Well I used the highly technical term "organic thing" instead of organism for a reason! I don't think an egg is classified any different than a red blood cell. Yeah, it's organic matter, but it's not a living organism.

truth. i think the kicker (and i don't remember much of high school biology) is whether the cells have a bunch of organelles (nucleus, mitochondria, ribosomes, etc, etc) inside the membrane or not. red blood cells, for instance, don't. and sex cells don't either.

 

i could also be pulling this out of my ass.

Edited November 8, 201213 yr by Reddy

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.

Is it fair to say that human beings are very easily capable of partaking in reproductive processes and that it is necessary that we all take this capability extremely seriously, and leave it at that?

 

It's fair to say that, but we all know that a good chunk of the general population is never going to get that and thus we need some kind of definition via legislation.

 

Beating heart and active brain waves occur at nearly the same time, and both very early in pregnancy. Other than actually being born, any significant physical marker that someone might use to make such a moral judgment happens very, very early in the process, often before or very shortly after a woman even discovers she is pregnant.

 

There is no significant brain function until around 20 weeks. I think it's easy to mark the time when the brain has legitimate capabilities for consciousness/feeling/thought/experience as a place to base moral judgments on.

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.

 

The government can already make women and men with children stop drinking/taking drugs because of potential harm to the child.

 

It's fair to say that, but we all know that a good chunk of the general population is never going to get that and thus we need some kind of definition via legislation.

I understand...but it's always going to be extremely difficult and controversial to legislate the result or effects of a behavior that is considered to be an inalienable right.

There is no significant brain function until around 20 weeks. I think it's easy to mark the time when the brain has legitimate capabilities for consciousness/feeling/thought/experience as a place to base moral judgments on.

 

Feeling pain is not a significant function of the brain/nervous system? That happens well before 20 weeks.

 

Feeling pain is not a significant function of the brain/nervous system? That happens well before 20 weeks.

 

IIRC it is debatable if they can or not, but a fetal brain prior to 23 weeks, according to the article from the neuroscientist I posted earlier, is functionally equivalent to someone that would be declared brain dead.

 

edit: plants respond to external stimuli without a brain or nervous system, so I don't know that feeling pain (responding to external stimuli) really counts.

 

edit2:

http://news.discovery.com/human/fetus-pain-abortion-law.html

 

Derbyshire disagrees. Most studies, in his view, demonstrate that the nerve circuitry for pain isn't completely developed until 26 weeks in the womb. That's about when the third trimester begins. But even then, he said, a fetus can't experience true pain without consciousness and context.

 

In a letter to the Nebraska legislature, Mark Rosen -- director of Obstetrical Anesthesia at the University of California, San Francisco -- argued that the evidence is too weak to support the new law. His own review of evidence, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2005, suggested that fetuses are not capable of feeling pain until at least 29 weeks into pregnancy.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blog...rt-says-no.html

 

Edited November 8, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

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.

It's fair to say that, but we all know that a good chunk of the general population is never going to get that and thus we need some kind of definition via legislation.

wait wait wait what happened to personal responsibility?

Do you have an example of that law? I didnt realize that people had already let the govt go that far.

 

I'm pretty sure your child can be taken from you by DCFS if your drug abuse places the child in danger.

Do you have an example of that law? I didnt realize that people had already let the govt go that far.

 

OK, I'm not sure that the law can actually make you stop drinking, but they can take your kids away from you if you don't.

Feeling pain is not a significant function of the brain/nervous system? That happens well before 20 weeks.

 

The scientific consensus is around 22-24 weeks for pain.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201429

OK, I'm not sure that the law can actually make you stop drinking, but they can take your kids away from you if you don't.

Yes, they can and will take children with addictions to various substances at birth, do they not?

 

However, I do not believe they can force the mother to actually stop taking substances due to her being pregnant.

wait wait wait what happened to personal responsibility?

 

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.

Edited November 8, 201213 yr by Soxbadger

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

Edited November 8, 201213 yr by HickoryHuskers

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.

 

© Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—

 

(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

 

So no it doesnt work that way.

 

 

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.

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.

 

That's what I get for reading the first paragraph of the wikipedia article. So... the jokes on you.

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".

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".

I knew it didn't reach to things like drinking or prescriptions, but I was too lazy to check whether it included situations where there was clear abuse or harm done intentionally by the mother.

 

Law Review Article

Edited November 8, 201213 yr by iamshack

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

Interesting. The final stats show Romney actually got less votes than McCain and a lot less than Bush. Clearly, Mittens did not get the GOP base out, even though they are totally against Obama. But that's what happens when you nominate a far left wing Republican. Time to get back to basics and bribe the base with free stuff.