWELVE WEEKS LATER) - the woman should have already made her decision and acted up on it. At this point restrictions should start kicking in. Mother's health, obvious genetic abnormalities, extreme financial limitations, etc. Something she has to PROVE.
3) Third trimester = for the most part it is now a "baby" and, if not already, will soon be able to survive outside the womb. "Abortion" should only be authorized in extreme cases of risk to the mother's health, proven severe birth defects, things that MULTIPLE doctors will have to sign off on. Otherwise, deliver it via c-section and put it up for adoption.
Post-natal = ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME! Anyone who participates in a post-natal "abortion" should immediately get the death penalty, along with any politician stupid enough to vote for it. This is flat-out MURDER.
While they are at it, they need to revamp the restrictions on adoption.
The wife and I looked into it once, and were told not to even bother applying if we didn't have $10,000 cash in the bank. We could easily have provided a good, stable, loving home for a child, yet would not have had the chance.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Sure, she doesn't have to keep it.
But that doesn't mean she should be able to murder it either. You can't just stop feeding your infant, that would be murder.
Once it's a human being, it's a human being, and all the responsibility for care of the baby attaches.
I don't see the 3 stage thing though.
I see "not-a-baby" and "baby". I don't like the "sort of a baby" stage at all.
I think it really is simple. You say "at this stage if it was a coma patient could you legally unplug it's life support". Because that's basically what it is.
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
I'm gonna let you guys in on a little insider secret. It makes the life/death thing really easy.
99cummins
.308 Win
Not jumping into this debate but fun fact-21 weeks seems to be the record at the moment.
Born at 21 Weeks, Youngest Surviving Premature Baby in the World Now Heading Home - LifeNews.com
The parents of Jemarius Jachin Harbor Jr. call him their Christmas miracle. Born on Dec. 20 at Emory Hospital in Decatur, Georgia, Jemarius is believed to be the youngest premature baby to survive outside the womb, according to Live Action News. He was born at 21 weeks, zero days gestation –...
www.lifenews.com
spat
.700 Nitro Express
The question isn't "is it alive". That unsightly mole that aunt Mildred had removed was alive.
The question is "is it a distinct life separate from the mother's".
Or rather when does that happen.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
going off part of this .. she likes to sleep around .. and she has no kids .. but no doc will tie her tubes on her request ...
oh u should wait is what i have heard just in cast you want kids later ..
but i think you can go get your nuts tied and no questions about you should wait .. just in case ..
maybe that first part should be fixed ..
Not really.
I've met women who think abortion was a form of birth control after the fact.
Wouldn't think twice about not getting their tubes tied.
But most doctors would tell you that the more abortions you have the more the risk of the zygot not implanting properly, or the placenta pulling away from the uterine wall.
Like all things, people are responsible for their own health. If a woman wants to fuck up her chances of carrying later on in life that's her choice.
Sounds ridiculous I know, but one could argue that the sperm is the beginning. Another could argue that the egg is. Another could argue the motion is. etc etc. On the other hand, dead is dead. Sometimes it is at "brain dead" Other times it is at heart stop. etc etc.
I think I have answered previously that a sperm could be the beginning, or the egg could be the beginning, or the joining of the sperm and egg could be, or the first baby heart beat, or the first kick, or etc etc etc/
There have been dozens of suggestions in various writings.
One of my daughters had a friend who twice used abortion as birth control after the fact. Crazy but true. I do wonder if she will come to regret those decisions.
People say life begins at conception, I say life began about a billion years ago and it’s a continuous process. Continuous, just keeps rolling along. Rolling, rolling, rolling along. -George Carlin
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Science determined that Life begins when the cells act independent from the host. Which is conception.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
''If your making a cake and pour the batter into the pan and put it in the oven, then some one comes in Opens the oven and throws the pan across the floor , and you say Hey! why did you fuck up my cake? then they say it wasnt a cake , Well it would have been if you didnt fucking toss it across the floor""-Bill Burr