Soxbadger

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 10:34 AM) "don't cause others harm" is a moral position. But thats not my position. My position is that the way the law should work is that each person can do what they want so long as they do not interfere with another persons ability to do what they want. Its not about good or bad. (edit) To clarify, morals have an implicit right/wrong or good/bad implication. You cant do X, because its wrong or bad. That is not my view. There is no good or bad, as that is merely subjective, which is why I do not like "morality". Now if you are going to say "morals" does not include a good/bad right/wrong component then I guess my belief could be a moral, as any belief could be theoretically a moral.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 10:21 AM) Great, no legislating morality. Rape, theft, and murder are now all legal. Nope not true at all. In each of those instances you caused harm to another person, thats not a moral question.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 08:52 AM) And similarly, the complete lack of morals/ethics about life that cause said right wingers to be literally fearful of the direction of this country. I could say the same thing about right wingers who believe in the death penalty. How can you let humans decide whether another human is deserving of life or death? So shouldnt I be really fearful of the direction of the country? The bottom line is that you can have your morals and I can have my morals. I dont make you kill fetuses, you dont make me kill potentially innocent prisoners. Seems fair. I guess that is the leap I cant make. I cant force my morals on other people. Just because I am adamant in my belief that I am right, I dont force other people to do it, because its not for me to decide. If you want to know what makes me fearful, its when people want to legislate morality. We need less people thinking that they should be telling people how to live their life, not more.

Interesting article, even the prosecution was using the "viable" standard, which is really the crux of the issue.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 03:48 PM) That's what I get for reading the first paragraph of the wikipedia article. So... the jokes on you. haha happens to the best of us. I read it because my gut told me that I was right, but when I saw the article title part of me was like "Well s*** I guess I was wrong".

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 03:39 PM) I believe that law applies only to actions by others that cause the death of the fetus and does not apply to any actions by the mother herself. However, it does create established law recognizing the rights of a fetus as a human being. You would be right. The purpose of the law is to allow prosecutors to prosecute the death of a fetus, or to double prosecute in the death of a mother and fetus. It is explicitly not allowed to be used against the mother.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 03:33 PM) I'm still not sure why this point of yours is relevant. But yes, if the action results in the death of the unborn child, potentially the mother can get arrested and charged for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act No it cant, read what laws it applies to. Its for the prosecutor to be able to double up crimes. It explicitly doesnt apply to women who are pregnant. So no it doesnt work that way.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 03:15 PM) I'm pretty sure your child can be taken from you by DCFS if your drug abuse places the child in danger. Of course. The hypothetical was PRIOR TO BIRTH, can the govt stop the mother whose child isnt born. And he said there were already laws, and I wanted to see them because Id never heard of them. Everyone knows that after birth the child has independent rights and therefore the state can take the child from the mother if its in the childs best interest.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 03:07 PM) The government can already make women and men with children stop drinking/taking drugs because of potential harm to the child. Do you have an example of that law? I didnt realize that people had already let the govt go that far.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 02:35 PM) Because of the whole abortion debate, most everyone is afraid to step into everything before birth. Which means Im doing my job limiting the government. If they can make women stop drinking, what next, making men stop drinking if it negatively impacts their sperm, which could result in harm to the potential child? Im just not in favor of the govt making those type of decisions.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 01:38 PM) He's not. He's saying it's not "alive" or "human" until at least 21-24 weeks, the point at which the "thing" can be born, separated from its mother and kept alive. I said that is one way of determine when it is alive, but I am open to other scientific evidence that would suggest life is earlier. I just need evidence, and once again this argument is now simply "when is abortion okay" which presupposes at some point abortion is okay, which is all I am arguing against. I have no bright line rule for when its not okay and I am open to modification. Which is why even in my view, if science was able to take out a zygote at 10 seconds and save its life, I would be for protecting the zygote, not because its human or life, but because its no longer the mothers burden, and therefore the potential of life does have some rights.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 01:36 PM) I'm not flipping anything, you're not reading all of what I'm saying, and I've said it several times. At conception, the zygote has a full set of chromosomes and is therefore a life form as opposed to sperm and eggs which are not life forms. In the 8-10 week range, the zygote has become a fetus with a full set of human characteristics and is therefore a human life form. If this is what you are saying, then yes I agree with you. What Im saying is im not a scientist and that if scientists tell me its life at 8 weeks, so be it, and if scientists say its life at 20 weeks so be it. I have no strict guidelines on it, I just know that something that isnt "alive" doesnt have the same right as something that is "alive", therefore Ill leave it to the scientists to tell me what is "alive".

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 01:31 PM) How is becoming a human being a moral issue? A human being is a biological creature with a well-defined physical development. Other than physical development, what makes somebody a human being? Being alive. A dead body has all the physical characteristics of a human, but we dont give dead bodies the same rights as humans. Why? Being alive means something.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 01:26 PM) The mother can drink and hurt them because our society has said they can, just like society used to say we can own slaves and hurt/kill them at our discretion. I'm not stating that it is fully human at conception. I'm stating that it's human in the 8-10 week range. So after all of this you just flat out agree with me that they arent protected at conception, but instead protected at a time later on. Thus the only argument is "WHEN". Hilarious that you agree with me now, just flipping hilarious.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 01:23 PM) This is the thing I hate most about the abortion issue is that the two political sides have the exact opposite positions you would expect them to have. The liberals have their heads in the sand and ignore the scientific evidence about the beginning of human life, and the conservatives are standing up for the members of society who are the most vulnerable and have the fewest rights. Yet on most other issues, the conservatives have their heads in the sand when it comes to science and the liberals are standing up for people whose rights are getting trampled. Show me all your science friends who say that cells at conceptions are the equal to humans, just show me the money. This is so frustrating. At the second of conception, the cells arent "members of society" thats just a fallacy.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 12:58 PM) So should the government keep their nose out of all of the killing of human beings, or just some of them? You see, that "keep the government out of it" argument is inconsistent with the recognition that they are human beings. You can go the route of soxbadger and ignore science and try to say they aren't human beings and then at least you are consistent, but then we tried for a lot of years to say that blacks weren't human beings either. If you admit that they are human beings, then that trumps any argument about the rights of women or keeping the government out of people's sex lives and any of that other stuff, except when continuing the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. lol If they are human beings, why can the mother drink and hurt them? Why cant DCFS force the mother to stop drinking or go to rehab? You need to think about the consequences of your statements before you just puff about how wrong I am. Also please link me to all the scientists who conclusively state that at conception its "human". If youre going to rely on scientists, bring me some information to back up your claim. Its poor form to just say "Well everyone thinks this" and not prove it. Thanks in advance.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 01:01 PM) We can all agree it's a touchy subject. My issue is SB's ironically inhuman view of something he admits is alive, but nevertheless should not be considered a thing which is in need of keeping alive. I'm "fine" with it up until that 6ish week timeline. Morning after pill? Acceptable. After fertilization and the egg and the sperm begin to create something? Nope, except in cases of incest/rape/health of the mother. But the issue becomes that most of the time you don't know you're pregnant, so effectively its a no abortion but in exception situations type thing. Part 1, not sure how that is your conclusion from my posts. The entire question is "when is it alive" because once you determine its "alive" then its absolutely deserving of protection. Right now my best argument for alive is "can it survive without the mother." I dont know when that time is, Id ask scientists to give me data. Part 2, so im completely inhumane because I am not sure when life begins, but youre absolutely humane because youve set a 6 week deadline? How does that even make sense?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 12:48 PM) Lots of people shouted and screamed about laws restricting late-term abortions. 34 Senators voted against it. There isn't "a particular point in pregnancy" when a fetus undergoes some sudden change that transforms it from a blob of tissue into a human baby. That's why delineating any particular date is silly from a scientific standpoint. Medically, there is no significant difference in development that makes an abortion at 12 weeks any different than one at 39 weeks. But by your own argument of zygote v fetus, there is a scientific difference between 0 and some point, yet you dont recognize that. Interesting.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 12:44 PM) A zygote isn't a fetus. A zygote is a stage of development before fetus. A fetus does have organs, bones, skin, a heart, brain, etc. The difference between abortion and amputation is that abortion permanently terminates a beating human heart and functioning human brain while an amputation does not. http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5484633_many-...-heartbeat.html A fetus does not have organs, bones, skin, heart, brain, etc at conception. So by your own argument, a fetus is not alive at conception.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 12:35 PM) I protect a fetus and not sperm because a fetus is a human being with a full set of chromosomes and a sperm is not. Perhaps you need to go back to 9th grade biology to understand the difference. You can say "fetuses aren't humans because I said so" as much as you'd like, just like people can say "the earth is only 6000 years old because the Bible said so" as much as they like. Both are equally true. Wow. So this man http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news124, is not a human because he only has 44 chromosomes? And I didnt say fetuses arent humans because I said so, I said they arent human because they havent been born and thus are not an actual independent entity. You can argue that my definition is wrong, thats your opinion. If they are humans, like you say, then why can a mother drink and hurt the fetus, and the fetus has no rights against the mother? Why cant the fetus sue the mother for smoking?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 11:25 AM) Lol, this is just an abhorrent view. I really hope your wife doesn't have a miscarriage. I'm sure the "Oh honey, stop crying. You're being ridiculous. It's not like that was a human you just lost. Just a bag of cells!" response would work well. My mother almost died due a miscarriage, we dont refer to the fetus as my dead brother/sister. In fact we NEVER refer to it at all, why because it wasnt a human. So you can call me abhorrent or the worst human in the world, that wont change anything, its not about what people think about me, its about not expanding govt power.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 11:21 AM) I'm very interested to see if your opinion on this changes once you actually have a kid. After hearing/seeing a heartbeat of the "non-human" you created at 4-6 weeks, and then watching the development of that "non-human" for the weeks thereafter, it's very difficult to definitely state that there's no life there just because it can't live on it's own without the mother. Im not saying there is "no life." I am saying that there is a balance. And it wont change my opinion. Its not my choice what other people do with their lives. If they want to recklessly kill fetuses, it doesnt change my day. I dont believe in the govt telling people how to live their life, regardless of what I personally believe, it just doesnt matter. This is about punishing people for controlling their own body. As soon as the fetus is out of the body, it has its own rights. But it doesnt just magically get rights the instant of conception, because otherwise we are going down a terrible terrible big govt logic. For example, if a fetus is equal to a human, and if its true that alcohol damages fetuses, then why not allow the govt to arrest mothers who drink? Or mothers who smoke? Or mothers who dont eat the right food? At what point do we say no more?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 11:09 AM) If the fetuses are human fetuses then they are humans. No they arent. If a fetus dies due to miscarriage before 3 months, does it have a birth certificate? Does it have a social security number? Has it taken a breathe? Has it lived? The answer is no. If you want to extend protection to unborn life, argue away. But at what point do we stop protecting something that isnt real? If you protect a fetus, why not sperm? Its the same theory, you are killing potential life. If we go down that road, shouldnt birth control be illegal, as it kills eggs, which could have been life? But please spare me the "fetus are humans", because they arent. They are not deserving of the same rights as an actual living breathing person. Its insulting to those of us who actually are alive.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 10:58 AM) I haven't seen any evidence that people make choices about sex based on whether or not abortion is legal, and even if so, worry-free sex is a terrible reason to legalize the killing of human beings. Fetuses arent humans, just like my sperm isnt a human and just like the potential baby that I am thinking of maybe having in the future isnt a human. And you dont need to think any reason is a good reason for killing humans because sex is a perfectly good reason for killing sperm and eggs, which is what we are talking about here.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 06:48 AM) Abortion isn't about what happens in your bedroom. Sure it is. Abortion impacts sex choices. With a safety net, you can do a lot more things with a lot less worry. Without one, well its back to belts and suspenders, because condoms can break and I dont think Trojan is going to pay for my kids life. About picking 2016, its nothing more than saying who you think will win the World Series next year. Its just for fun.