Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban - Page 16 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Imperator · #**226** (**permalink**) 05-25-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter

Sorry, I was hearing what sounded like a strong anti-sex sentiment in your previous post. Perhaps it wasn't intended that way. FOrcing a woman to bear a baby she dosen't want could certainly look a whole lot like punishment, though, in the sense of 'you made your bed, now lie in it'.

The issue here really is at what point during the pregnancy does an embryo become a person? It isn't a clear line, although it would make things much easier if it were. Before you have a person there, it can't be 'punished', or harmed; you can't murder someone who does not yet exist.

since this is a partial birth abortion thread I would say that when the child is taken from the womb leaving its foot inside only, can breath and sans any immediate emergency survive, that’s life. Giving someone the ability under this circumstance, to then order the doctor to puncture its head and suck its brains out is murder.

Plus the old judicial miasma wherein someone can shoot a pregnant woman, kills her and her baby and is then charged with double homicide.

Otter · #**227** (**permalink**) 05-25-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

since this is a partial birth abortion thread I would say that when the child is taken from the womb leaving its foot inside only, can breath and sans any immediate emergency survive, that’s life. Giving someone the ability under this circumstance, to then order the doctor to puncture its head and suck its brains out is murder.

Plus the old judicial miasma wherein someone can shoot a pregnant woman, kills her and her baby and is then charged with double homicide.

I see. My impression was that at this point we were talking about abortion in general, rather than the specific late term procedure. I am in fact not in favor of late term abortions, which is why I brought up the issue of at what point an embryo becomes a person. There isn't a clear cut test for 'personhood', but it seems pretty clear that it requires awarenss, and so is not present at conception but does develop at some point before birth.

Otter · #**228** (**permalink**) 05-25-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamperpr00f

No it isn't an argument it is a truth.

To your example I would pose the following example.

A deadly virus hits sweeps the nation. Hospitals have to make a decision on who to save and who to let die. Who do you think wins out the elderly or children? The children because: 1. they have not yet lived their lives, and 2. they are more likely to survive. In your example I would obviously save the child because, as he is already born, he stands a greater chance for survival. That being said the two are nowhere near the same (abortion and your example).

Abortion isn't (usually) about having to choose who to save. Abortion, except in certain cases, is about killing one for the convenience of another.

In the case of a deasly disease, requiring triage measure to save a portion of the population we should in fact not give priority to young children or the elderly; the practical target group would be young to middle aged adults, who can work and function to rebuild afterwards, not small children requiring care, as heartbreaking as that would be. This has very little relevance to the the topic at hand, though.

However, Hafkes exapmle holds; if an embryo is the same as a child, then it should be a clear decision to save 100, and lose one, rather than the reverse.

Imperator · #**229** (**permalink**) 05-25-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter

I see. My impression was that at this point we were talking about abortion in general, rather than the specific late term procedure. I am in fact not in favor of late term abortions, which is why I brought up the issue of at what point an embryo becomes a person. There isn't a clear cut test for 'personhood', but it seems pretty clear that it requires awarenss, and so is not present at conception but does develop at some point before birth.

cool, I see your point.

Sunshine · #**230** (**permalink**) 05-25-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

since this is a partial birth abortion thread I would say that when the child is taken from the womb leaving its foot inside only, can breath and sans any immediate emergency survive, that’s life. Giving someone the ability under this circumstance, to then order the doctor to puncture its head and suck its brains out is murder.

Plus the old judicial miasma wherein someone can shoot a pregnant woman, kills her and her baby and is then charged with double homicide.

The procedure is the reverse of that. The HEAD is left inside the mother's body and the neck is exposed just enough to jab a scalpel in at the brain stem, which controls all autonomic functions of the body, and suck the brains out. The infant is never allowed to draw that first breath.

Strauss · #**231** (**permalink**) 05-27-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunshine

The procedure is the reverse of that. The HEAD is left inside the mother's body and the neck is exposed just enough to jab a scalpel in at the brain stem, which controls all autonomic functions of the body, and suck the brains out. The infant is never allowed to draw that first breath.

Different description, same moral outcome.

Hafke · #**232** (**permalink**) 05-27-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunshine

The partial birth procedure is particularly cruel because it is a viable fetus. Previous cases have turned on the viability of the fetus.

Fetal viability is irrelevent.

Otter · #**233** (**permalink**) 05-27-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hafke

Fetal viability is irrelevent.

Why do you say that? Certainly at the point of viability (at least, viability in the absence of major, or theoretical interventions) there is enough of a develped nervous system to constitute awareness.
In my mind, it its awareness, not viability per se, that is relevent, but in the absence of the ability to directly observe awareness viability has served as a stand-in, in the past.

Si modo · #**234** (**permalink**) 05-27-2008

Viability is very important. At that point, the fetus is no longer a fetus to be incubated by the woman. It is a baby/human being that can survive on it's own or with the help of the current technology - afforded all babies born prematurely.

Mick Jagger · #**235** (**permalink**) 06-08-2008

Where does the Constitution grant the government any authority whatsoever over abortion?

Imperator · #**236** (**permalink**) 06-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunshine

The procedure is the reverse of that. The HEAD is left inside the mother's body and the neck is exposed just enough to jab a scalpel in at the brain stem, which controls all autonomic functions of the body, and suck the brains out. The infant is never allowed to draw that first breath.

murder nonetheless...

Sunshine · #**237** (**permalink**) 06-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

murder nonetheless...

Yes, that was the point. Because it is a VIABLE fetus. The court has kind of drawn a line in the sand at ability of the fetus to survive outside the womb.

Otter · #**238** (**permalink**) 06-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Yes, that was the point. Because it is a VIABLE fetus. The court has kind of drawn a line in the sand at ability of the fetus to survive outside the womb.

The tricky thing about viability is that it's a line that keeps getting pushed back. We can save premature babies born earlier and earlier. What if we really do develop an artificial womb that could incubate an embryo from day one? Does that mean that there would suddenly be an obligation to incubate and bring to birth all of the frozen embryos in fertility clinics? Because they would then be 'viable'?

Sunshine · #**239** (**permalink**) 06-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter

The tricky thing about viability is that it's a line that keeps getting pushed back. We can save premature babies born earlier and earlier. What if we really do develop an artificial womb that could incubate an embryo from day one? Does that mean that there would suddenly be an obligation to incubate and bring to birth all of the frozen embryos in fertility clinics? Because they would then be 'viable'?

I have never read anything in a Supreme Court opinion that suggested viability was anything other than natural viability.

(BTW: I like your avatar. I have quite a collection of Celtic knots that I have embroidered. It is how I cope with flying.)

Otter · #**240** (**permalink**) 06-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunshine

I have never read anything in a Supreme Court opinion that suggested viability was anything other than natural viability.

(BTW: I like your avatar. I have quite a collection of Celtic knots that I have embroidered. It is how I cope with flying.)

Natural viability, like without an incubator, or steroids to mature the lungs more quickly? Not too many born before 29 weeks would survive without a lot of medical intervention now.

Embroidered knots? Wow, that takes patience and a steady hand. You should post some photos in the off topic section!
I have a knotwork band tattoo designed to go on my upper arm, under my zoomorphic animal armband, but it was designed by my sweetie (who's getting the same armband).
And I kind of like flying; I like seeing the clouds from above.

Bookmarks
Digg	del.icio.us	StumbleUpon	Google

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode