NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: I thought this was a very interesting take on the impact of the court decision to legalize abortion. I don't necessarily agree with it, I just found it intriguing.


Roe's Birth, and Death (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/21/opinion/21brooks.html?th&emc=th)
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: April 21, 2005

Justice Harry Blackmun did more inadvertent damage to our democracy than any other 20th-century American. When he and his Supreme Court colleagues issued the Roe v. Wade decision, they set off a cycle of political viciousness and counter-viciousness that has poisoned public life ever since, and now threatens to destroy the Senate as we know it.

When Blackmun wrote the Roe decision, it took the abortion issue out of the legislatures and put it into the courts. If it had remained in the legislatures, we would have seen a series of state-by-state compromises reflecting the views of the centrist majority that's always existed on this issue. These legislative compromises wouldn't have pleased everyone, but would have been regarded as legitimate.

Instead, Blackmun and his concurring colleagues invented a right to abortion, and imposed a solution more extreme than the policies of just about any other comparable nation.

Religious conservatives became alienated from their own government, feeling that their democratic rights had been usurped by robed elitists. Liberals lost touch with working-class Americans because they never had to have a conversation about values with those voters; they could just rely on the courts to impose their views. The parties polarized as they each became dominated by absolutist activists.

Unable to lobby for their pro-life or pro-choice views in normal ways, abortion activists focused their attention on judicial nominations. Dozens of groups on the right and left have been created to destroy nominees who might oppose their side of the fight. But abortion is never the explicit subject of these confirmation battles. Instead, the groups try to find some other pretext to destroy their foes.

Each nomination battle is more vicious than the last as the methodologies of personal destruction are perfected. You get a tit-for-tat escalation as each side points to the other's outrages to justify its own methods.

At first the Senate Judiciary Committee was chiefly infected by this way of doing business, but now the entire body - in fact, the entire capital - has caught the abortion fight fever.

Every few years another civilizing custom is breached. Over the past four years Democrats have resorted to the filibuster again and again to prevent votes on judicial nominees they oppose. Up until now, minorities have generally not used the filibuster to defeat nominees that have majority support. They have allowed nominees to have an up or down vote. But this tradition has been washed away.

In response, Republicans now threaten to change the Senate rules and end the filibuster on judicial nominees. That they have a right to do this is certain. That doing this would destroy the culture of the Senate and damage the cause of limited government is also certain.

The Senate operates by precedent, trust and unanimous consent. Changing the rules by raw majority power would rip the fabric of Senate life. Once the filibuster was barred from judicial nomination fights, it would be barred entirely. Every time the majority felt passionately about an issue, it would rewrite the rules to make its legislation easier to pass. Before long, the Senate would be just like the House. The culture of deliberation would be voided. Minority rights would be unprotected.

Those who believe in smaller government would suffer most. Minority rights have been used frequently to stop expansions of federal power, but if those minority rights were weakened, the federal role would grow and grow - especially when Democrats regained the majority.

Majority parties have often contemplated changing the filibuster rules, but they have always turned back because the costs are so high. But, fired by passions over abortion, Republican leaders have subordinated every other consideration to the need to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Democrats, meanwhile, threaten to shut down the Senate.

I know of many senators who love their institution, and long for a compromise that will forestall this nuclear exchange. But they feel trapped. If they turn back now, their abortion activists will destroy them.

The fact is, the entire country is trapped. Harry Blackmun and his colleagues suppressed that democratic abortion debate the nation needs to have. The poisons have been building ever since. You can complain about the incivility of politics, but you can't stop the escalation of conflict in the middle. You have to kill it at the root. Unless Roe v. Wade is overturned, politics will never get better.

The supreme court only said that abortion was a medical proceedure, and therefore is covered by the right to privacy. What goes on between you and your doctor is nobody else's business.

I think that's a good position. Are we going to take a vote in every state legislature one each and every medical proceedure to determine it's legality? What if a religious group that thinks blood transfusions are immoral wins a majority of seats on some state's legislature? Can they then make blood transfusions illegal in that state? What if some woman's group that opposes cosmetic surgury wins a majority of seats? Will facelifts be banned? Medical decisions are between the doctor and patient only.

The constitution does not consist of a right of privacy, this too was invented during Roe vs. Wade.

The supreme court only said that abortion was a medical proceedure, and therefore is covered by the right to privacy. What goes on between you and your doctor is nobody else's business.

I think that's a good position. Are we going to take a vote in every state legislature one each and every medical proceedure to determine it's legality? What if a religious group that thinks blood transfusions are immoral wins a majority of seats on some state's legislature? Can they then make blood transfusions illegal in that state? What if some woman's group that opposes cosmetic surgury wins a majority of seats? Will facelifts be banned? Medical decisions are between the doctor and patient only.
It may well come to that ( state by state decisions on most controversial medical procedures ), unless Congress steps up to the plate and addresses this sort of problem. As another poster pointed out, there is no constitutionally guaranteed "right to privacy," which means this judicially created right is subject to change by succeeding courts. Which in turn means that judicial appoinments become a critical matter, which goes a long way toward explaining the current grid-lock in Congress over judicial appointments.

I think the writer of this article has a valid point.

The constitution doesn't guarantee that the government won't go poking around in your private medical decisions? Maybe it's time for an ammendment.

The supreme court only said that abortion was a medical proceedure, and therefore is covered by the right to privacy. What goes on between you and your doctor is nobody else's business.

I think that's a good position. Are we going to take a vote in every state legislature one each and every medical proceedure to determine it's legality? What if a religious group that thinks blood transfusions are immoral wins a majority of seats on some state's legislature? Can they then make blood transfusions illegal in that state? What if some woman's group that opposes cosmetic surgury wins a majority of seats? Will facelifts be banned? Medical decisions are between the doctor and patient only.
Normally, I would agree with you about medical decisions involing the doctor and patient only, but in the case of abortion, there are two patients: the mother and the child (or so many believe, myself included). So, the rights of both patients must be considered. Transfused blood has never grown into a separate person. Cosmetically altered body parts have never grown into separate people. Fetuses have grown, and regularly do grow, into separate people.

I am Catholic, but my political opposition to abortion is based on what I think is called a "natural law" argument. That is, the purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and property. A fetus, if allowed to develop, will definitely become a person later, so it's possible that it's a person right now. Thus, given this uncertainty, it's best to err on the side of caution and assume that it is a person. Consequently, you shouldn't terminate a fetus just as you wouldn't terminate a newborn baby.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

Abortion is such a tricky subject.

Anybody have candy?

Cog, a fetus will DEFINITELY become a person if allowed to develop? I may as well say, a sperm will DEFINITELY become a person if allowed to impregnate and fertilize an egg. What is the point in that? We could go along infinite regression to prove that masturbation is immoral because it's killing what will DEFINITELY become a person (given the right conditions!)

Normally, I would agree with you about medical decisions involing the doctor and patient only, but in the case of abortion, there are two patients: the mother and the child (or so many believe, myself included). So, the rights of both patients must be considered. Transfused blood has never grown into a separate person. Cosmetically altered body parts have never grown into separate people. Fetuses have grown, and regularly do grow, into separate people.

I am Catholic, but my political opposition to abortion is based on what I think is called a "natural law" argument. That is, the purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and property. A fetus, if allowed to develop, will definitely become a person later, so it's possible that it's a person right now. Thus, given this uncertainty, it's best to err on the side of caution and assume that it is a person. Consequently, you shouldn't terminate a fetus just as you wouldn't terminate a newborn baby.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
I understand your position, but I disagree with it. I think that before a brain capable of thought and emotion developes the fetus is no more important than a tonsil. Sure, the fetus has the ability to become a thinking, feeling human being, but until it does so it shouldn't get the same rights. Our main difference is that I draw the "personhood" line at a point in brain development, and you don't.

The constitution does not consist of a right of privacy, this too was invented during Roe vs. Wade.

Ninth Amendment. Read it, learn it, understand it.
In a nutshell: "We don't enough paper to write down every single right protected by this constitution so all of the rights that we didn't write down are protected too."

Roe vs Wade surely did start all the religious social conservative/liberal bullshit, but how do you suggest that the states legislate abortion and limits thereon?

What a load of crap. The courts have been the arbiters of civil rights on many touchy subjects. This is because one of the main purposes of the judicial system is to protect civil rights. One could just as well make an argument that the judges who decided Brown v. Board destroyed politics - and it would be just as much bull.

The constitution does not consist of a right of privacy, this too was invented during Roe vs. Wade.

Of course, the decision had quite a bit to do with a little thing called due process. Is that not in the Constitution either?

I may as well say, a sperm will DEFINITELY become a person if allowed to impregnate and fertilize an egg. What is the point in that? We could go along infinite regression to prove that masturbation is immoral because it's killing what will DEFINITELY become a person (given the right conditions!)

You could say it, but you'd be saying something non sequitur. I laugh everytime I hear someone say this because it's so illogical.

Here's a dumb analogy... If you have a tomato, mushrooms, and a head of lettuce sitting separately in the fridge, you don't have a salad. It's not a salad until everything is tossed together in the bowl. If you throw out the tomato before making the salad, you haven't thrown out a salad. There isn't a person in the world who would claim that you threw out a whole salad when you JUST threw out a tomato.

In other words, sperm by itself Obviously ISN'T a person and shouldn't be regarded as one in order to make point.

You could say it, but you'd be saying something non sequitur. I laugh everytime I hear someone say this because it's so illogical.

Stating that an embryo/fetus will definitely become a life is equally illogical, considering that ~80% of them don't.

Here's a dumb analogy... If you have a tomato, mushrooms, and a head of lettuce sitting separately in the fridge, you don't have a salad. It's not a salad until everything is tossed together in the bowl. If you throw out the tomato before making the salad, you haven't thrown out a salad. There isn't a person in the world who would claim that you threw out a whole salad when you JUST threw out a tomato.

Let's just say that someone *needed* all three ingredients to make a salad. They haven't put the tomato in yet, and they throw out the rest. They haven't thrown out a salad either.

In other words, sperm by itself Obviously ISN'T a person and shouldn't be regarded as one in order to make point.

Unless you can come up with a definition of person that includes embryos and doesn't include tumors or skin cells, we can say that an embryo obviously isn't a person and shouldn't be regarded as one in order to make a point.

Cog, a fetus will DEFINITELY become a person if allowed to develop? I may as well say, a sperm will DEFINITELY become a person if allowed to impregnate and fertilize an egg. What is the point in that? We could go along infinite regression to prove that masturbation is immoral because it's killing what will DEFINITELY become a person (given the right conditions!)
Which would mean that oral sex is immoral too! :eek:

Actually, that argument is specious. Sperm cannot become "a person" until merged with an egg. I suppose you could say it's "half a person," but even that would be technically incorrect.

Roe vs Wade surely did start all the religious social conservative/liberal bullshit, but how do you suggest that the states legislate abortion and limits thereon?
I don't.

Although I have an intense personal aversion to abortion, I don't see any practical way of dealing with the issue other than granting the decision to abort or not to abort to the individual female. Any other way is even more impractical, not to mention invasive.

You could say it, but you'd be saying something non sequitur. I laugh everytime I hear someone say this because it's so illogical.

Here's a dumb analogy... If you have a tomato, mushrooms, and a head of lettuce sitting separately in the fridge, you don't have a salad. It's not a salad until everything is tossed together in the bowl. If you throw out the tomato before making the salad, you haven't thrown out a salad. There isn't a person in the world who would claim that you threw out a whole salad when you JUST threw out a tomato.

In other words, sperm by itself Obviously ISN'T a person and shouldn't be regarded as one in order to make point.

Well the whole point I was responding to was that while a fetus is not a person, it 'will definitely' become one and therefore, killing it is akin to killing a person. My point was that the conditions are not such that all fetuses become persons, abortion or no abortion. And that similarly, a sperm is not a person but will 'definitely' become one and so by the same logic, masturbation is killing.

Illogical? Yep. So is insisting that because cells grow, abortion is murder.

Dem made a much better response to your post however, and I'll let him keep up the good fight since I'm too busy committing homicide. :eek: ;) :gundge:

Stating that an embryo/fetus will definitely become a life is equally illogical, considering that ~80% of them don't.
I don't usually rant about "proof," but some on this statement would be nice. I've never heard of this before. Yes, there are cases of spontaneous abortion and still-borns, but 80%????

Oh, fine, masturbation can't be killing since the sperms didn't have a chance to impregnate someone (excepting the odd coincidence here or there... or sperm donation possibility).

However, oral sex, inter-mammary sex, 'pulling out', hand sex, anal sex and dry humping = ALL MURDER! Because each one of those involves sperm which would, if only given the same rights as the rest of us humans have, grow up to become a whole person! By denying them that chance in the above manners you are literally preventing what would otherwise likely become a sentient being, with it's own soul, brain and heart. And taxation, don't forget that.

The constitution does not consist of a right of privacy, this too was invented during Roe vs. Wade.

Wrong. That the Ninth Amendment included a right to privacy was determined in the Griswold v. Connecticut. The Ninth Amendment, which states that we, the people, have all the rights that aren't specificially given to someone else, definately seems to at least hint that we have some right to, you know, not have the government spy on us every hour of the day.

I agree with Brooks in the abstract that Roe v. Wade has injected a great deal of poison into our government, but would also point out that so far the Democrats have been much more willing to compromise on this issue than Republicans. Many if not most elected Democrats have taken the stance that, even though abortions are, in many ways, horrible, they must remain legal regardless, and if I remember correctly Clinton preceded the current administration by cutting off federal funding to abortion clinics (I may be incorrect there). In my opinion the Roe case has become such a momentous part of American politics because it is one of the handful of issues Republicans, especially the neoconservative wing, flog to death in order to get millions of poor rural and urban whites to vote against their socioeconomic issues and for Republicans. Both sides could and should have agreed on a compromise long ago, but by now the Republicans have invested so much into the repeal of abortion that Democrats have been stirred never to let it happen.

I love too how Brooks manages to lay most of the blame at the hands of activist judges "legislating" from the bench. The government can pass any law which flies in the face of any court ruling, if they are able to convince the judiciary that their law deserves precedence and that the previous ruling should be thrown out (for example, the death penalty was banned for years in the United States, then reinstated). Besides, judges cannot actually enforce anything, and instead rely on ordinary people to call to their attention cases in violation of the judiciary's interpretation of the Constitution. The current war against judges who dare to think that the Constitution was not meant to be interpreted literally, or as the neoconservatives see fit, should deeply disturb everyone who cares about federalism or the separation of powers.

Cog, a fetus will DEFINITELY become a person if allowed to develop? I may as well say, a sperm will DEFINITELY become a person if allowed to impregnate and fertilize an egg. What is the point in that? We could go along infinite regression to prove that masturbation is immoral because it's killing what will DEFINITELY become a person (given the right conditions!)
I'll need to rethink my choice-of-words (and maybe replace the word "definitely").

That said, I draw the line of personhood at fertilization; when a sperm fertilizes an egg is the limit of zero probability of personhood*. No unfertilized egg has ever been observed becoming a person by itself. No sperm has ever been observed becoming a person by itself. It's only when the two combine into a fertilized egg that a person results.

* I mean the probability that you have a person. Regardless of our differences of opinion about after fertilization, I think we can both agree that there is no person before fertilization.

Stating that an embryo/fetus will definitely become a life is equally illogical, considering that ~80% of them don't.
If I may ask: Where are you getting that number from? ...and how, precisely, is it being defined?

It's possible that I need to brush up on my sex education, but as I understand it, pregnancy begins when an egg is fertilized. If I'm reading your statement correctly, then you're claiming that 80% of all fertilized eggs/embryos/fetuses die. So, it sounds (to me) like you're saying that 80% of all pregnancies result in fetal/infant death. So, I'm not sure I'm reading that correctly. Please clarify.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

Although I have an intense personal aversion to abortion, I don't see any practical way of dealing with the issue other than granting the decision to abort or not to abort to the individual female. Any other way is even more impractical, not to mention invasive.
Impractical? Not really. Abortion has always been illegal where I live, that is Ireland. It's the last remnant of the former Catholic pseudo-theocracy. I'm not happy about it and I wish it would be legalised.

Is it Invasive? Certainly. The law here thinks that it has jurisdiction over the citizen's bodies. Abortion and drugs are not legal.

Impractical? Not really. Abortion has always been illegal where I live, that is Ireland.

Might I ask how many women die in illegal, secret abortion procedures? That's where the impractical part comes in. Some women will seek abortions, no matter what the law says, and if the only way to obtain one is the old back-alley-coat-hanger technique, many women will needlessly sicken or die and thousands more children will be mutilated, which I consider, for society, to be pretty damn impractical.

Plus America has a few more people than Ireland, which makes it a bit harder to govern.

I don't usually rant about "proof," but some on this statement would be nice. I've never heard of this before. Yes, there are cases of spontaneous abortion and still-borns, but 80%????

There are websites out there. Most of what I know comes from classes, but I have found websites on this before.

80% was including deaths within a few days after birth due to genetic defects - I was mixing up my statistics.

Actual miscarriages are closer to 50%.

There are websites out there. Most of what I know comes from classes, but I have found websites on this before.


http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1192.asp

As many as 50 percent of all pregnancies may end in miscarriage, because many losses occur before a woman realizes she is pregnant.

And that is cited from a study from the New England Journal of Medicine.

That said, I draw the line of personhood at fertilization; when a sperm fertilizes an egg is the limit of zero probability of personhood*. No unfertilized egg has ever been observed becoming a person by itself. No sperm has ever been observed becoming a person by itself. It's only when the two combine into a fertilized egg that a person results.

Congratulations. You have just made a large number sexually active women guilty of manslaughter without her even knowing it.

If I may ask: Where are you getting that number from? ...and how, precisely, is it being defined?

Classes - explained above.

It's possible that I need to brush up on my sex education, but as I understand it, pregnancy begins when an egg is fertilized. If I'm reading your statement correctly, then you're claiming that 80% of all fertilized eggs/embryos/fetuses die. So, it sounds (to me) like you're saying that 80% of all pregnancies result in fetal/infant death. So, I'm not sure I'm reading that correctly. Please clarify.

Actually, pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg implants. However, I was saying that ~50% of all fertilized eggs never make it to birth - naturally.

(I have been corrected)

http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1192.asp

And that is cited from a study from the New England Journal of Medicine.

Crap! This is why I get points off on tests! That sounds correct. 50-60% miscarriage, and another 30% find soon *after* birth that they have gross genetic diseases.

Might I ask how many women die in illegal, secret abortion procedures? That's where the impractical part comes in. Some women will seek abortions, no matter what the law says, and if the only way to obtain one is the old back-alley-coat-hanger technique, many women will needlessly sicken or die and thousands more children will be mutilated, which I consider, for society, to be pretty damn impractical.

Plus America has a few more people than Ireland, which makes it a bit harder to govern.

Ireland is a ferry ride over to Britian. I think a lot of them come over here where it is legal (I think this is unfortunate but still..). I don't know if in Northern Ireland it is illegal, seming as I thought they were governed (semi) under English rule. Really must go brush up on my English politics.

Sarah Weddington successfully argued Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court in 1973, but it appears her forensic skills are slipping. The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin reports on a speech Weddington gave at La Verne Law School in Ontario, Calif.:

"Roe v. Wade is like a space shield protecting women from legislative restrictions," she said, referring to the precedent-setting court decision that secured a woman's right to abortions. "If that space shield melted down, then the states could pretty much do whatever they want to."

Weddington came to speak to ULV students because as Roe v. Wade ages, more people take the right to an abortion for granted, she said.

"No one under about 55 remembers before Roe v. Wade," she said. "Even people who are pro-choice are younger, and for all their lives it's been that way."


First of all, "a space shield"? What kind of simile is that? Has Weddington been delivering her abortion pitch at "Star Trek" conventions? Second, if you're 55 today, you were 23 when the court decided Roe. Weddington must have had quite a wild youth if the first 95 trimesters of her life are a blank.


The unborn could not be reached for comment.

I like how everyone is treading lightly around Cogitation. Most anti-abortion views are torn into on NS, not quite so with Cog.

http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1192.asp

As many as 50 percent of all pregnancies may end in miscarriage, because many losses occur before a woman realizes she is pregnant.

And that is cited from a study from the New England Journal of Medicine.
I see. Well, now that I've seen the explanation, that seems to make sense. Thanks for linking that; I didn't know the rate was so high.

Congratulations. You have just made a large number sexually active women guilty of manslaughter without her even knowing it.
I've just been confronted with some new information that I did not know, before, so I would need time to carefully think it through. However, from the description given, these sound like accidental and unpreventable deaths; I wouldn't assign blame in these cases. Not all accidental deaths result in manslaughter warrants or charges. Besides which, sexually active women not looking to get pregnant would probably use contraception (or, in my opinion, should use contraception) and the proper use of contraception would be largely effective at preventing fertilizations, anyway, so the 50% factor wouldn't come into play as much (I think).

Actually, pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg implants.I stand corrected.

However, I was saying that ~50% of all fertilized eggs never make it to birth - naturally.

(I have been corrected)Noted. I'll need time to think over the implications of this fact.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

...

Congratulations. You have just made a large number sexually active women guilty of manslaughter without her even knowing it.
Just a friendly note: You might want to tone this down just a little bit. Abortion is a touchy subject, so it's easy to accidentally start a flamewar.

A better way to say this would be "Cog, I think your definition of 'personhood' would make a lot of women technically guilty of manslaughter without their even knowing it." This would avoid the connotation of laying blame on me. Now, your comment isn't serious enough that I would slap you with an official warning (for an isolated incident), but like I said, it's easy to start flamewars on touchy subjects and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I'm not personally prone to starting or continuing flamewars (or I wouldn't be a Moderator); I'm just saying that you should keep this in mind when dealing with other NationStates players.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Stating that an embryo/fetus will definitely become a life is equally illogical, considering that ~80% of them don't.

80%? Are you kidding? Are you suggesting that 80% of fetuses spontaneously abort or are stillbirths? Try ~15%.

EDIT: Sorry, you said embryos. Pregnancy begins when the embryo implants. Your link is incorrect because it includes embryos that do not implant but implies they are pregnancies. 15% of pregnancies do no result in a live birth naturally. I mentioned this to you in another thread with a link. Your link grossly exaggerates by including what is not a pregnancy as implantation did not occur.

NOTE: I thought this was a very interesting take on the impact of the court decision to legalize abortion. I don't necessarily agree with it, I just found it intriguing.


Roe's Birth, and Death (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/21/opinion/21brooks.html?th&emc=th)
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: April 21, 2005

Justice Harry Blackmun did more inadvertent damage to our democracy than any other 20th-century American. When he and his Supreme Court colleagues issued the Roe v. Wade decision, they set off a cycle of political viciousness and counter-viciousness that has poisoned public life ever since, and now threatens to destroy the Senate as we know it.

When Blackmun wrote the Roe decision, it took the abortion issue out of the legislatures and put it into the courts. If it had remained in the legislatures, we would have seen a series of state-by-state compromises reflecting the views of the centrist majority that's always existed on this issue. These legislative compromises wouldn't have pleased everyone, but would have been regarded as legitimate.

Instead, Blackmun and his concurring colleagues invented a right to abortion, and imposed a solution more extreme than the policies of just about any other comparable nation.

Religious conservatives became alienated from their own government, feeling that their democratic rights had been usurped by robed elitists. Liberals lost touch with working-class Americans because they never had to have a conversation about values with those voters; they could just rely on the courts to impose their views. The parties polarized as they each became dominated by absolutist activists.

Unable to lobby for their pro-life or pro-choice views in normal ways, abortion activists focused their attention on judicial nominations. Dozens of groups on the right and left have been created to destroy nominees who might oppose their side of the fight. But abortion is never the explicit subject of these confirmation battles. Instead, the groups try to find some other pretext to destroy their foes.

Each nomination battle is more vicious than the last as the methodologies of personal destruction are perfected. You get a tit-for-tat escalation as each side points to the other's outrages to justify its own methods.

At first the Senate Judiciary Committee was chiefly infected by this way of doing business, but now the entire body - in fact, the entire capital - has caught the abortion fight fever.

Every few years another civilizing custom is breached. Over the past four years Democrats have resorted to the filibuster again and again to prevent votes on judicial nominees they oppose. Up until now, minorities have generally not used the filibuster to defeat nominees that have majority support. They have allowed nominees to have an up or down vote. But this tradition has been washed away.

In response, Republicans now threaten to change the Senate rules and end the filibuster on judicial nominees. That they have a right to do this is certain. That doing this would destroy the culture of the Senate and damage the cause of limited government is also certain.

The Senate operates by precedent, trust and unanimous consent. Changing the rules by raw majority power would rip the fabric of Senate life. Once the filibuster was barred from judicial nomination fights, it would be barred entirely. Every time the majority felt passionately about an issue, it would rewrite the rules to make its legislation easier to pass. Before long, the Senate would be just like the House. The culture of deliberation would be voided. Minority rights would be unprotected.

Those who believe in smaller government would suffer most. Minority rights have been used frequently to stop expansions of federal power, but if those minority rights were weakened, the federal role would grow and grow - especially when Democrats regained the majority.

Majority parties have often contemplated changing the filibuster rules, but they have always turned back because the costs are so high. But, fired by passions over abortion, Republican leaders have subordinated every other consideration to the need to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Democrats, meanwhile, threaten to shut down the Senate.

I know of many senators who love their institution, and long for a compromise that will forestall this nuclear exchange. But they feel trapped. If they turn back now, their abortion activists will destroy them.

The fact is, the entire country is trapped. Harry Blackmun and his colleagues suppressed that democratic abortion debate the nation needs to have. The poisons have been building ever since. You can complain about the incivility of politics, but you can't stop the escalation of conflict in the middle. You have to kill it at the root. Unless Roe v. Wade is overturned, politics will never get better.
While Mr. Brooks brings good arguments, I think his argument is faulty once he ascribe the rift between Right and Left solely on Roe V. Wade. I mean, his aargument can be used to overturn a number of cases that were not popular. With that kind of argument, blacks would still have to ride on the back of the bus.

Using the divide between categories of people to justify overturning a judicial decision is grasping at straws. It's like saying you can't carry a gun because some people find it wrong. A right is not subject to the whims of public opinion.

While Mr. Brooks brings good arguments, I think his argument is faulty once he ascribe the rift between Right and Left solely on Roe V. Wade. I mean, his aargument can be used to overturn a number of cases that were not popular. With that kind of argument, blacks would still have to ride on the back of the bus.

Not really, I think it was the Civil Rights Act of '64 and other legistlation that really brought change, not court decisions like Brown.

democracy works if you give it a chance.

I'll need to rethink my choice-of-words (and maybe replace the word "definitely").

That said, I draw the line of personhood at fertilization; when a sperm fertilizes an egg is the limit of zero probability of personhood*. No unfertilized egg has ever been observed becoming a person by itself. No sperm has ever been observed becoming a person by itself. It's only when the two combine into a fertilized egg that a person results.

* I mean the probability that you have a person. Regardless of our differences of opinion about after fertilization, I think we can both agree that there is no person before fertilization.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
This seems arbitrary to me. The sperm being used in sex acts other than conception could have been donated to a sperm bank, and then become a life. It could accidentally enter a person, resulting in a life. These possibilities would by your logic accord them the moral status of a human being, as they still could have become one.

Slightly tangentially, I think it's difficult to accord the moral status to something that cannot think nor survive on its own, and never had the ability to. This view would avoid the general objection of "Was Terri Schiavo not a person?" which I believe to be devastating to the view that anything that can't support itself is not a person.

Not really, I think it was the Civil Rights Act of '64 and other legistlation that really brought change, not court decisions like Brown.

democracy works if you give it a chance.

The conditions that allowed those laws to pass were brought about by a change in the social atmosphere that gave some political cover to lawmakers and an accidental president with the courage to challenge bigotry. The reasons for the change in social attitudes? Arguably, the court decision in Brown. The encouragement it gave to social movements allowed them to organize and influence government decisions.

Democracy does work, but tyranny of the majority doesn't. The court (and, incidentally, the judicial filibuster) are necessary tools that must be used in order to secure minority rights in this country.

The conditions that allowed those laws to pass were brought about by a change in the social atmosphere that gave some political cover to lawmakers and an accidental president with the courage to challenge bigotry. The reasons for the change in social attitudes? Arguably, the court decision in Brown. The encouragement it gave to social movements allowed them to organize and influence government decisions.

Democracy does work, but tyranny of the majority doesn't. The court (and, incidentally, the judicial filibuster) are necessary tools that must be used in order to secure minority rights in this country.

I don't think it was Brown that fostered the change. If anything, it was a retrograde step as it stiffened the opposition of southern politicians to the passage of the '64 act and the rest later on.

Democracy is tyranny of the majority.

You could say it, but you'd be saying something non sequitur. I laugh everytime I hear someone say this because it's so illogical.

Here's a dumb analogy... If you have a tomato, mushrooms, and a head of lettuce sitting separately in the fridge, you don't have a salad. It's not a salad until everything is tossed together in the bowl. If you throw out the tomato before making the salad, you haven't thrown out a salad. There isn't a person in the world who would claim that you threw out a whole salad when you JUST threw out a tomato.

In other words, sperm by itself Obviously ISN'T a person and shouldn't be regarded as one in order to make point.

Does a miscarriage due to alcohol abuse count as negligent homocide?

The court (and, incidentally, the judicial filibuster) are necessary tools that must be used in order to secure minority rights in this country.
Hmmm. And here I was under the obviously mistaken impression that it was the Constitution which secured all rights. :rolleyes:

I strongly suspect that if the shoe was on the other foot, with the Republicans using the filibuster to block important Democrat nominees, and the Democrats threatening to either invoke cloture or change Senate rules, you would be ranting that the Republicans were "blocking progress."

It all depends upon whose ox is being gored, don't it! :)

80%? Are you kidding? Are you suggesting that 80% of fetuses spontaneously abort or are stillbirths? Try ~15%.

EDIT: Sorry, you said embryos. Pregnancy begins when the embryo implants. Your link is incorrect because it includes embryos that do not implant but implies they are pregnancies. 15% of pregnancies do no result in a live birth naturally. I mentioned this to you in another thread with a link. Your link grossly exaggerates by including what is not a pregnancy as implantation did not occur.

Ah, but it is a fertilized egg, is it not? Where do YOU draw the line?

Does a miscarriage due to alcohol abuse count as negligent homocide?
Perhaps it should, as should miscarriage due to drug abuse. Hmmm.

Perhaps it should, as should miscarriage due to drug abuse. Hmmm.

Should a miscarriage due to say, falling down the stairs count as manslaughter?

Should a miscarriage due to say, falling down the stairs count as manslaughter?
Now you're just being silly.

Now you're just being silly.

No I'm not. If you kill someone due to a mistake you made, you get pinged for manslaughter. If fetus' are people and affording all the rights of naturalized American citizens, then should this situation not be true?

No I'm not. If you kill someone due to a mistake you made, you get pinged for manslaughter. If fetus' are people and affording all the rights of naturalized American citizens, then should this situation not be true?

It would be death by misadventure, not manslaughter. Just because you accidently kill someone does not automatically mean you are guilty of manslaughter.

No I'm not. If you kill someone due to a mistake you made, you get pinged for manslaughter. If fetus' are people and affording all the rights of naturalized American citizens, then should this situation not be true?
Not quite. The standards of proof for involuntary manslaughter are set rather high in most, if not all jurisdictions. Usually there has to be some sort of "grossly negligent behavior." If a pregnant woman slips ( which is not all that unusual ), falls down a flight of stairs ( as in your example ), and aborts her unborn child, proving her guilty of "grossly negligent behavior" would tax the sillks of even the best prosecutors.

And I don't remember saying anywhere that "foetuses are people." I only began this thread because the article piqued my interest and I thought the author had a good point about some judges legislating from the bench because of the abortion controversy.

If you will go back and read a few more of my posts in this thread, you'll discover that I indicated that, despite a personal aversion toward abortion, I didn't see any practical way of addressing the issue other than giving the individual woman the decision to either abort or not to abort.

Stating that an embryo/fetus will definitely become a life is equally illogical, considering that ~80% of them don't.

The statement "A fertilized embryo/fetus will become life" isn't illogical. That IS the end result, is it not? I wouldn’t waste time pointing out statistics because I doubt anyone making such a claim is INCLUDING the times that an egg will self abort due to abnormalities, etc…

Let's just say that someone *needed* all three ingredients to make a salad. They haven't put the tomato in yet, and they throw out the rest. They haven't thrown out a salad either.

LOL! Non sequitur. Attacking my analogy with an irrelevancy instead of addressing the point.... A component by itself will never equal a whole.

Unless you can come up with a definition of person that includes embryos and doesn't include tumors or skin cells, we can say that an embryo obviously isn't a person and shouldn't be regarded as one in order to make a point.

Okay, humans embryos develop in the uterus as a result of sperm entering an egg and fertilizing it. Tumors and skin cells do not.

Hmmm. And here I was under the obviously mistaken impression that it was the Constitution which secured all rights. :rolleyes:

I strongly suspect that if the shoe was on the other foot, with the Republicans using the filibuster to block important Democrat nominees, and the Democrats threatening to either invoke cloture or change Senate rules, you would be ranting that the Republicans were "blocking progress."

It all depends upon whose ox is being gored, don't it! :)

Simply proving my point. The Constitution allows for both the filibuster and for a Supreme Court to interpret what that constitution means. In order for the Constitution to protect rights, someone needs to tell us what it means/what rights it protects - thus the Court's actions.

And as for your second argument, factually incorrect. When Republicans were filibustering Democratic reforms in the 50's and 60's, there was no talk of a "nuclear option." The Democrats, though irked, accepted this tactic as part of democracy. Modern Republicans should too.

Hmmm. And here I was under the obviously mistaken impression that it was the Constitution which secured all rights. :rolleyes:

I strongly suspect that if the shoe was on the other foot, with the Republicans using the filibuster to block important Democrat nominees, and the Democrats threatening to either invoke cloture or change Senate rules, you would be ranting that the Republicans were "blocking progress."

It all depends upon whose ox is being gored, don't it! :)
I strongly suspect you are right about Democrat and Republicans. As long as it remains to the level of threat and no action are done to remove a legitimate tool like the filibustier, I see it as fear-mongering.

When you go ahead and change the rules, there is a problem however. And the article agree on this point.

Democracy is tyranny of the majority.
Good thing we are not in a pure democracy, then. :)

Originally Posted by Eutrusca
Hmmm. And here I was under the obviously mistaken impression that it was the Constitution which secured all rights.

I strongly suspect that if the shoe was on the other foot, with the Republicans using the filibuster to block important Democrat nominees, and the Democrats threatening to either invoke cloture or change Senate rules, you would be ranting that the Republicans were "blocking progress."

It all depends upon whose ox is being gored, don't it!

Republicans blocked far more judicial nominees using filibuster when they were the minority. When they were criticized about it, their response was something akin to "It is my duty as a senator to protect our minority right". I guess what the Republicans meant was "It is the REPUBLICAN's duty and right, and REPUBLICAN'S ONLY, to protect REPUBLICAN's minority right".

The statement "A fertilized embryo/fetus will become life" isn't illogical. That IS the end result, is it not? I wouldn’t waste time pointing out statistics because I doubt anyone making such a claim is INCLUDING the times that an egg will self abort due to abnormalities, etc…



LOL! Non sequitur. Attacking my analogy with an irrelevancy instead of addressing the point.... A component by itself will never equal a whole.



Okay, humans embryos develop in the uterus as a result of sperm entering an egg and fertilizing it. Tumors and skin cells do not.

That doesn't change the fact that his first analogy was fundamentally true.

Republicans blocked far more judicial nominees using filibuster when they were the minority. When they were criticized about it, their response was something akin to "It is my duty as a senator to protect our minority right". I guess what the Republicans meant was "It is the REPUBLICAN's duty and right, and REPUBLICAN'S ONLY, to protect REPUBLICAN's minority right".
<Sorry, tangent. Do you go to MBA in Nashville?>

This seems arbitrary to me. The sperm being used in sex acts other than conception could have been donated to a sperm bank, and then become a life. It could accidentally enter a person, resulting in a life. These possibilities would by your logic accord them the moral status of a human being, as they still could have become one.

Actually, these other sex acts don't prevent you from donating sperm or even impede your donating sperm or impregnating someone. Men make a lot of sperm. There are very few men who need to avoid sexual activity in order to be fertile enough to impregnate a woman (I think it's funny to add "a woman" here, as opposed to what???) Not performing these sex acts would prevent the life from occurring just as much as performing these sex acts with some form of prevention (yes, that's right, I just called an blowjob contraception). By your logic then not having sex could be included too. A women who doesn't let me sleep with her unprotected is committing murder. I'm using that one tonight at the bar.

I don't think it was Brown that fostered the change. If anything, it was a retrograde step as it stiffened the opposition of southern politicians to the passage of the '64 act and the rest later on.

Democracy is tyranny of the majority.
Do you really believe that they wouldn't have resisted in 64 just as much as they did? Or that the judicial precedent set by Brown did nothing, anywhere? Or that the numerous studies of the Civil Rights movement that cite Brown as the victory which galvanized the movement later are false? These all seem to be the consensus among historians.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting that vote." - Attributed to both Benjamin Franklin and Winston Churchill.

The freedom provided for in constitutions and by courts upholding those constitutions is the check upon democracy becoming tyranny of the majority. It's ridiculous to argue that any democratic system is inherently tyrannical; only that absolute ones are.

There is no "privacy" clause in the United States Constitution (although I am fully aware that Supreme Court Justices rely on foreign law for much of their inspiration). A small, retarded child could understand that.

The Supreme Court was allowed to dictate national policy (as it had done in the past and will continue to do) in Roe v. Wade.

I remember hearing that the Supreme Court was going to re-examine Roe v. Wade soon... is this right?

Actually, these other sex acts don't prevent you from donating sperm or even impede your donating sperm or impregnating someone. Men make a lot of sperm. There are very few men who need to avoid sexual activity in order to be fertile enough to impregnate a woman (I think it's funny to add "a woman" here, as opposed to what???) Not performing these sex acts would prevent the life from occurring just as much as performing these sex acts with some form of prevention (yes, that's right, I just called an blowjob contraception). By your logic then not having sex could be included too. A women who doesn't let me sleep with her unprotected is committing murder. I'm using that one tonight at the bar.

But that sperm, at that instance, could potentially have become a life. An embryo could to. In fact, abortion also doesn't eliminate the possibility for someone to conceive later, so if that's your defense agains this line of reasoning, than it's a rather self-defeating one.

My logic is simply taking the anti-abortion logic to its natural conclusion.

I'm a fan of the last line.

I believe that was part of the Bush propaganda, but it's never going to happen.

Ah, but it is a fertilized egg, is it not? Where do YOU draw the line?

Me? Personally? I draw the line at the point where they have a brain. Have you ever seen what a partial-birth abortion entails?

However, I don't think anything that is not a pregnancy belongs in a debate about abortion as you can't abort a fertilized egg spontaneously or by intent.

There is no "privacy" clause in the United States Constitution (although I am fully aware that Supreme Court Justices rely on foreign law for much of their inspiration). A small, retarded child could understand that.

The Supreme Court was allowed to dictate national policy (as it had done in the past and will continue to do) in Roe v. Wade.
I won't repeat in detail what someone wrote a long post on earlier this thread, but I'll summarize it here:
9th Amendment. Read it. It might be important.

But that sperm, at that instance, could potentially have become a life. An embryo could to. In fact, abortion also doesn't eliminate the possibility for someone to conceive later, so if that's your defense agains this line of reasoning, than it's a rather self-defeating one.

My logic is simply taking the anti-abortion logic to its natural conclusion.

I'm a fan of the last line.

No, the difference is that sperms and eggs die if not used. So if I just don't have sex I am constantly producing sperm and that sperm is constantly dying. Woman are ~once a month going to expel an egg if it's not used. I assume here, we're just talking about wasting sperm, so let's go ahead to that natural conclusion. Generally, sexual activity tends to increase the health and the activity of your sperm which increases your fertility if you are healthy. Also, there is evidence that sexual activity increases the fertility of women (biologically, this makes sense), both in the near future and in the long-term. An abortion decreases the chance of a child considerably. Also, an abortion can decrease the likelihood of a viable pregnancy later. They have exactly opposite effects and this makes the argument fallacious.

Oh, and thank you.

That doesn't change the fact that his first analogy was fundamentally true.

Whose analogy? What are you talking about? Dempublicents1 didn't make an analogy. He just made some completely irrelevant notion in regards to my analogy.

Perhaps it should, as should miscarriage due to drug abuse. Hmmm.

Technically, it would be a posisble case of manslaughter under the "an embryo = a human person" argument. Of course, technically, if I cut down a tree in my own yard where no one should be trespassing and it hits someone that I didn't know was there, it would also be manslaughter.

If we start making definitions like that, then no sexually active woman can drink/smoke/etc. - as she might be committing manslaughter without even knowing it. She also shouldn't ice skate, etc. because she might fall down.

In the end, legally defining an embryo as a human being makes a woman nothing more than a slave to the possibility that there might be something in her womb.

No, the difference is that sperms and eggs die if not used. So if I just don't have sex I am constantly producing sperm and that sperm is constantly dying. Woman are ~once a month going to expel an egg if it's not used. I assume here, we're just talking about wasting sperm, so let's go ahead to that natural conclusion. Generally, sexual activity tends to increase the health and the activity of your sperm which increases your fertility if you are healthy. Also, there is evidence that sexual activity increases the fertility of women (biologically, this makes sense), both in the near future and in the long-term. An abortion decreases the chance of a child considerably. Also, an abortion can decrease the likelihood of a viable pregnancy later. They have exactly opposite effects and this makes the argument fallacious.

Oh, and thank you.
We're two ships crossing in the night here. I'm arguing against the belief that if something could potentially become life, it has the moral status of life. You're arguing that fetuses are life. Here's where we disagree. For something to have the moral status of a human being, it has to have the ability to exist on its own, without living on the fluids/food of another person. Note the key distinction between someone in a PVS and a fetus. Someone in a PVS or a small child both can live in the world on their own, even if other people need to give them food. They exist outside another person, and thereby are agents which are capapble to a certain degree of interacting with the world around them, at the most basic level having a physical presence outside of another person. An additional qualifier is that if someone once was human, they continue to retain their humanity. Once born, it's not my place, or anyone else's, to determine what makes a certain person human.

Whose analogy? What are you talking about? Dempublicents1 didn't make an analogy. He just made some completely irrelevant notion in regards to my analogy.
The sex/masturbation argument: remember, the whole thing about how anything could potentially be a life?

Too long ago, I guess.

Not quite. The standards of proof for involuntary manslaughter are set rather high in most, if not all jurisdictions. Usually there has to be some sort of "grossly negligent behavior." If a pregnant woman slips ( which is not all that unusual ), falls down a flight of stairs ( as in your example ), and aborts her unborn child, proving her guilty of "grossly negligent behavior" would tax the sillks of even the best prosecutors.

From what I understand of the law, you are describing second/third degree murder - not manslaughter. Manslaughter does not actually require negiligence.

It is relatively rare that it is prosecuted without some sort of negligence, but it does still apply if the DA wishes to push it.

Meanwhile, what level of negligence is ok? Any woman who has had sex knows she might be pregnant, contraception notwithstanding. If she engages in perfectly legal activities that might cause a miscarriage, has she committed negligence?

I like how everyone is treading lightly around Cogitation. Most anti-abortion views are torn into on NS, not quite so with Cog.

Some of us are bit shy of debating issues with Mods -- particularly ones the Mods feel strongly about.

And this sort of illustrates why:

Just a friendly note: You might want to tone this down just a little bit. Abortion is a touchy subject, so it's easy to accidentally start a flamewar.

A better way to say this would be "Cog, I think your definition of 'personhood' would make a lot of women technically guilty of manslaughter without their even knowing it." This would avoid the connotation of laying blame on me. Now, your comment isn't serious enough that I would slap you with an official warning (for an isolated incident), but like I said, it's easy to start flamewars on touchy subjects and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I'm not personally prone to starting or continuing flamewars (or I wouldn't be a Moderator); I'm just saying that you should keep this in mind when dealing with other NationStates players.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Now, Cog is correct, was perfectly polite, and didn't in any way abuse power.

But, far stronger rhetoric than Dempublicents1 used is thrown around all the time on this and other issues. In fact, far more personal and direct attacks on another player have been reported to Mods without Mod intervention. Does not make the rhetoric or the attacks right. Nor does it make Cog's advice wrong.

It is an example of why some are gun-shy around Mods. I have great faith in the patience and impartiality of the Mods, but I see no need to test the limits of that patience and impartiality. (At least not deliberately.)

The statement "A fertilized embryo/fetus will become life" isn't illogical. That IS the end result, is it not?

Only in ~50% of cases.

I wouldn’t waste time pointing out statistics because I doubt anyone making such a claim is INCLUDING the times that an egg will self abort due to abnormalities, etc…

There are all sorts of reasons that an embryo will not make it to birth. A proper statement would be "A fertilized egg *might* become life."

LOL! Non sequitur. Attacking my analogy with an irrelevancy instead of addressing the point.... A component by itself will never equal a whole.

I took your analogy to the next step - pointing out the *actual* case. A human being is not a human life without a functional nervous system. As such, an embryo is not a human life.

Okay, humans embryos develop in the uterus as a result of sperm entering an egg and fertilizing it. Tumors and skin cells do not.

So a human life is anything that develops in the uterus as the result sperm entering an egg?

What is it then when it is outside the uterus?

There is no "privacy" clause in the United States Constitution (although I am fully aware that Supreme Court Justices rely on foreign law for much of their inspiration). A small, retarded child could understand that.

The Supreme Court was allowed to dictate national policy (as it had done in the past and will continue to do) in Roe v. Wade.

The right to privacy is a penumbric right that falls under (I believe) due process.

Now, if you would like to do away with all penumbric rights, go ahead - but you'll have quite an uprising on your hands in the states.

Me? Personally? I draw the line at the point where they have a brain. Have you ever seen what a partial-birth abortion entails?

It's probably not a good idea to bring D&X into the discussion - as that is a procedure performed for medical reasons. Most people agree that a woman whose life is in danger from the pregnancy should have access to abortion.

Whose analogy? What are you talking about? Dempublicents1 didn't make an analogy. He just made some completely irrelevant notion in regards to my analogy.

What I did was extend your analogy to account for the actual case of an embryo.

The sex/masturbation argument: remember, the whole thing about how anything could potentially be a life?

Too long ago, I guess.

That one wasn't me.

From what I understand of the law, you are describing second/third degree murder - not manslaughter. Manslaughter does not actually require negiligence.

It is relatively rare that it is prosecuted without some sort of negligence, but it does still apply if the DA wishes to push it.

Meanwhile, what level of negligence is ok? Any woman who has had sex knows she might be pregnant, contraception notwithstanding. If she engages in perfectly legal activities that might cause a miscarriage, has she committed negligence?

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m011.htm

MANSLAUGHTER, INVOLUNTARY - In order for a person to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter the government must prove that someone was killed as a result of an act by the person;

Second, in the circumstances existing at the time, the person's act either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life; and

Third, the person either knew that such conduct was a threat to the lives of others or knew of circumstances that would reasonably cause the person to foresee that such conduct might be a threat to the lives of others.

CA Penal Code:
192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might
produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and
circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed
in the driving of a vehicle.
(c) Vehicular--
(1) Except as provided in Section 191.5, driving a vehicle in the
commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, and with
gross negligence; or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful
act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, and with gross
negligence.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), driving a vehicle in the
commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, but without
gross negligence; or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful
act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, but without
gross negligence.
(3) Driving a vehicle in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or
23153 of the Vehicle Code and in the commission of an unlawful act,
not amounting to felony, but without gross negligence; or driving a
vehicle in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153 of the Vehicle
Code and in the commission of a lawful act which might produce
death, in an unlawful manner, but without gross negligence.
(4) Driving a vehicle in connection with a violation of paragraph
(3) of subdivision (a) of Section 550, where the vehicular collision
or vehicular accident was knowingly caused for financial gain and
proximately resulted in the death of any person. This provision
shall not be construed to prevent prosecution of a defendant for the
crime of murder.
This section shall not be construed as making any homicide in the
driving of a vehicle punishable which is not a proximate result of
the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, or of the
commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful
manner.
"Gross negligence," as used in this section, shall not be
construed as prohibiting or precluding a charge of murder under
Section 188 upon facts exhibiting wantonness and a conscious
disregard for life to support a finding of implied malice, or upon
facts showing malice, consistent with the holding of the California
Supreme Court in People v. Watson, 30 Cal. 3d 290.

You don't really want me to get into the caselaw about what constitutes "gross negligence" or "without due caution and circumspection."

This has been a public service announcement (with guitar!)

Some of us are bit shy of debating issues with Mods -- particularly ones the Mods feel strongly about.

And this sort of illustrates why:

*snip*

Yes, Cog was perfectly polite, and I understand what was being said. Of course, I have to be honest, I don't pay attention to whether or not someone is a mod when they post. The thought didn't even cross my mind (and doesn't) unless the post reads "I am a mod and ...."

From what I understand of the law, you are describing second/third degree murder - not manslaughter. Manslaughter does not actually require negiligence.

It is relatively rare that it is prosecuted without some sort of negligence, but it does still apply if the DA wishes to push it.

Meanwhile, what level of negligence is ok? Any woman who has had sex knows she might be pregnant, contraception notwithstanding. If she engages in perfectly legal activities that might cause a miscarriage, has she committed negligence?

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without the malicious intent or premeditation, either express or implied, required for murder. Manslaughter is a reckless killing or one done in the heat of the moment. The cases of manslaughter may be classified as those killings resulting from: 1. Provocation. 2. Mutual combat. 3. Resistance to public officers, etc. 4. Killing in the prosecution of an unlawful or wanton act. 5. Killing in the prosecution of a lawful act, improperly performed, or performed without lawful authority.
There are two categories of manslaughter: voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary manslaughter includes killing in heat of passion or while committing a felony. Involuntary manslaughter occurs when a death is caused during the comission of a non-felony, such as reckless driving (called "vehicular manslaughter").

http://www.uslegalforms.com/lawdigest/legal-definitions.php/US/US-MANSLAUGHTER.htm

MANSLAUGHTER, INVOLUNTARY - In order for a person to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter the government must prove that someone was killed as a result of an act by the person;

Second, in the circumstances existing at the time, the person's act either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life; and

Third, the person either knew that such conduct was a threat to the lives of others or knew of circumstances that would reasonably cause the person to foresee that such conduct might be a threat to the lives of others.

Thanks! Now, I can definitely see how all of these things could be applied (should we decide that an embryo is a human life) to miscarriage.

1st: A woman drinks heavily/does heavy lifting/doesn't eat well/doesn't sleep, etc. - all acts that might "kill" an embryo.

2nd - The person's act is, by its nature, dangerous to the "life" of the embryo.

3rd - A woman who has had sex knows that she might be pregnant by any reasonable measure. She also knows that certain actions, should she be pregnant, could be dangerous to the embryo.

Now, there are many who would argue that this is silly - and I would agree. But, in some alternate future, should an embryo be classified as a human life, these arguments would come up.

It's probably not a good idea to bring D&X into the discussion - as that is a procedure performed for medical reasons. Most people agree that a woman whose life is in danger from the pregnancy should have access to abortion.

I agree that it doens't need to be brought in. He/she asked my personal ideas about when life begins and I said when a brain is formed and I used what that particular abortion looks like as my reasoning. I wasn't suggesting it should be available in emergency cases (though, I think some states allow it in non-emergent cases). I actually suggested nothing about whether it should be an option for women in any case. If you were latched on to me to survive and it was killing me, I would cause your death in any way I could to save my own life, so, yes, women should have access to this type of abortion when their life is in danger (to be clear).

Hmmm. And here I was under the obviously mistaken impression that it was the Constitution which secured all rights. :rolleyes:
*snip*

It does -- not all rights (and not even all legal rights, as there are state constitutions and statutes, etc.) -- but in the context of what we are talking about the Constitution protects our legal rights.

But not all legal rights protected by the Constitution are enumerated therein. (I'm not trying to isolate you on this Eutrusca, just to correct a common fallacy).

And the judiciary is empowered by the Constitution itself to protect us from unconstitutional actions of the legislative or executive branches or by the states.

The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Ninth Amendment is one of the many reasons that the Supreme Court has held that the list of fundamental rights in the first 8 Amendments is not to be taken as exhaustive.

Furthermore, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect against persons being "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Due Process clause protects individual liberties not enumerated in the Constitution.

Here is a quote from the Supreme Court - this one written by Chief Justice Rhenquist and joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas (emphasis added):

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them' ") (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 -302 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851 . In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, ibid; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), and to abortion, Casey, supra. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, 497 U.S., at 278 -279.

-- Washington v. Glucksberg (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-110.html), 521 U.S.702 (1997).

Second, here are just a few examples of Constitutional rights that are not "spelled out" in the Constitution but that are taken for granted by US citizens:

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud

the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens

the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime

the right to travel within the United States

the right to marry or not to marry

the right to make one's own choice about having children

the right to have children at all

the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)

the right to custody of one's children

the right to choose and follow a profession

right to bodily integrity

I agree that it doens't need to be brought in. He/she asked my personal ideas about when life begins and I said when a brain is formed and I used what that particular abortion looks like as my reasoning. I wasn't suggesting it should be available in emergency cases (though, I think some states allow it in non-emergent cases). I actually suggested nothing about whether it should be an option for women in any case. If you were latched on to me to survive and it was killing me, I would cause your death in any way I could to save my own life, so, yes, women should have access to this type of abortion when their life is in danger (to be clear).

YAY! Jocabia and I agree on something! Yes, it is a very "icky" procedure - it certainly isn't pretty. And it isn't something that should, or in most cases, even can be used lightly. This is primarily a late 2nd or 3rd trimester procedure. While some states may allow it for cases which don't involve a threat to the life of the mother, such cases would make up a very, very small percentage.

Thanks! Now, I can definitely see how all of these things could be applied (should we decide that an embryo is a human life) to miscarriage.

1st: A woman drinks heavily/does heavy lifting/doesn't eat well/doesn't sleep, etc. - all acts that might "kill" an embryo.

I think most people here would be willing to disregard the embryo as a life and focus only on pregnancies. If anyone objects to this assumption please say so or I am going to stop referring to the embryo and refer to the fetus. Also, the medical definition of a miscarriage requires a fetus and a pregnancy. Also, a lack of implantation has little or nothing to do with the activities of the woman.

Since the likelihood of pregnancy is not that high just by having sex, especially considering the number of embryos that never result in a pregnancy, I think a woman here who is not aware of pregnancy is not guilty of not practicing due caution as she is not aware of a need for caution (example: I live alone and I'm drilling holes in a wall. I drill a hole and the bit goes right into the head of a drifter who is sleeping in my garage. Almost assuredly legal precedent does not support applying manslaughter here. However, if my son is sitting on the couch and I'm drilling on the other side of the wall, aware that he is there and the drill goes through and kills him then I am likely to be considered for a manslaughter charge).

Using that premise, I am only going to address women who are aware of pregnancy. IF a fetus is considered a life and a woman does not excercise due caution when drinking, eating (doesn't eat right), sleeping (doesn't sleep for three days or something), then I'd say, yes, it's manslaughter. I think you know this is not a large percentage of spontaneous abortions and stillborns, so this negates your most sexually active women being guilty of manslaughter argument.

YAY! Jocabia and I agree on something! Yes, it is a very "icky" procedure - it certainly isn't pretty. And it isn't something that should, or in most cases, even can be used lightly. This is primarily a late 2nd or 3rd trimester procedure. While some states may allow it for cases which don't involve a threat to the life of the mother, such cases would make up a very, very small percentage.

*sheepish* I just didn't want to argue. If I just had a small chance of saving someone in a burning building, I would try, even if I KNEW I would not make it out alive. So, actually, I wouldn't get the abortion if I were a woman and it was medically necessary unless there was VERY little chance the fetus would be viable and/or a high likelihood of severe birth defect. However, I would never ask you to go into a burning building to almost sure death to save someone else. It's a decision left to the person. I didn't want to explain this so I said I would kill the parasitic person, but, honestly, I probably wouldn't. I do agree absolutely with the point you were making, however.

Only in ~50% of cases.
There are all sorts of reasons that an embryo will not make it to birth. A proper statement would be "A fertilized egg *might* become life."
If it makes your little head feel better, then okay, every statement regarding the future of a fertilized egg should be begin with the disclaimer that it is NOT including those times when the egg naturally aborts (as if the statement “A fertilized egg will become life” is somehow positing that naturally aborted embryo’s are somehow surviving). All clear now?

Last time I checked we’re talking about intentional abortions. We’re not discussing times that an egg will self abort due to natural abnormalities, etc.

Nor does this phenomena justify anything.

I took your analogy to the next step - pointing out the *actual* case. A human being is not a human life without a functional nervous system. As such, an embryo is not a human life.

You took my analogy nowhere. Nor did you discredit my point. You basically said that if you make a salad and throw it out, you’ve thrown out a salad (by mixing the mushrooms and lettuce you would now have a salad). I don’t dispute this. My point was that if you just throw out a tomato, that’s all you’ve thrown out.

Again… A component by itself does not equal the whole. A sperm, by itself, is not a human. That’s what we’re talking about remember?

So a human life is anything that develops in the uterus as the result sperm entering an egg?

What is it then when it is outside the uterus?

A human life. What’s the problem?

NOTE: I thought this was a very interesting take on the impact of the court decision to legalize abortion. I don't necessarily agree with it, I just found it intriguing.


Roe's Birth, and Death (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/21/opinion/21brooks.html?th&emc=th)
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: April 21, 2005

Justice Harry Blackmun did more inadvertent damage to our democracy than any other 20th-century American. When he and his Supreme Court colleagues issued the Roe v. Wade decision, they set off a cycle of political viciousness and counter-viciousness that has poisoned public life ever since, and now threatens to destroy the Senate as we know it.

When Blackmun wrote the Roe decision, it took the abortion issue out of the legislatures and put it into the courts. If it had remained in the legislatures, we would have seen a series of state-by-state compromises reflecting the views of the centrist majority that's always existed on this issue. These legislative compromises wouldn't have pleased everyone, but would have been regarded as legitimate.

Instead, Blackmun and his concurring colleagues invented a right to abortion, and imposed a solution more extreme than the policies of just about any other comparable nation.

Religious conservatives became alienated from their own government, feeling that their democratic rights had been usurped by robed elitists. Liberals lost touch with working-class Americans because they never had to have a conversation about values with those voters; they could just rely on the courts to impose their views. The parties polarized as they each became dominated by absolutist activists.

Unable to lobby for their pro-life or pro-choice views in normal ways, abortion activists focused their attention on judicial nominations. Dozens of groups on the right and left have been created to destroy nominees who might oppose their side of the fight. But abortion is never the explicit subject of these confirmation battles. Instead, the groups try to find some other pretext to destroy their foes.

Each nomination battle is more vicious than the last as the methodologies of personal destruction are perfected. You get a tit-for-tat escalation as each side points to the other's outrages to justify its own methods.

At first the Senate Judiciary Committee was chiefly infected by this way of doing business, but now the entire body - in fact, the entire capital - has caught the abortion fight fever.

Every few years another civilizing custom is breached. Over the past four years Democrats have resorted to the filibuster again and again to prevent votes on judicial nominees they oppose. Up until now, minorities have generally not used the filibuster to defeat nominees that have majority support. They have allowed nominees to have an up or down vote. But this tradition has been washed away.

In response, Republicans now threaten to change the Senate rules and end the filibuster on judicial nominees. That they have a right to do this is certain. That doing this would destroy the culture of the Senate and damage the cause of limited government is also certain.

The Senate operates by precedent, trust and unanimous consent. Changing the rules by raw majority power would rip the fabric of Senate life. Once the filibuster was barred from judicial nomination fights, it would be barred entirely. Every time the majority felt passionately about an issue, it would rewrite the rules to make its legislation easier to pass. Before long, the Senate would be just like the House. The culture of deliberation would be voided. Minority rights would be unprotected.

Those who believe in smaller government would suffer most. Minority rights have been used frequently to stop expansions of federal power, but if those minority rights were weakened, the federal role would grow and grow - especially when Democrats regained the majority.

Majority parties have often contemplated changing the filibuster rules, but they have always turned back because the costs are so high. But, fired by passions over abortion, Republican leaders have subordinated every other consideration to the need to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Democrats, meanwhile, threaten to shut down the Senate.

I know of many senators who love their institution, and long for a compromise that will forestall this nuclear exchange. But they feel trapped. If they turn back now, their abortion activists will destroy them.

The fact is, the entire country is trapped. Harry Blackmun and his colleagues suppressed that democratic abortion debate the nation needs to have. The poisons have been building ever since. You can complain about the incivility of politics, but you can't stop the escalation of conflict in the middle. You have to kill it at the root. Unless Roe v. Wade is overturned, politics will never get better.


What were they supposed to do, decline making a decison?

They made the right choice. Controversy would have happened anyway you slice it.

Cog, a fetus will DEFINITELY become a person if allowed to develop? I may as well say, a sperm will DEFINITELY become a person if allowed to impregnate and fertilize an egg. What is the point in that? We could go along infinite regression to prove that masturbation is immoral because it's killing what will DEFINITELY become a person (given the right conditions!)


Ban masturbation!!! lol


The Dark Emperor
Holy Empire of Stransworthe
Country of The Dark Side

I am not used to being so consistently impressed by the level of discourse on such contentious issues in this forum. It is my solemn wish that people like Cog, Swimmingpool, and the rest of you posting herein could somehow influence those whose debates actually influence national policy (I was originally going to say that I wished you were senators, but I realized that's tantamount to wishing severe misfortune on you!). Senators, lobbyists, preachers, and picketers all across the US should be reading this thread and leaning from all of you.

What's more amazing is that this thread is almost a hijacked thread. The original post was lamenting the damage done to the operation and tradition of the Senate -- abortion itself was never meant to be the issue -- yet the exchanges have remained civil and reasonable.

The "nuclear exchange" option being discussed currently on NPR and in the Senate itself is a sad commentary on both sides of the aisle in the Senate. For the Democrats to raise filibuster opposition to a consensus candidate where they have almost invisible precedent is no better than the Republicans threatening to change the rules in order to circumvent that opposition. BOTH sides need to be spanked and sent to bed without supper and allow the Senate to do what it is SUPPOSED to to for the President on judicial nominees, which is advise and consent.

Mutually assured dissolution (to the majoritarian level of the House) of what is supposed to be a deliberative governing body is no way to behave, and all those who voted for the instigators from both parties should be taking notes and bringing this point up in the public fora that happen prior to their next bid for re-election (yes, I know that's largely a pipe dream, but hey, what's life without hope?).

So despite the fact that this thread has shifted somewhat from the original worry, the ensuing debate over the status of an embryo and the likelihood of implantation and pregnancy and what it all means -- not to mention the application of some fact that have actually caused some (Cog) to reconsider at least some portion of the issue -- has been stellar. I wish I could give this threat ten stars and somehow pass it along to Dateline NBC or some other pop-"news" show that the masses seem to love so much.

I am proud to be a NationStates member nation.

Thank you all.

NdL

I remember hearing that the Supreme Court was going to re-examine Roe v. Wade soon... is this right?

The Supreme Court has re-examined and reaffirmed Roe v. Wade several times.

I know of no particular challenge before the Court at the moment, but there are undoubtedly more in the works.

The 32-year-old precedent has suffered and survived continuous challenge and criticism.

There is no "privacy" clause in the United States Constitution (although I am fully aware that Supreme Court Justices rely on foreign law for much of their inspiration). A small, retarded child could understand that.

The Supreme Court was allowed to dictate national policy (as it had done in the past and will continue to do) in Roe v. Wade.

A small, retarded child that cannot read the Constitution is undoubtedly unaware of the 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments. Not to mention the long line of Supreme Court precent stretching back to the early 1900s -- long before Roe v. Wade. Apparently others simply choose not read the law or ignore it.

Your "awareness" of the US Supreme Court relying on foreign law is undoubtedly based on the many fallacious rumors to that effect. You'll have trouble supporting that with actual citations to Supreme Court decisions.

Hey, can I ask something? Since when was there "minority rights"? Why should there be minority rights? I mean, sure, yeah, minorities are everywhere (there's only 1 majority) but why should they win? The majority has the approval of the MAJORITY! The idea is for the majority to get (I actually typed post here, need.. less.. interenet..) as much done as possible, and of course, the minority is to prevent that.

Did you know that after the south suceded from the US, some people said they had problems with democracy?

By the way, I happen to be a Dem agreeing with Reps.. how strange...

In his book "Freakonomics" (http://www.freakonomics.com/) Steven Levitt statistically proves Margret Sanger's position that legal and cheap abortion will help "reduce undesireables" (her position, not mine).

There is apparantly a direct causal relationship between the implementation of Roe and the recent decrease in violent crime. Plainly stated, there are fewer maturing criminals (in the late '90s) than was predicted in the '80s because they were aborted.

<snippet from website>

Chapter 4: Where Have All the Criminals Gone?

What Nicolae Ceausescu learned-the hard way-about abortion . . . Why the 1960s were a great time to be a criminal . . . Think the roaring 1990s economy put a crimp on crime? Think again . . . Why capital punishment doesn't deter criminals . . . Do police actually lower crime rates? . . . Prisons, prisons everywhere . . . Seeing through the New York City police "miracle" . . . What is a gun, really? . . . Why early crack dealers were like Microsoft millionaires and later crack dealers were like Pets.com . . . The superpredator versus the senior citizen . . . Jane Roe, crime stopper: how the legalization of abortion changed everything.


Perhaps the most dramatic effect of legalized abortion, and one that would take years to reveal itself, was its impact on crime.

In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v. Wade was hitting its late teen years-the years during which young men enter their criminal prime-the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals. And the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world. Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime.

This theory is bound to provoke a variety of reactions, ranging from disbelief to revulsion, and a variety of objections, ranging from the quotidian to the moral. The likeliest first objection is the most straightforward one: is the theory true? Perhaps abortion and crime are merely correlated and not causal.

It may be more comforting to believe what the newspapers say, that the drop in crime was due to brilliant policing and clever gun control and a surging economy. We have evolved with a tendency to link causality to things we can touch or feel, not to some distant or difficult phenomenon. We believe especially in near-term causes: a snake bites your friend, he screams with pain, and he dies. The snakebite, you conclude, must have killed him. Most of the time, such a reckoning is correct. But when it comes to cause and effect, there is often a trap in such open-and-shut thinking. We smirk now when we think of ancient cultures that embraced faulty causes-the warriors who believed, for instance, that it was their raping of a virgin that brought them victory on the battlefield. But we too embrace faulty causes, usually at the urging of an expert proclaiming a truth in which he has a vested interest.

How, then, can we tell if the abortion-crime link is a case of causality rather than simply correlation?

One way to test the effect of abortion on crime would be to measure crime data in the five states where abortion was made legal before the Supreme Court extended abortion rights to the rest of the country.

In New York, California, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii, a woman had been able to obtain a legal abortion for at least two years before Roe v. Wade. And indeed, those early-legalizing states saw crime begin to fall earlier than the other forty-five states and the District of Columbia. Between 1988 and 1994, violent crime in the earlylegalizing states fell 13 percent compared to the other states; between 1994 and 1997, their murder rates fell 23 percent more than those of the other states.

But what if those early legalizers simply got lucky? What else might we look for in the data to establish an abortion-crime link? One factor to look for would be a correlation between each state's abortion rate and its crime rate. Sure enough, the states with the highest abortion rates in the 1970s experienced the greatest crime drops in the 1990s, while states with low abortion rates experienced smaller crime drops. (This correlation exists even when controlling for a variety of factors that influence crime: a state's level of incarceration, number of police, and its economic situation.) Since 1985, states with high abortion rates have experienced a roughly 30 percent drop in crime relative to low-abortion states. (New York City had high abortion rates and lay within an early-legalizing state, a pair of facts that further dampen the claim that innovative policing caused the crime drop.) Moreover, there was no link between a given state's abortion rate and its crime rate before the late 1980s-when the first cohort affected by legalized abortion was reaching its criminal prime-which is yet another indication that Roe v. Wade was indeed the event that tipped the crime scale.

There are even more correlations, positive and negative, that shore up the abortion-crime link.

-------------------

Freakonomics is an amazing book. A TOTAL page turner.

Cog, a fetus will DEFINITELY become a person if allowed to develop? I may as well say, a sperm will DEFINITELY become a person if allowed to impregnate and fertilize an egg. What is the point in that? We could go along infinite regression to prove that masturbation is immoral because it's killing what will DEFINITELY become a person (given the right conditions!)

Difference between a fetus and sperm is that a fetus is almost always in the perfect condition to become a baby...sperm isn't always in the position to impregnate an egg....it's usually in the position of being smeared on a paper towel...

Hey, can I ask something? Since when was there "minority rights"? Why should there be minority rights? I mean, sure, yeah, minorities are everywhere (there's only 1 majority) but why should they win? The majority has the approval of the MAJORITY! The idea is for the majority to get (I actually typed post here, need.. less.. interenet..) as much done as possible, and of course, the minority is to prevent that.

Did you know that after the south suceded from the US, some people said they had problems with democracy?

By the way, I happen to be a Dem agreeing with Reps.. how strange...

First, we're not a democracy; we're a republic. We designed our Republic the way we did because we care about representing all the people, not just the majority. The constitution has many things in it to protect the rights of "minorities" (here meant literally, not meaning racial minorities). A true democracy is tyranny by the majority as stated earlier. This means that if the majority suddenly decided that slavery should be legal then it would be. The constitution specifically prevents this by giving people all kinds of ways to prevent these kinds of things and specifically requires a huge majority to amend the constitution so as to prevent that from changing.

Difference between a fetus and sperm is that a fetus is almost always in the perfect condition to become a baby...sperm isn't always in the position to impregnate an egg....it's usually in the position of being smeared on a paper towel...

Heh yes... and sometimes the fetus is in the position of being aborted. See?

And you can't just take the whole, you know, pregnancy and childbirth acts for granted. I hear it's actually a big deal to turn that fetus into a baby.

I am not used to being so consistently impressed by the level of discourse on such contentious issues in this forum. It is my solemn wish that people like Cog, Swimmingpool, and the rest of you posting herein could somehow influence those whose debates actually influence national policy (I was originally going to say that I wished you were senators, but I realized that's tantamount to wishing severe misfortune on you!). Senators, lobbyists, preachers, and picketers all across the US should be reading this thread and leaning from all of you.*snip*

May I say the same about you. Your post is thought out and interesting and is very respectful. You deserve applause as well.

I am not used to being so consistently impressed by the level of discourse on such contentious issues in this forum. It is my solemn wish that people like Cog, Swimmingpool, and the rest of you posting herein could somehow influence those whose debates actually influence national policy (I was originally going to say that I wished you were senators, but I realized that's tantamount to wishing severe misfortune on you!). Senators, lobbyists, preachers, and picketers all across the US should be reading this thread and leaning from all of you.

What's more amazing is that this thread is almost a hijacked thread. The original post was lamenting the damage done to the operation and tradition of the Senate -- abortion itself was never meant to be the issue -- yet the exchanges have remained civil and reasonable.

The "nuclear exchange" option being discussed currently on NPR and in the Senate itself is a sad commentary on both sides of the aisle in the Senate. For the Democrats to raise filibuster opposition to a consensus candidate where they have almost invisible precedent is no better than the Republicans threatening to change the rules in order to circumvent that opposition. BOTH sides need to be spanked and sent to bed without supper and allow the Senate to do what it is SUPPOSED to to for the President on judicial nominees, which is advise and consent.

Mutually assured dissolution (to the majoritarian level of the House) of what is supposed to be a deliberative governing body is no way to behave, and all those who voted for the instigators from both parties should be taking notes and bringing this point up in the public fora that happen prior to their next bid for re-election (yes, I know that's largely a pipe dream, but hey, what's life without hope?).

So despite the fact that this thread has shifted somewhat from the original worry, the ensuing debate over the status of an embryo and the likelihood of implantation and pregnancy and what it all means -- not to mention the application of some fact that have actually caused some (Cog) to reconsider at least some portion of the issue -- has been stellar. I wish I could give this threat ten stars and somehow pass it along to Dateline NBC or some other pop-"news" show that the masses seem to love so much.

I am proud to be a NationStates member nation.

Thank you all.

NdL

Thanks!

The thing is, a sperm needs an egg to become a human. Similarly, a baby needs a mother(or a host body) to become human. A sperm, left alone, will not become human, neither will a child. The child has to develop from the material of the mother. He grows from the gene's of the parents. To not bring in religion, a sperm should have as many rights as a fetus. You can argue how close to being a human something is, but until its born, its a dependant, a virus even. Nobody should be forced to support someone to their own detriment. These mothers are either forced to support these babies, or kill them. If there was another possibly option, im sure mothers would take it(Im not talking adoption, etc. That is after 9 months of forced support). Whether you think it is moral to sacrifice part of yourself for another is irrelevant. It is a persons choice whether or not they want to have a virus in them. Sentience doesnt matter, as we kill animals who have sentience(Not as much as humans, arguably, but they still have it). Its a persons choice to kill a virus in them.

Somehow I refuse to believe that giving a woman the right to choose what to do with her body and believing in the WOMAN'S life over the fetus isn't going to kill democracy. This is giving women the FREEDOM the choose what to do and that is what democracy is all about.

The constitution does not consist of a right of privacy, this too was invented during Roe vs. Wade.

The constitution also says that there are rights beyond those specifically recognized in the constitution

Somehow I refuse to believe that giving a woman the right to choose what to do with her body and believing in the WOMAN'S life over the fetus isn't going to kill democracy. This is giving women the FREEDOM the choose what to do and that is what democracy is all about.

You realize your two statements are either contradictory, or you are strongly against democracy?

The constitution does not consist of a right of privacy, this too was invented during Roe vs. Wade.

No. No it wasn't.

The Court recognized a right to privacy prior to Roe v. Wade.

It was recognized in asides in various cases, but most firmly established in Griswold v. Connecticut (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/381/479.html ), 381 US 479 (1965).

Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.

The Court held that, although the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights recognize penumbras that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments combined with the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause protect the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void.

As I noted earlier, the liberty provision of the Due Proces Clause protects many unenumerated constituional rights. The right to privacy ought to be the least controversial of these -- as it is closely related to the express provisions of the First, Third, and Fourth Amendments.

The main text of Justice Douglas's opinion is fairly brief:

Coming to the merits, we are met with a wide range of questions that implicate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ... We do not sit as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom, need, and propriety of laws that touch economic problems, business affairs, or social conditions. This law, however, operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife and their physician's role in one aspect of that relation.


The association of people is not mentioned in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights. The right to educate a child in a school of the parents' choice - whether public or private or parochial - is also not mentioned. Nor is the right to study any particular subject or any foreign language. Yet the First Amendment has been construed to include certain of those rights.

By Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra, the right to educate one's children as one chooses is made applicable to the States by the force of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. By Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, the same dignity is given the right to study the German language in a private school. In other words, the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to read (Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143 ) and freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach (see Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 195 ) - indeed the freedom of the entire university community. Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 249 -250, 261-263; Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 112 ; Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 369 . Without those peripheral rights the specific rights would be less secure. And so we reaffirm the principle of the Pierce and the Meyer cases.

In NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462 , we protected the "freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations," noting that freedom of association was a peripheral First Amendment right. Disclosure of membership lists of a constitutionally valid association, we held, was invalid "as entailing the likelihood of a substantial restraint upon the exercise by petitioner's members of their right to freedom of association." Ibid. In other words, the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion. In like context, we have protected forms of "association" that are not political in the customary sense but pertain to the social, legal, and economic benefit of the members. NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 430 -431. In Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 , we held it not permissible to bar a lawyer from practice, because he had once been a member of the Communist Party. The man's "association with that Party" was not shown to be "anything more than a political faith in a political party" (id., at 244) and was not action of a kind proving bad moral character. Id., at 245-246.

Those cases involved more than the "right of assembly" - a right that extends to all irrespective of their race or ideology. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 . The right of "association," like the right of belief (Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 ), is more than the right to attend a meeting; it includes the right to express one's attitudes or philosophies by membership in a group or by affiliation with it or by other lawful means. Association in that context is a form of expression of opinion; and while it is not expressly included in the First Amendment its existence is necessary in making the express guarantees fully meaningful.

The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516 -522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 , as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." * We recently referred in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 656 , to the Fourth Amendment as creating a "right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully and particularly reserved to the people." See Beaney, The Constitutional Right to Privacy, 1962 Sup. Ct. Rev. 212; Griswold, The Right to be Let Alone, 55 Nw. U. L. Rev. 216 (1960).

We have had many controversies over these penumbral rights of "privacy and repose." See, e. g., Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 626 , 644; Public Utilities Comm'n v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451 ; Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 ; Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139 ; Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360 ; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 . These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition here is a legitimate one.

The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288, 307 . Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

Purely out of curiosity, are you studying law?

Purely out of curiosity, are you studying law?

In the CLE sense, yes.

I've been in practice for many years now.

You are a law student, right?

Might I ask how many women die in illegal, secret abortion procedures? That's where the impractical part comes in. Some women will seek abortions, no matter what the law says, and if the only way to obtain one is the old back-alley-coat-hanger technique, many women will needlessly sicken or die and thousands more children will be mutilated, which I consider, for society, to be pretty damn impractical.
I don't know how many women die in illegal abortions. There are obviously no statistics on that.

In 1992 our Supreme court ruled that the government can't stop a woman going to Britain to get an abortion.

I think most people here would be willing to disregard the embryo as a life and focus only on pregnancies. If anyone objects to this assumption please say so or I am going to stop referring to the embryo and refer to the fetus. Also, the medical definition of a miscarriage requires a fetus and a pregnancy. Also, a lack of implantation has little or nothing to do with the activities of the woman.

People here have already been arguing that life begins at fertilization.

Meanwhile, it is an *embryo* that implants in the wall of a uterus. It is not defined as a fetus until further in to the pregnancy. I have seen nothing in medicine to suggest that the spontaneous abortion of *any* pregnancy is not deemed a miscarriage.

And lack of implantation very well can have something to do with the activities of the woman. Much like with other animals, when a woman's lifestyle is hectic, her body may deem the conditions poor and reject a pregnancy.

Since the likelihood of pregnancy is not that high just by having sex, especially considering the number of embryos that never result in a pregnancy, I think a woman here who is not aware of pregnancy is not guilty of not practicing due caution as she is not aware of a need for caution.

There are all sorts of circumstances in which harm to another human being would be a rare, but very possible consequence of an action. The law doesn't say anything about how rare it might be, nor does it say that the person has to *know* that anyone is around to be harmed.

Using that premise, I am only going to address women who are aware of pregnancy. IF a fetus is considered a life and a woman does not excercise due caution when drinking, eating (doesn't eat right), sleeping (doesn't sleep for three days or something), then I'd say, yes, it's manslaughter. I think you know this is not a large percentage of spontaneous abortions and stillborns, so this negates your most sexually active women being guilty of manslaughter argument.

Wait, you change the entire premise of an argument to meet your personal definitions and then wish to state that it negates my argument, which is based on entirely different premises? Yeah, that makes sense.

If it makes your little head feel better, then okay, every statement regarding the future of a fertilized egg should be begin with the disclaimer that it is NOT including those times when the egg naturally aborts (as if the statement “A fertilized egg will become life” is somehow positing that naturally aborted embryo’s are somehow surviving). All clear now?

Last time I checked we’re talking about intentional abortions. We’re not discussing times that an egg will self abort due to natural abnormalities, etc.

Nor does this phenomena justify anything.

No one said it justifies anything. However, the argument "a fertilized egg, if left alone, will become a life," as that is BS.

You took my analogy nowhere. Nor did you discredit my point. You basically said that if you make a salad and throw it out, you’ve thrown out a salad (by mixing the mushrooms and lettuce you would now have a salad). I don’t dispute this. My point was that if you just throw out a tomato, that’s all you’ve thrown out.

Way to show how very little comprehension of English you have. I explicitly stated that, for the purpose of the analogy, one needed *all three* components to make a salad.

A human life. What’s the problem?

Then you need to revise your definition, because it doesn't make sense anymore.

Not to mention that, by your definition, a placenta is a human life.

The supreme court only said that abortion was a medical proceedure, and therefore is covered by the right to privacy. What goes on between you and your doctor is nobody else's business.

I think that's a good position. Are we going to take a vote in every state legislature one each and every medical proceedure to determine it's legality? What if a religious group that thinks blood transfusions are immoral wins a majority of seats on some state's legislature? Can they then make blood transfusions illegal in that state? What if some woman's group that opposes cosmetic surgury wins a majority of seats? Will facelifts be banned? Medical decisions are between the doctor and patient only.

Ever heard of the 10th Amendment before?

No one said it justifies anything. However, the argument "a fertilized egg, if left alone, will become a life," as that is BS.

I think we've covered this. While your point is literally accurate, it gives you nothing in a discussion regarding abortion. No one's worried about natural abortions. I question your adamancy about such an insignificant point.

Way to show how very little comprehension of English you have. I explicitly stated that, for the purpose of the analogy, one needed *all three* components to make a salad.

As I've stated over and over, the point of the analogy is that a component by itself does not make a whole (sperm != human). I understand exactly what you’ve said and it's still irrelevant and does nothing to discredit my point.

Don't attempt to change my point into something else.

Then you need to revise your definition, because it doesn't make sense anymore.

Why? How? Did I say that a human can ONLY be in the uterus as a result of sperm fertilizing an egg? No, I said a human DEVELOPS in the uterus as a result of sperm fertilizing an egg.

Please explain to me why a human cannot be in the uterus and then out of the uterus WITHOUT going beyond the scope of your original question and my first response.

People here have already been arguing that life begins at fertilization.

Actually, it was Cog that originally introduced the fertilization argument and when it was explained, he changed his mind and left the discussion. The rest have just been a continuation of what Cog said.

Meanwhile, it is an *embryo* that implants in the wall of a uterus. It is not defined as a fetus until further in to the pregnancy. I have seen nothing in medicine to suggest that the spontaneous abortion of *any* pregnancy is not deemed a miscarriage.

Actually, I looked it up in two seperate medical dictionaries (actually I called my mother an RN and had her look in hers and I used an online dictionary). Both said that a fetus must be excavated from the womb in order to be considered a miscarriage. Since you pointed it out, I looked up fetus and fetuses are, like, six to eight weeks into the pregnancy. I didn't realize this, so I will change my statement to say we should only consider pregnancies since that is what people are intending to argue about. At the beginning of the pregnancy, it is still an embryo. I stand corrected. However, you should look up miscarriage in a medical dictionary. http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=miscarriage


And lack of implantation very well can have something to do with the activities of the woman. Much like with other animals, when a woman's lifestyle is hectic, her body may deem the conditions poor and reject a pregnancy.

If your activities are legal the law says that you have to be doing something in some cases incorrectly and in others wrecklessly in order to be guilty of manslaughter. Having a hectic lifestyle hardly meets this criteria. Also, most of the time implantation doesn't occur because of defects. There is an obvious biological reason for such. Most of the embryos that do not implant occur through no fault of the mother in any way. If you believe it to be otherwise, you are welcome to show how this is true.

There are all sorts of circumstances in which harm to another human being would be a rare, but very possible consequence of an action. The law doesn't say anything about how rare it might be, nor does it say that the person has to *know* that anyone is around to be harmed.

No, it says that expectation of the result has to be reasonable. It is reasonable to suspect that drilling through a wall with someone on the other side could kill them. However, it is not reasonable to expect someone to be in your garage when you are the only one who lives there. When you share your space with other people is when it approaches the realm of reasonability. It doesn't require that you *know* it requires that you can reasonably expect the possibilty that someone dies from your actions. I challenge you to find a case where anyone was convicted or even tried for a case of manslaughter that resembles accidentally killing a drifter that is on the other side of a wall with a drill.

Mind you, it is a completely different burden when you are committing a crime. If I commit arson and some dies then it is manslaughter and, perhaps, murder if I could reasonable expect a person not to be there. This is because the person dies while I was committing a crime.

Wait, you change the entire premise of an argument to meet your personal definitions and then wish to state that it negates my argument, which is based on entirely different premises? Yeah, that makes sense.

We are not talking about the morning after pill. Therefore non-pregnancies are not included in this discussion. Abortions have nothing to do with non-pregnancies. I'll say it again, if anyone who SUPPORTS that life begins at fertilization would like to argue against my claim that we should only consider pregnancies when discussing abortion, then please say so? You don't support that life begins at fertilization. You can't exaggerate someone else's point just so they're wrong. Again, the person who said seriously that it does has left. Including it in your argument just makes your argument non-sensical and useless.

Finally, if you only look at cases where the actions of women meet the legal requirements for manslaughter then you are not talking about a significant number of women who are sexually active. If you believe what I say is not true, you are welcome to support your argument. I believe I've clearly shown why I beleive this be true, including posting the legal definition of manslaughter earlier in the thread. Again, you're welcome to show any case law that supports your claims that if embryos are a human life then most sexually active women are guilty of manslaughter. Show that most women are adequately responsible for the spontanous evacuation of the embryo or fetus or for stillbirths.

Here are my claims:

1. Almost all women are not generally responsible enough due to the definition of manslaughter for the spontaneous evacuation of the embryo/fetus or for stillbirths.

2. Unless committing a crime, it is not considered manslaughter unless you can reasonably expect the possibility of a death.

3. If some type birth control is used only around 3% of women will get pregnant after a year of sex (this is how the failure rates are calculated). This includes the rhythm method and pulling out. Without birth control about 85% of women would get pregnant as a result of a year of sex. I can't find the statistic on how many sexual encounters involve birth control, but I would have to say that it's likely than not that people use some form of birth control more often than not. This statistic alone suggests that the majority of sexually active women are not guilty of manslaughter even if life begins at fertilization (which is generally not what is being argued in abortion arguments).

4. The number of pregnancies that result in a living child is around 85%.

It is my solemn wish that people like Cog, Swimmingpool, and the rest of you posting herein could somehow influence those whose debates actually influence national policy
\m/

I think we've covered this. While your point is literally accurate, it gives you nothing in a discussion regarding abortion.

I think we've covered this. I have not been trying to gain anything from this point - only to point out that those who use such an argument are full of crap.

As I've stated over and over, the point of the analogy is that a component by itself does not make a whole. I understand exactly what you’ve said and it's still irrelevant and does nothing to discredit my point.

As I've stated over and over, I was not arguing with your analogy - I was taking it to a level that actually described the *real* situation of abortion.

Don't attempt to change my point into something else.

I'm sorry that you have such a martyr complex.

Why? How? Did I say that a human can ONLY be in the uterus as a result of sperm fertilizing an egg? No, I said a human DEVELOPS in the uterus as a result of sperm fertilizing an egg.

I asked you for a definition of human life. You said "Something that is the result of a sperm fertilizing an egg that develops in the uterus."

So, yes, if that is your definition of human life, you have precluded anything not developing in the uterus.

You still have not addressed the point, that even if your definition is something which is developing or has developed in the uterus, a placenta is still defined as human life.

Actually, it was Cog that originally introduced the fertilization argument and when it was explained, he changed his mind and left the discussion. The rest have just been a continuation of what Cog said.

...and the argument that you originally replied to was a response to Cog. Meanwhile, Cog did not change his mind, he said he would think about it further.

If your activities are legal the law says that you have to be doing something in some cases incorrectly and in others wrecklessly in order to be guilty of manslaughter.

...or you just have to know that the activity might be dangerous to human life, regardless of its legality.

Also, most of the time implantation doesn't occur because of defects. There is an obvious biological reason for such. Most of the embryos that do not implant occur through no fault of the mother in any way. If you believe it to be otherwise, you are welcome to show how this is true.

Such women, if accused, would then be exonnerated, would they not?

No, it says that expectation of the result has to be reasonable. It is reasonable to suspect that drilling through a wall with someone on the other side could kill them. However, it is not reasonable to expect someone to be in your garage when you are the only one who lives there.

Of course, it would be reasonable to expect someone to be in your garage if you had engaged in activities that might result in them being there.

We are not talking about the morning after pill. Therefore non-pregnancies are not included in this discussion.

I love the way you think you run a whole discusion. *You* are not talking about all fertilized eggs. As such, you should not reply to any points which are talking about them. I was, and have been, specifically talking about those (and there are many on this board) who believe that human life begins at fertilization.

Again, the person who said seriously that it does has left. Including it in your argument just makes your argument non-sensical and useless.

They had not left when the conversation started and you decided to change the entire premise just so you could argue with me.

Finally, if you only look at cases where the actions of women meet the legal requirements for manslaughter then you are not talking about a significant number of women who are sexually active. If you believe what I say is not true, you are welcome to support your argument.

I already have. You have yet to respond with anything other than "We are not talking about X, we are not talking about Y."

I believe I've clearly shown why I beleive this be true, including posting the legal definition of manslaughter earlier in the thread.

I replied to Cat's definition of manslaughter with exactly why it could be argued to apply - specifically with those who believe that a fertilized egg is a life.

I never said that it would get much use for those who believe that a *fetus* is a life.

Again, you're welcome to show any case law that supports your claims that if embryos are a human life then most sexually active women are guilty of manslaughter. Show that most women are adequately responsible for the spontanous evacuation of the embryo or fetus or for stillbirths.

s/guilty/liable

2. Unless committing a crime, it is not considered manslaughter unless you can reasonably expect the possibility of a death.

Anyone who is sexually active can reasonably expect that they could be pregnant. I expect it towards the end of every month, regardless of birth control.

3. If some type birth control is used only around 3% of women will get pregnant after a year of sex (this is how the failure rates are calculated). This includes the rhythm method and pulling out. Without birth control about 85% of women would get pregnant as a result of a year of sex. I can't find the statistic on how many sexual encounters involve birth control, but I would have to say that it's likely than not that people use some form of birth control more often than not. This statistic alone suggests that the majority of sexually active women are not guilty of manslaughter even if life begins at fertilization (which is generally not what is being argued in abortion arguments).

You are counting only *known* pregnancies, rather than total numbers. A significant portion of pregancies spontaneously abort before the woman is even aware of it.

4. The number of pregnancies that result in a living child is around 85%.

Incorrect. The estimate (which accounts for pregnancies that go completely unknown) is 50%, as posted earlier on this thread.

*SNIP*

You are counting only *known* pregnancies, rather than total numbers. A significant portion of pregancies spontaneously abort before the woman is even aware of it.

Incorrect. The estimate (which accounts for pregnancies that go completely unknown) is 50%, as posted earlier on this thread.

I am seperating out this point, because it's been made and supported. Your own evidence agrees with mine. 50% of fertilizations end in a live birth, not pregnancies. 85% of pregnancies end in live birth. If you wish to show me an actual study that shows otherwise, I'd be glad to look at it. I already showed you my source.

My number includes the pregnancies that spontaneously abort without the knowledge of the women. This actually represents the great majority of spontaneous abortions, in fact. I specifically told you this when I gave you the statistic and the link in another thread. To be clear, it is including statistical evidence of known and unknown pregnancies. How do they gain statistical evidence if the pregnancies are not known? The same way you got your 50% figure from including unimplanted embryos.

...and the argument that you originally replied to was a response to Cog. Meanwhile, Cog did not change his mind, he said he would think about it further.

When you presented the evidence he said he didn't know that information and that he would reconsider his position. I consider that changing his mind, but whatever. Given that he accepted your evidence, I see no need to consider his former opinion any further so I continue the argument relating to view that are still held.

I never replied to Cog.

......or you just have to know that the activity might be dangerous to human life, regardless of its legality.

Show me case law that supports this.

Such women, if accused, would then be exonnerated, would they not?

Yes, my point exactly. I'm glad you agree.

Of course, it would be reasonable to expect someone to be in your garage if you had engaged in activities that might result in them being there.

If there was a .1 percent chance of them being there if you checked for an entire year, no, this would not be considered reasonable (that is the odds of getting pregnant when using oral contraceptive properly).

I love the way you think you run a whole discusion. *You* are not talking about all fertilized eggs. As such, you should not reply to any points which are talking about them. I was, and have been, specifically talking about those (and there are many on this board) who believe that human life begins at fertilization.

I have made the offer several times for anyone who makes the claim you say they are making to tell me so. I have not seen anyone do so, this does not seem to support your claim.

They had not left when the conversation started and you decided to change the entire premise just so you could argue with me.

They are welcome to correct me at any time. Until someone comes on here again and makes the claim that life begins at fertilzation, I am going to ignore that argument. It is not unreasonable to do so, since I've heard no one make that argument that is still here. I prefer to listen to people's arguments rather than your summary of their arguments. Until someone says they actually believe what you say they believe I'm going to ignore that argument.

I already have. You have yet to respond with anything other than "We are not talking about X, we are not talking about Y."

Fine include fertilizations. Still show that the majority of these women have done something that caused the spontaneous evacuation. What percentage of additional children would have survived if the mother did everything right? I specifically stated my point. Specifically state yours without generalizations that are unsupported.

I replied to Cat's definition of manslaughter with exactly why it could be argued to apply - specifically with those who believe that a fertilized egg is a life.

No, you actually didn't. Your reply does not show that a majority of sexually active women could be charged with manslaughter or even a large percentage. You have yet to show that or specifically how a women who is not aware of pregnancy can be found guilty or any case law (not related to pregnancy, obviously) that supports your claim.

Anyone who is sexually active can reasonably expect that they could be pregnant. I expect it towards the end of every month, regardless of birth control.

Show me a statistic that shows the percentage of sexually active people that get pregnant. And, if you are on the pill and using it properly, you're odds of getting pregnant after an entire year of sex is .1%. Again, show me specifically how this is not true, if it's not. Given this it would be more reasonable for you to expect to have aids. And thus all sexually active people who transmit AIDS should be tried for Manslaughter. This doesn't happen and that does involve two lives. Seems to not support your argument that most sexually active women are guilty of manslaughter if they are sexually active and we considered an embryo a human life.

You are counting only *known* pregnancies, rather than total numbers. A significant portion of pregancies spontaneously abort before the woman is even aware of it.

So are you suggesting that the number of women who become pregnant on birth control is higher and the number without birth control is higher. Fine. Support this statement. What percentage of women become pregnant while on birth control (including unknown pregnancies)? What percentage of women become pregnant while not on birth control (including unknown pregnancies)? Show me my link or my assumptions are wrong and correct me.

EDIT: I also notice you completely removed point 1. If you can't show me how point one is wrong, that is enough to show that most women are not guilty of manslaughter if they are sexually active.

When you presented the evidence he said he didn't know that information and that he would reconsider his position. I consider that changing his mind, but whatever. Given that he accepted your evidence, I see no need to consider his former opinion any further so I continue the argument relating to view that are still held.

In other words, the argument is moot because you are arguing something different than anything I ever stated. Gotcha.

Show me case law that supports this.

It was in the definition of manslaughter that Cat posted.

If there was a .1 percent chance of them being there if you checked for an entire year, no, this would not be considered reasonable (that is the odds of getting pregnant when using oral contraceptive properly).

You would not consider it reasonable. Some bitch of a DA might.

I have made the offer several times for anyone who makes the claim you say they are making to tell me so. I have not seen anyone do so, this does not seem to support your claim.

I take it you have never entered an abortion debate on this board before this one?

Regardless, the only statement I have made is that those who *do* feel this way are ignoring a legal problem.

They are welcome to correct me at any time. Until someone comes on here again and makes the claim that life begins at fertilzation, I am going to ignore that argument.

Good, then do so and stop setting up a strawman of an argument that I made just so you can argue with me.

Fine include fertilizations. Still show that the majority of these women have done something that caused the spontaneous evacuation. What percentage of additional children would have survived if the mother did everything right?

That's a good question.

Seems to not support your argument that most sexually active women are guilty of manslaughter if they are sexually active and we considered an embryo a human life.

Apparently you missed the point in the last reply where I altered that argument from guilty to liable.

So are you suggesting that the number of women who become pregnant on birth control is higher and the number without birth control is higher. Fine. Support this statement.

It is simple logic. If many pregnancies are spontaneously aborted before a woman is aware of them, something biology and the medical community accepts, then the number of women who become pregnant with or without birth control is higher than the number of *known* pregnancies in either case.

EDIT: I also notice you completely removed point 1. If you can't show me how point one is wrong, that is enough to show that most women are not guilty of manslaughter if they are sexually active.

Point 1 is irrelevant due to the fact that I have already altered my statement to liable, rather than guilty.

It was in the definition of manslaughter that Cat posted.

"MANSLAUGHTER, INVOLUNTARY - In order for a person to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter the government must prove that someone was killed as a result of an act by the person;

Second, in the circumstances existing at the time, the person's act either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life; and

Third, the person either knew that such conduct was a threat to the lives of others or knew of circumstances that would reasonably cause the person to foresee that such conduct might be a threat to the lives of others. "

His definition said "was by its nature dangerous to human life". This does not include a hectic lifestyle. Or again it says knew that it was a threat to others or could reasonable see that such conduct was a threat to the lives of others. This does not fit your claim. If you suggest it does, show that any case law supports what you say. I mean, if you're correct then certainly some "bitch DA" has actually tried and won a case that stretched "reasonable" to the degree you claim.

You would not consider it reasonable. Some bitch of a DA might.

Fortunately, being charged does not make you found guilty. She's got to convince a jury that a 1 in a thousand chance is reasonable. Something there is no chance in hell she'll ever do.

I take it you have never entered an abortion debate on this board before this one?

Regardless, the only statement I have made is that those who *do* feel this way are ignoring a legal problem.

I'm sorry I was busying focusing on this debate. I didn't realize I needed to go back and read every post that was ever written regarding abortion. I just assumed everyone would focus on the discussion in THIS thread.

You still have yet to show how that legal problem could EVER play out. Show just one single case that supports your claim.

Good, then do so and stop setting up a strawman of an argument that I made just so you can argue with me.

Fine, I'll accept that it is absolutely necessary that we include fertilizations. You still have yet to support your claim.

Apparently you missed the point in the last reply where I altered that argument from guilty to liable.

I didn't realize that was what you meant. I've not seen that annotation before.

Liable for what? Manslaughter. I suppose you mean liable in civil court. Fine. I'll accept that you've changed your claim. Support this new claim with case law too. Or with any evidence whatsoever.

It is simple logic. If many pregnancies are spontaneously aborted before a woman is aware of them, something biology and the medical community accepts, then the number of women who become pregnant with or without birth control is higher than the number of *known* pregnancies in either case.

Yes, but they are included in my statistics. If not, certainly someone somewhere considered them in their statistics. Find them or admit that you can't show fault in my statistics. I'm not arguing that the number of known pregnancies is less than actual pregnancies. Show that only known pregnancies are included in my statistic or show a statistic including *all* pregnancies. Just calling me wrong does not amount to evidence.

Point 1 is irrelevant due to the fact that I have already altered my statement to liable, rather than guilty.

Fine, establish liability in any way. You are just making spurious claims with no real evidence to back them up. If you have shown actual evidence that your claim is true, would you mind reposting it, because I missed it? This is a sincere request.

Ever heard of the 10th Amendment before?

Yes. And that is relevant because ....?

You might note the 9th Amendment and the 14th Amendment.

Dempublicents1 and Jocabia,

Take a breath. Step back. Perhaps walk away.

You are on a side point. Although it has some relevance it has already been argued out beyond it's relevance.

I respect both of you and I have gotten into these cage matches before with both of you, I think all three of us can be very stubborn and refuse to unlock our jaws. It is clear at this point that neither of you is going to concede.

You might wish to consider whether it is worth it to continue.

Now, I'll go back to ignoring my own advice.

I haven't been keeping up with this topic due to a lack of real-life time on my part, but I want to clear this up:Actually, it was Cog that originally introduced the fertilization argument and when it was explained, he changed his mind and left the discussion. The rest have just been a continuation of what Cog said.I only promised to rethink my beliefs, I haven't actually decided to change my beliefs. So, I have not "changed my mind" as such. I still haven't had a chance to rethink my position in depth (again, time limitations), so I'm still of the opinion that personhood might begin at fertilization and that the natural termination of all those fertilized eggs are unfortunate deaths that nobody has the power to prevent, just as nobody has the power to prevent death by old age; pray for them and move on.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

...

The cautionary post by "The Cat-Tribe" to "Dempublicents1" and "Jocabia" gives me pause, but I don't have time to read up on what started it. I don't want to have to issue official warnings, here.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

The cautionary post by "The Cat-Tribe" to "Dempublicents1" and "Jocabia" gives me pause, but I don't have time to read up on what started it. I don't want to have to issue official warnings, here.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Please don't think warnings are warranted. :(

The intent of my post was to try to stop an argument that, IMAO, going in circles. Not an argument that I thought was improper.

I did not mean to imply either Dempublicents1 or Jocabia have done anything wrong. To the contrary, I think the argument has been heated, but respectful. I just thought it was getting tiresome.

I haven't been keeping up with this topic due to a lack of real-life time on my part, but I want to clear this up:I only promised to rethink my beliefs, I haven't actually decided to change my beliefs. *snip*

Oh, no, you can't back out now! We have twisted your words and you are thereby bound to change your opinion. The sky is now red and grass is purple! :D

I haven't been keeping up with this topic due to a lack of real-life time on my part, but I want to clear this up:I only promised to rethink my beliefs, I haven't actually decided to change my beliefs. So, I have not "changed my mind" as such. I still haven't had a chance to rethink my position in depth (again, time limitations), so I'm still of the opinion that personhood might begin at fertilization and that the natural termination of all those fertilized eggs are unfortunate deaths that nobody has the power to prevent, just as nobody has the power to prevent death by old age; pray for them and move on.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

...

The cautionary post by "The Cat-Tribe" to "Dempublicents1" and "Jocabia" gives me pause, but I don't have time to read up on what started it. I don't want to have to issue official warnings, here.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Fair enough on the first part. On the second part, Dem and I, and sometimes Cat, always do that. I have respect for both Cat and Dem and have told both of them such. Dem and I actually tease each other frequently on how we talk to each other. I would hope that given the subject matter, it's not suprising that we are so adamant and, to be fair, even a little obstenant (read: me). I sincerely hope that I haven't offended Dem. Most of my smarmy comments are just meant to be witty.

Dempublicents1 and Jocabia,

Take a breath. Step back. Perhaps walk away.

You are on a side point. Although it has some relevance it has already been argued out beyond it's relevance.

I respect both of you and I have gotten into these cage matches before with both of you, I think all three of us can be very stubborn and refuse to unlock our jaws. It is clear at this point that neither of you is going to concede.

You might wish to consider whether it is worth it to continue.

Now, I'll go back to ignoring my own advice.

I'm basically requesting the same thing of her that you requested of me in the other thread. The funny thing about all three of us is that we jump all over a lack of evidence like rabid dogs. Good luck to any one of us trying to get a hole in an argument past the other two. I like the fact that it keeps me on my toes and this is why I complimented you for this on the other thread. Perhaps I should extended the same compliment to Dem.

Hmmm. And here I was under the obviously mistaken impression that it was the Constitution which secured all rights. :rolleyes:

I strongly suspect that if the shoe was on the other foot, with the Republicans using the filibuster to block important Democrat nominees, and the Democrats threatening to either invoke cloture or change Senate rules, you would be ranting that the Republicans were "blocking progress."

It all depends upon whose ox is being gored, don't it! :)

Not me, in any case. I love the Filibuster, no matter who is using it. We need it to protect minority rights. Otherwise the Senate because a Tyranny full of majority ruling and do whatever they want. Corruption would soon follow (more corruption I mean).

I mean does no one remember how many Nominees Repiblicans blocked under Clinton, lots.

I think we've covered this. I have not been trying to gain anything from this point - only to point out that those who use such an argument are full of crap.
LOL! You’re not trying to gain anything; you’re just trying to disprove an argument? Sounds like you’re trying to gain something.

You haven’t shown that the “argument” is full of crap because your statement is INSIGNIFICANT to the “argument”.

As I've stated over and over, I was not arguing with your analogy
Then you’ve conceded that a component by itself will never equal a whole; therefore, a sperm by itself is not a human. Okay, let’s not talk about this anymore.

I was taking it to a level that actually described the *real* situation of abortion.
You invented your own subjective “real” situation. Since only two components (the sperm and egg) are required to make a human, you’re “expanded” version of my analogy is irrelevant.

I'm sorry that you have such a martyr complex.
If you attempting to change the meaning of something I wrote gives me one, then I’m glad you’re sorry.

You still have not addressed the point, that even if your definition is something which is developing or has developed in the uterus, a placenta is still defined as human life.
You simply asked me to differentiate between human cells and non-human cells. Before a fertilized egg implants to the uterine wall, early placenta cells (trophectoderm) form on the outside of the zygote cell. At this point I wouldn’t differentiate any of these cells as non-human. However, over time (2/3 weeks) it becomes possible to identify the cells of the placenta vs. the cells of the fetus.

Furthermore, I “personally” don’t see any problem with referring to the placenta as part of the human while inside the womb. Of course, it’s only part of the human provided there are human cells developing with it (not just placenta cells).

His definition said "was by its nature dangerous to human life". This does not include a hectic lifestyle. Or again it says knew that it was a threat to others or could reasonable see that such conduct was a threat to the lives of others. This does not fit your claim. If you suggest it does, show that any case law supports what you say. I mean, if you're correct then certainly some "bitch DA" has actually tried and won a case that stretched "reasonable" to the degree you claim.

Of course it doesn't *currently* include a hectic lifestyle. However, one could argue that, should an embryo be defined as life, with all the protections thereof, it *would* be. If an embryo = a child, then a parent has the responsibility of ensuring the life of that child. If I have a hectic lifestyle with an infant, which leads to me not feeding it often enough, and it dies - I will be charged. If we gave an embryo all the same rights - there would be no change. From the moment it existed, a woman would be liable for its life or death.

Fortunately, being charged does not make you found guilty. She's got to convince a jury that a 1 in a thousand chance is reasonable. Something there is no chance in hell she'll ever do.

You would be surprised what a good lawyer can convince a jury of.

You still have yet to show how that legal problem could EVER play out. Show just one single case that supports your claim.

The definition of the law supports my claim. The fact that it hasn't yet been used that way is irrelevant - people argue new uses for laws all the time. People in Ohio (I think) have just gotten a law that was always applied and seems to have been clearly meant to apply to any couple to only apply to married couples.

Yes, but they are included in my statistics. If not, certainly someone somewhere considered them in their statistics. Find them or admit that you can't show fault in my statistics. I'm not arguing that the number of known pregnancies is less than actual pregnancies. Show that only known pregnancies are included in my statistic or show a statistic including *all* pregnancies. Just calling me wrong does not amount to evidence.

As posted earlier:

http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1192.asp

15% of *known* pregnancies end in miscarriage.

Up to 50% of *all* pregnancies may end in miscarriage.

You haven’t shown that the “argument” is full of crap because your statement is INSIGNIFICANT to the “argument”.

Wait, so if I say that all human beings are male, and you say "Nope, only about 50% of all human beings are male" - that is [/b]INSIGNIFICANT to my argument[/b] that all human beings are male?

Then you’ve conceded that a component by itself will never equal a whole; therefore, a sperm by itself is not a human. Okay, let’s not talk about this anymore.

What was there to concede? I never made the claim that it *was*.

You invented your own subjective “real” situation. Since only two components (the sperm and egg) are required to make a human, you’re “expanded” version of my analogy is irrelevant.

Actually, to have a human life, a brain is required. Without it, an entity is either dead or not yet alive.

If you attempting to change the meaning of something I wrote gives me one, then I’m glad you’re sorry.

As I have said several times, I was not trying to change the meaning, I was trying to expand it to a situation that actually addresses the real debate. No one would reasonably claim that a sperm is a life.

You simply asked me to differentiate between human cells and non-human cells.

No, I didn't. A sperm, egg, skin cell, etc. are all human cells. I asked you to differentiate between all human cells and a human *life*.

Wait, so if I say that all human beings are male, and you say "Nope, only about 50% of all human beings are male" - that is [/b]INSIGNIFICANT to my argument[/b] that all human beings are male?

Of course not. Such a statement would be “significant” to your argument.

I really don't care if you understand this or not. I've already said that you are "literally" correct. However, your statement is outside the frame of reference being discussed. It does nothing to further a pro-choice stance. It doesn't show that anyone is full of crap. It's irrelevant.

Actually, to have a human life, a brain is required. Without it, an entity is either dead or not yet alive.

This statement is an assertion. You are subjectively defining what IS and ISN’T human life.

I’m curious to hear how your altered version of my analogy illustrates this.

No, I didn't. A sperm, egg, skin cell, etc. are all human cells. I asked you to differentiate between all human cells and a human *life*.

“…unless you can come up with a definition of person that includes embryos and doesn't include tumors or skin cells…”


I believe I’ve already answered this. Human embryos (life) develop in the uterus as a result of sperm entering an egg and fertilizing it. I explained my definition in regards to the placenta in the last post.

Actually, the majority opinion on Lawrence v. Texas is what opened up the door to overturning Roe v. Wade. So really, if you want to be accurate, Lawrence v. Texas is responsible for this new furor over overturning Supreme Court decisions. They should have just gone with O'Connor's opinion. Bleh.

Of course not. Such a statement would be “significant” to your argument.

Exactly.

This statement is an assertion. You are subjectively defining what IS and ISN’T human life.

Sure, if biology and medicine are subjective these days.

I’m curious to hear how your altered version of my analogy illustrates this.

If you need certain components to be a human life, and you don't have *all* of them, then you are not a human life.

I believe I’ve already answered this. Human embryos (life) develop in the uterus as a result of sperm entering an egg and fertilizing it. I explained my definition in regards to the placenta in the last post.

This still hasn't given me a definition of all human life. I'm not asking you to define embryos - I already know what those are. I want an overarching definition of what makes a human life a human life.

Hmmm. And here I was under the obviously mistaken impression that it was the Constitution which secured all rights. :rolleyes:


The Constitution enumerates certain rights that are to be protected. It does nothing to enforce those protections. The Constitution isn't superhero. It doesn't scour the country keeping The Man in check. People have to do that.

Using your logic we don't need a Military because of the Decleration of Independance does its job.

(snip)
If you need certain components to be a human life, and you don't have *all* of them, then you are not a human life.
(snip)



so..... would that include the appendix?

so..... would that include the appendix?

No, the appendix is not required for life to begin or continue.

Of course it doesn't *currently* include a hectic lifestyle. However, one could argue that, should an embryo be defined as life, with all the protections thereof, it *would* be. If an embryo = a child, then a parent has the responsibility of ensuring the life of that child. If I have a hectic lifestyle with an infant, which leads to me not feeding it often enough, and it dies - I will be charged. If we gave an embryo all the same rights - there would be no change. From the moment it existed, a woman would be liable for its life or death.

Show me any evidence that this is true, other than your claim. I've asked and asked, but you have yet to do anything except make claims that if true would be relatively easy to support. You haven't supported those claims and I suspect it's because you can't. I've searched for support for your claims and I certainly find nothing that upholds what you're saying.

Also, even by your own admission, it would not only require that an embryo be considered a child, but it would also require the manslaughter law to suddenly be applied differently.

You would be surprised what a good lawyer can convince a jury of.

There are a lot of manslaughter cases. Show me what a "good lawyer can convince a jury of". I think you'd be suprised what a good lawyer can't convince a jury of.

The definition of the law supports my claim. The fact that it hasn't yet been used that way is irrelevant - people argue new uses for laws all the time. People in Ohio (I think) have just gotten a law that was always applied and seems to have been clearly meant to apply to any couple to only apply to married couples.

First, I don't agree that the definition of the law supports your claim. Second, if it's never been used that way, it's suggestive that the courts also don't support your claim.

And, actually, if your familiar with the way the law works, it's extremely relevant whether the law has ever been applied the way your suggesting. Lawyers very often use previous cases to support their side. If anyone has ever lost a case where they tried to use the law in the way you claim (and I suspect they have) then that would be very, very relevant.

The reason cases about the definition of couple have been supported is because couple has always been used to mean a man and a woman. In the case you're talking about it has always been used to mean a married couple so it is not being allowed to be extended to all couples despite the fact the wording supports it. This fact shows that wording is often less important than the previous application of the law. You gave an example that is exactly the opposite of what you're claiming to be true.

As posted earlier:

http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1192.asp

15% of *known* pregnancies end in miscarriage.

Up to 50% of *all* pregnancies may end in miscarriage.

I showed you my link it's not *known* pregnancies, it's all pregnancies. Their numbers are based on a study that included embryos that did not implant. That is the only place that 50% has ever been shown to be even remotely likely (a study was done in the UK). Doing a study that is suggestive of the overall percentage is relatively simple. You collect a group of sexually active women and you test them daily for implanted embryos. This would be a relatively accurate test unless most pregnancies spontaneously abort in the first twenty-four hours which is not something that anything I've ever read has suggest (feel free to post a link if you wish). As far as I know they are unable to test for a non-implanted embryo which is why a number including non-implanted embryos is just a guess (50%).

Again, the difference between your source and mine is not *known* and *unknown* as you keep suggesting, but implanted and non-implanted, as I've pointed out several times. If you feel like I'm being unfair to your source, feel free to post the study from your source derives it's information.

No, the appendix is not required for life to begin or continue.

What about the heart, the lungs, the intestines, the stomach? Some percentage, or all? Do both lungs make you human? One lung? Are you no longer human when they take your heart out during a heart transplant?

Show me any evidence that this is true, other than your claim. I've asked and asked, but you have yet to do anything except make claims that if true would be relatively easy to support. You haven't supported those claims and I suspect it's because you can't. I've searched for support for your claims and I certainly find nothing that upholds what you're saying.

I have to show you that a parent is responsible for the welfare of their children? That should be fairly easy to find.

There are a lot of manslaughter cases. Show me what a "good lawyer can convince a jury of". I think you'd be suprised what a good lawyer can't convince a jury of.

Considering that lawyers can convince juries to give people with no injuries millions of dollars in malpractice cases sometimes, I think there are quite a few things a lawyer could convince a jury of - as juries rarely know medical technology.

First, I don't agree that the definition of the law supports your claim.

Fine, but that is still what it says. I could take the above sentence and say "I think he is saying he agrees with me," but it wouldn't be true.
(and I suspect they have) then that would be very, very relevant.

The reason cases about the definition of couple have been supported is because couple has always been used to mean a man and a woman. In the case you're talking about it has always been used to mean a married couple so it is not being allowed to be extended to all couples despite the fact the wording supports it. This fact shows that wording is often less important than the previous application of the law. You gave an example that is exactly the opposite of what you're claiming to be true.

Wrong. The law has been used many times to represent couples who are not married - even homosexual couples. The law itself states that married couples are an example, not the only intended entities protected by the law. There is quite a bit of precendence for the law being used on non-married couples, and a single judge has now changed that.

I showed you my link it's not *known* pregnancies, it's all pregnancies.

You have yet to give me a link at all.

Again, the difference between your source and mine is not *known* and *unknown* as you keep suggesting, but implanted and non-implanted, as I've pointed out several times. If you feel like I'm being unfair to your source, feel free to post the study from your source derives it's information.

Nice to know that you didn't even bother reading the link.

What about the heart, the lungs, the intestines, the stomach? Some percentage, or all? Do both lungs make you human? One lung? Are you no longer human when they take your heart out during a heart transplant?

The circulatory system and intestines represent a method of obtaining and using nutrients - thus necessary in a life. The lungs represent respiration - also necessary in a life. The nervous system is a humans way of sensing and responding to stimuli - necessary in a life.

Defining human life is pretty subjective, but I'm sure we can all agree that a human life must first be a life.

Okay, I haven't much to say, as most arguments on this subject have been done to death, but I would like to make a brief point on the "Salad" analogy:

Argument X: Abortion prevents a human life from being created, and so is wrong.

Argument Y: Masturbation prevents a human life from being created, and so is wrong.

Argument Z (AKA The Salad Argument): If you are going to make a salad, then you throw away a tomato, you haven't thrown away the whole salad.

This isn't really relevant, as you CAN make a salad without a tomato, whereas you CAN'T make a human being without sperm.

This seems typical of arguments on this subject. What seems to happen is that one person makes an argument (call it A), then somebody else says that if that argument is true, it implies a second argument (call it B) which is plainly ridiculous. Then a third person says "Ah, but argument B is ridiculous", thus missing the entire point of argument B - the person proposing wasn't saying that it was true, but that the fact that it ISN'T true casts doubt on the veracity of argument A.

A good example is the "manslaughter" issue. The person who started the "accidental abortion is manslaughter" idea (I think it was Demipublicants) said that IF an embryo was considered a human being, THEN accidental abortion would be manslaughter. Other members have spent considerable time trying to argue the point that accindental abortion ISN'T manslaughter, thus missing the point completely. If X implies Y, then the disproving of Y doesn't invalidate the argument, it actually implies that X is untrue as well. Simple logic.

Okay, I haven't much to say, as most arguments on this subject have been done to death, but I would like to make a brief point on the "Salad" analogy:

Argument X: Abortion prevents a human life from being created, and so is wrong.

Argument Y: Masturbation prevents a human life from being created, and so is wrong.

Argument Z (AKA The Salad Argument): If you are going to make a salad, then you throw away a tomato, you haven't thrown away the whole salad.

This isn't really relevant, as you CAN make a salad without a tomato, whereas you CAN'T make a human being without sperm.

This seems typical of arguments on this subject. What seems to happen is that one person makes an argument (call it A), then somebody else says that if that argument is true, it implies a second argument (call it B) which is plainly ridiculous. Then a third person says "Ah, but argument B is ridiculous", thus missing the entire point of argument B - the person proposing wasn't saying that it was true, but that the fact that it ISN'T true casts doubt on the veracity of argument A.

A good example is the "manslaughter" issue. The person who started the "accidental abortion is manslaughter" idea (I think it was Demipublicants) said that IF an embryo was considered a human being, THEN accidental abortion would be manslaughter. Other members have spent considerable time trying to argue the point that accindental abortion ISN'T manslaughter, thus missing the point completely. If X implies Y, then the disproving of Y doesn't invalidate the argument, it actually implies that X is untrue as well. Simple logic.

No, actually, I've been arguing the point that even an embryo were considered to be a human child, manslaughter doesn't follow. The thing about analogies is they have to resemble the original argument and they have to be accurate in all other ways other than the point you're trying to show is invalid. Trying to make a point seem ridiculous by comparing it to something that A) has nothing to do with reality even if your givens are conceded or B) has nothing to do with the original point no matter how hard you stretch the parameters, does not make any sense whatsoever. Trying to make someone show how the things they claim to be true are is relevant when one makes a claim.

Your point is incorrect and we'll use the analogy you used.

X = an embryo is a human child with all the rights being a human child conveys.

Y = if x is true then the vast majority of sexually active women are guilty of manslaughter because spontaneous evacuation would be considered manslaughter.

Now, if one shows that even if x is true that y is untrue then y is a nonsensical argument that has nothing to with X. It does nothing to validate or invalidate x and thus is pointless to the argument of x. Simple logic.

Your claim is that if I say this:

Hypothesis X is 2 + 2 = 4

Hypothesis Y is if 2+2 = 4 then addition and multiplication are the same thing since 2 * 2 = 4 as well.

Are you saying that by logic if I disprove Y I am invalidating X or even suggesting X is invalid?

There is a huge difference between extending an argument to its logical conclusion and just making the argument sound nonsensical by just bastardizing it or adding in some element that makes it sound like a bad idea, e.g. if you say this you are calling almost all sexually active women killers. For example, my example disputes your original claim while still remaining logical and relating to your original premise. Proving IT untrue does actually calling into question your original argument but that's because I used an appropriate example. However if I would have used a hypothesis X and hypothesis Y in my examples that were not related at all, it would suggest nothing about your original claim.

Exactly.
This is obviously way over your head.

It would be more akin to me making a claim that in order get to work by 9:00 AM I need to leave no later than 8:00 AM, and you telling me that I’m full of crap because X% of the time the car breaks down. Since we’re discussing departure and work arrival times, it’s a literal (but irrelevant) point because I’m not attempting to claim I would make it to work by 9:00 AM if my car broke down.

Sure, if biology and medicine are subjective these days.
Really? Wow! I wasn’t aware that biology and medicine had proved exactly when human life begins. It’s amazing you’re the only person that knows this. :rolleyes:

If that were indeed correct, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

If you need certain components to be a human life, and you don't have *all* of them, then you are not a human life.
But now you have to prove which components are needed for human life.

This still hasn't given me a definition of all human life. I'm not asking you to define embryos - I already know what those are. I want an overarching definition of what makes a human life a human life.

Once the child is born it’s undoubtedly a human. I doubt we disagree here.

Now, a pregnant woman will never give birth to something OTHER than a human. Therefore, it’s not illogical to refer to the cells/embryo/fetus as human life at ANY time during the pregnancy. Unless you want to posit that a pregnant woman might give birth to something besides a human.

By this definition (including my previous responses to this question), it’s NOT ILLOGICAL to define human life as beginning from the moment of conception and ending at the moment of death.

I have to show you that a parent is responsible for the welfare of their children? That should be fairly easy to find.

No, you have to show me that parents are responsible for children they are unaware of. Show me that the father of a child that does not know it exists can be considered guilty of a crime for not paying its child support. Show me that of any case where someone was found guilty of manslaughter or even liable for manslaughter in a case where the probability of the person being present or of the act containing any risks were 1 in a 1000 and there was no crime being committed.

Considering that lawyers can convince juries to give people with no injuries millions of dollars in malpractice cases sometimes, I think there are quite a few things a lawyer could convince a jury of - as juries rarely know medical technology.

I think comparing this to medical cases where the doctor is trained for a decade on the proper way to prevent injury or death and acts contrary to this when he/she is A) aware of the potentially dangerous nature of his actions or through his/her extensive training should be and B) aware that a human being is involved does nothing to support your claim. Show me a case of somone being fined millions of dollars when they passed on a sexually transmitted disease without their knowledge after contracting it while using protection and that would at least to a degree support your claim. Find someone found liable of passing malaria on, I probably have a one in a thousand chance of contracting malaria when I visit certain countries. Find me any comparable case to what you're suggesting. You won't, you can't, because it hasn't happened.

Fine, but that is still what it says. I could take the above sentence and say "I think he is saying he agrees with me," but it wouldn't be true. (and I suspect they have) then that would be very, very relevant.

"Second, in the circumstances existing at the time, the person's act either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life; and

Third, the person either knew that such conduct was a threat to the lives of others or knew of circumstances that would reasonably cause the person to foresee that such conduct might be a threat to the lives of others. "

Remember, manslaughter requires all three. I agree what you're stating the first one could be possibly be met in a small percentage of cases. The act has to be either with reckless disregard for human life or "BY ITS NATURE DANGEROUS TO HUMAN LIFE". Having a hectic lifestyle is not dangerous by its nature nor is it a reckless disregard for human life. I think that's very clear. The third point says you have to reasonably foresee that the conduct might be a threat to the lives of others, something a 1 in 1000 chance doesn't really suggest, but even if it does you simply can't get past point number two. Because you make the claim it's manslaughter doesn't make it so. Any reasonable judge would never let a case that involved no reckless disregard for human life and involved no act that was dangerous in nature to see a jury.

If you think I'm wrong, feel free to explain how a woman who is unaware that she is pregnant living a hectic lifestyle meets each of the above criteria. At least then we can agree to disagree. I have not seen you in any way show that to be even true even if only supported by your own logic.

Wrong. The law has been used many times to represent couples who are not married - even homosexual couples. The law itself states that married couples are an example, not the only intended entities protected by the law. There is quite a bit of precendence for the law being used on non-married couples, and a single judge has now changed that.

Wait, you know all this but you don't know what state it is. Can you show me so I can look it up instead of guess? Or do you prefer to use abstract examples that can't be shown to be wrong?

You have yet to give me a link at all.

Actually, we discussed this before in another thread and I gave you the link. It's not really relevant because even if it's true by your own source most miscarriages carry no responsibility by the mother. I read the entire link and since it doesn't even support your claim, I'll just let the point lie.

The circulatory system and intestines represent a method of obtaining and using nutrients - thus necessary in a life. The lungs represent respiration - also necessary in a life. The nervous system is a humans way of sensing and responding to stimuli - necessary in a life.

So if I have a heart transplant am I still alive while my heart is missing? What about when my intestines don't work and are removed and I use artificial parts to do that work for me? Artificial hearts, what about those? So would I be alive if I had an artificial brain?

Defining human life is pretty subjective, but I'm sure we can all agree that a human life must first be a life.

So, a brain is a requirement for a life? Didn't realize. I didn't know bacteria aren't alive. So what's my point? You can tear apart just about every definition of a living human being that anyone can present. That's why this debate is always so heated. Some people argue that it is still not a child even after the brain is formed. And some people complain that taking someone off life support even after the brain has ceased to function is murder. No one has a perfect definition of what living is. I'm pretty sure we can define human. It's the life part that's nearly impossible.

EDIT: We don't have to debate the definition of life part further if you don't want. I, personally, believe that life begins when the brain develops, but I accept that this is only my personal belief. I just making the point that disproving his definition does not prove yours.

It would be more akin to me making a claim that in order get to work by 9:00 AM I need to leave no later than 8:00 AM, and you telling me that I’m full of crap because X% of the time the car breaks down. Since we’re discussing departure and work arrival times, it’s a literal (but irrelevant) point because I’m not attempting to claim I would make it to work by 9:00 AM if my car broke down.

As long as the percentage of times you break down is small, you have a point. If your car broke down 50% of the time, you'd be full of crap and leaving out the times your car broke down would essentially be lying.

Really? Wow! I wasn’t aware that biology and medicine had proved exactly when human life begins. It’s amazing you’re the only person that knows this. :rolleyes:

Biology and medicine have defined the components necessary for life, and I am not the only one who knows this. Last time I checked, we *do* declare people dead when their brain stops working.

But now you have to prove which components are needed for human life.

At the very least, I would think we could agree that a human life must first be a life and meet the requirements thereof as an entity.

A way to obtain and use nutrients - met when the circulatory system is
Respiration (first through circulatory system, later through lungs)
Growth (self-explanatory)
Excretion (first through circulatory system, later through excretory system)
and:

A method for sensing and responding to stimuli - nervous system.

Now, a pregnant woman will never give birth to something OTHER than a human. Therefore, it’s not illogical to refer to the cells/embryo/fetus as human life at ANY time during the pregnancy. Unless you want to posit that a pregnant woman might give birth to something besides a human.

By this definition (including my previous responses to this question), it’s NOT ILLOGICAL to define human life as beginning from the moment of conception and ending at the moment of death.

You have yet to give a definition. You just say "I want to call the embryo a human life, so there must be a definition it meets." As soon as you give a definition, this conversation can continue.

Meanwhile, do you really think it is logical to define something that does not meet the requirements of life as a human life?

I think comparing this to medical cases where the doctor is trained for a decade on the proper way to prevent injury or death and acts contrary

Your lack of reading comprehension amazes me. Notice that I specifically said cases in which no injury exists - in other words, the doctor did not act contrary to training.

Remember, manslaughter requires all three. I agree what you're stating the first one could be possibly be met in a small percentage of cases. The act has to be either with reckless disregard for human life or "BY ITS NATURE DANGEROUS TO HUMAN LIFE". Having a hectic lifestyle is not dangerous by its nature nor is it a reckless disregard for human life. I think that's very clear. The third point says you have to reasonably foresee that the conduct might be a threat to the lives of others, something a 1 in 1000 chance doesn't really suggest, but even if it does you simply can't get past point number two. Because you make the claim it's manslaughter doesn't make it so. Any reasonable judge would never let a case that involved no reckless disregard for human life and involved no act that was dangerous in nature to see a jury.

So, you are essentially arguing that most people do not know the following:

1 - Sex can lead to the formation of an embryo
2 - Development of an embryo often requires lifestyle changes on the part of the mother
3 - Actions early in pregnancy can harm an embryo or cause it to spontaneously abort.

The chance doesn't matter, if you know for a fact that it can harm someone. I may think there is a 1 in a 1000 chance that there is someone around when I go to cut down a tree, but I can still be charged if I don't check before I cut it down and someone gets killed.

Wait, you know all this but you don't know what state it is. Can you show me so I can look it up instead of guess? Or do you prefer to use abstract examples that can't be shown to be wrong?

Here's an article on the issue

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1105785144152810.xml

And, meanwhile, I did say I thought it was Ohio.

So if I have a heart transplant am I still alive while my heart is missing? What about when my intestines don't work and are removed and I use artificial parts to do that work for me? Artificial hearts, what about those? So would I be alive if I had an artificial brain?

(a) Artificial parts prolong life by subsidizing the systems you already have.

(b) If you had an "artificial brain" - if that were even conceivably possible - you would no longer be you, even if you might be considered "alive".

So, a brain is a requirement for a life?

Way to take things out of context. No, a brain is not a requirement for life, but a method of sensing and responding to the environment as an entity is. In order to do so, human beings have a nervous system.

You can tear apart just about every definition of a living human being that anyone can present.

Not if it meets the basic requirements for life.

No one has a perfect definition of what living is. I'm pretty sure we can define human. It's the life part that's nearly impossible.

I would disagree. We can certainly define living, it is what define human personhood that we don't have.

I just making the point that disproving his definition does not prove yours.

He has yet to provide an actual definition.

Your lack of reading comprehension amazes me. Notice that I specifically said cases in which no injury exists - in other words, the doctor did not act contrary to training.

You said no one was harmed. It is possible for someone to be given the wrong treatment and not be harmed, thus the doctor acts contrary to training. However, now that you've changed the parameters, let me ask, are you actually suggesting that there are cases where the doctor followed all medical protocol properly, no one was injured and the "victim" still received punative damages? I would be interested in reading about this case. Feel free to post it. Otherwise I will consider your argument suggesting this to be made up as it does not fit in with anything I know to be true of the law, of juries, of punative damages, of medical malpractice and of reason. I would happy to be corrected on this if I have more to base changing my opinion on that just your statements.

So, you are essentially arguing that most people do not know the following:

1 - Sex can lead to the formation of an embryo
2 - Development of an embryo often requires lifestyle changes on the part of the mother
3 - Actions early in pregnancy can harm an embryo or cause it to spontaneously abort.

No, I am arguing that a hectic lifestyle is not in its nature dangerous and not knowing of the existence of a human life precludes a person from having a reckless disregard for human life. You have yet to show how a slim possibility of existence (again a 1 in 1000 chance after a year of sexual intimacy which means a roughly 1 in 12000 chance during each cycle and a slightly increased chance during a person's fertile days and a slightly decreased chance during infertile days) meets this reckless disregard requirement or the "reasonable" requirement of the third part of the statute.

Also, you must show cause. You have yet to show what percentage of pregnancies end because of some fault of the mother.

The chance doesn't matter, if you know for a fact that it can harm someone. I may think there is a 1 in a 1000 chance that there is someone around when I go to cut down a tree, but I can still be charged if I don't check before I cut it down and someone gets killed.

The chance does matter as "reasonable" is part of the definition. If I cut down a tree in my yard, it falls in my yard, I can not reasonably see the person it fell on and I live alone so there is almost no chance of them being there, it is not manslaughter. I am willing to be corrected. Show me a case. Otherwise, we just have more unsupported claims.

Here's an article on the issue

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1105785144152810.xml

And, meanwhile, I did say I thought it was Ohio.

Meanwhile, nothing you stated is supported by your source. You cited a public defenders argument that has not been accepted yet. And it is noted that the defense is an attempt to exploit a new amendment (hardly the actions of a single judge) that many believe to be unconstitutional. How does even remotely relate to the claims you made about a single judge going against years of existing interpretations of the laws?

I'm not going to waste my time responding to arguments that are not supported by fact anymore as no one gains. You have adequately shown that no amount of reason or fact will change your mind. I, however, am willing to change my mind about your opinions if you just support them. Making claims about what a law means that are not supported by practice, making up fallacious examples that are not supported by your own links or simply not providing links at all is not forming an argument or educating anyone about the matter.

You said no one was harmed. However, now that you've changed the parameters, let me ask, are you actually suggesting that there are cases where the doctor followed all medical protocol properly, no one was injured and the "victim" still received punative damages?

Yes. While I don't have a link for this particular case, I do know of one which occurred recently in Pittsburgh. A doctor performed a procedure exactly as per medical practice, but a *known* complication which occurs in 10% of all cases with no mistakes happened. Luckily, this particular doctor noticed early and corrected the problem during the surgery. The woman still sued. The award: $20 million (which has almost certainly been reduced in higher courts by now).

Of course, many people get settlements without ever being hurt, because doctors see cases like the one I mentioned and go ahead and pay a settlement to avoid an actual lawsuit, even when they have done nothing wrong. This is one way in which less scrupulous lawyers con money out of doctors.

Otherwise I will consider your argument suggesting this to be made up as it does not fit in with anything I know to be true of the law, of juries, of punative damages, of medical malpractice and of reason. I would happy to be corrected on this if I have more to base changing my opinion on that just your statements.

Juries know nothing of medical practice. If they hear the word "complication", they assume the doctor did something wrong. It doesn't help that many have a view of doctors (especially surgeons) as being arrogant people who do no work and get tons of money at the expense of the little guy. The procedure mentioned above netted the doctor about $500, tops.

No, I am arguing that a hectic lifestyle is not in its nature dangerous and not knowing of the existence of a human life precludes a person from having a reckless disregard for human life.

...which would be the same argument I would make. However, we are talking about something that would be a whole new area, with no legal precedent whatsoever. As such, were we to ever define an embryo as human life, these are the types of arguments that would be brought up - and some would agree with them.

When a human being dies, we investigate the cause of death, yes? If an embryo were legally defined as a human being, all miscarriages would have to be investigated. Every one would have to be karyotyped (quite an expense, by the way) to rule out genetic abnormalities (which would, of course, be natural causes). In all other cases, the mother would naturally fall under investigation.

Of course, having thought about it, there is even more silliness involved with those who state that we should legally define human life as starting at fertilization. How exactly are we going to check for those deaths that occur before anyone is even aware of them? If they are human beings, they are entitled to human rights, but how do we enforce those?

You have yet to show how a slim possibility of existence (again a 1 in 1000 chance after a year of sexual intimacy which means a roughly 1 in 12000 chance during each cycle and a slightly increased chance during a person's fertile days and a slightly decreased chance during infertile days) meets this reckless disregard requirement or the "reasonable" requirement of the third part of the statute.

Reasonable is subjective. I never said I thought it was reasonable, I said it could be interpreted that way.

Also, you must show cause. You have yet to show what percentage of pregnancies end because of some fault of the mother.

Irrelevant. We look for the cause of death in the death of any human being. In cases that didn't involve genetic problems, the mother's habits would be suspect.

Meanwhile, nothing you stated is supported by your source. You cited a public defenders argument that has not been accepted yet.

At least one judge has acceptd it - it was up on CNN not that long ago. This was simply the first article that popped up on a search (it's dead week here at Tech, which means projects and tests aplenty).

You have adequately shown that no amount of reason or fact will change your mind.

It has nothing to do with changing my mind. I am talking about how the law *could* be interpreted, not how I personally interpret it.

As long as the percentage of times you break down is small, you have a point. If your car broke down 50% of the time, you'd be full of crap and leaving out the times your car broke down would essentially be lying.
The frequency of X% doesn’t matter. You’re focusing too much on the analogy. It could be 99.9% that my car would break down and it would still be outside the frame of reference being made. We’re talking about departure and arrival times and it’s obvious my statement isn’t attempting to include the times my car breaks down.

When we talk about abortion, the statement “A fertilized egg will become life” isn’t attempting to claim that natural problems don’t occur that result in the loss of a fetus. It’s obvious that occurs and no one is attempting to refute it. That’s why your literal claim is irrelevant to the argument. It doesn’t show or prove anything important.


Biology and medicine have defined the components necessary for life, and I am not the only one who knows this.
You’re not!?

Whether it’s a single celled organism or a large organism made of many cells, I’m pretty sure biology and medicine would define both of these as life.

Last time I checked, we *do* declare people dead when their brain stops working.
No way! :rolleyes:

At the very least, I would think we could agree that a human life must first be a life and meet the requirements thereof as an entity.

A way to obtain and use nutrients - met when the circulatory system is
Respiration (first through circulatory system, later through lungs)
Growth (self-explanatory)
Excretion (first through circulatory system, later through excretory system)
and:

A method for sensing and responding to stimuli - nervous system.
But your examples aren’t required for something to be referred to as an “entity”. They might add clarity to more advanced forms of life, but they do nothing to dispute or prove that the cells reproducing inside a newly fertilized egg aren’t “human” life (or definable as).

You have yet to give a definition. You just say "I want to call the embryo a human life, so there must be a definition it meets." As soon as you give a definition, this conversation can continue.

Meanwhile, do you really think it is logical to define something that does not meet the requirements of life as a human life?
I have given a definition; you just refuse to accept it. “By definition”, from the moment of conception the multiplying cells is human life. I’ve also explained why these cells are different from tumors/skin cells. I’ve also said that, unless you believe that a pregnant woman might give birth to something besides a human, it’s not illogical to define the multiplying cells as human life/cells at ANY time during pregnancy.

And for the record, the burden of proof has always been on you to show otherwise. You’re the one claiming that human life “doesn’t” start until a particular point.

You’re not!?

I don't think I'm the only biology student on the planet, no.

Whether it’s a single celled organism or a large organism made of many cells, I’m pretty sure biology and medicine would define both of these as life.

Well, an organism is defined by the fact that it meets the requirements of life, so yes - both would be life.

But your examples aren’t required for something to be referred to as an “entity”. They might add clarity to more advanced forms of life, but they do nothing to dispute or prove that the cells reproducing inside a newly fertilized egg aren’t “human” life (or definable as).

Actually, it is absolutely required to refer to the entity. If we do not, then every single cell in the human body is its own separate human life (something I know you are not arguing). As such, the entire organism must meet these rquirements as an entity to be defined as life.

I have given a definition; you just refuse to accept it. “By definition”, from the moment of conception the multiplying cells is human life.

No you haven't. All you have done is state, as you have here, "This is true by definition." You have yet to provide the definition that shows this.

I could say that apples are flowers by definition, but without an actual definition of flowers, there is no way to determine (a) if this is true and (b) what other things are flowers.

And for the record, the burden of proof has always been on you to show otherwise. You’re the one claiming that human life “doesn’t” start until a particular point.

I am claiming that certain requirements must be met to call something a separate life. These are the same requirements used to define life in biology.

Meanwhile, the burden of proof is *not* on me. Thousands of years of tradition are against you here, as the fetus was not defined as a human life until the quickening in nearly all cultures. Meanwhile, *you* are the one who wants to place restrictions on a woman based on your personal definition of human life. As such, you must show that your definition works.

Yes. While I don't have a link for this particular case, I do know of one which occurred recently in Pittsburgh. A doctor performed a procedure exactly as per medical practice, but a *known* complication which occurs in 10% of all cases with no mistakes happened. Luckily, this particular doctor noticed early and corrected the problem during the surgery. The woman still sued. The award: $20 million (which has almost certainly been reduced in higher courts by now).

Again, show a link. I suspect that it was actually shown that he didn't adequately make her aware of the risks involved (part of what he was trained to do) or that he did in fact make some other mistake.

Of course, many people get settlements without ever being hurt, because doctors see cases like the one I mentioned and go ahead and pay a settlement to avoid an actual lawsuit, even when they have done nothing wrong. This is one way in which less scrupulous lawyers con money out of doctors.

And doctors and insurance companies who settle because it is cheaper and less risky than going to court is not a reflection of the law as the actually legal battle never happened. It shows nothing of what a jury will or does believe. It has nothing to do with our current discussion as you are talking about what can actually happen in court.

Juries know nothing of medical practice. If they hear the word "complication", they assume the doctor did something wrong. It doesn't help that many have a view of doctors (especially surgeons) as being arrogant people who do no work and get tons of money at the expense of the little guy. The procedure mentioned above netted the doctor about $500, tops.

Again, if this is true provide a link. Your assertions do nothing for me or your argument.

...which would be the same argument I would make. However, we are talking about something that would be a whole new area, with no legal precedent whatsoever. As such, were we to ever define an embryo as human life, these are the types of arguments that would be brought up - and some would agree with them.

Um, no, there is tons of legal precedent. You have only changed the legal recognition of a living human being. All other factors would remain the same. Precedent does not require the case to be exactly the same only that it have related elements. Show that any of these arguments are actually successful in current manslaughter cases. Until then, I will assume they haven't been.

When a human being dies, we investigate the cause of death, yes? If an embryo were legally defined as a human being, all miscarriages would have to be investigated. Every one would have to be karyotyped (quite an expense, by the way) to rule out genetic abnormalities (which would, of course, be natural causes). In all other cases, the mother would naturally fall under investigation.

Says you (regarding falling under investigation). You still have yet to support this. I suspect that only very few cases with evidence that some sort of recklessness or crime was involved would be investigated. This fact is supported by the current use of the manslaughter statute. Again if you disagree, show me an exception or stop making this assertion.

Of course, having thought about it, there is even more silliness involved with those who state that we should legally define human life as starting at fertilization. How exactly are we going to check for those deaths that occur before anyone is even aware of them? If they are human beings, they are entitled to human rights, but how do we enforce those?

I suspect we won't since no one knows or can show there was a death. It's not silliness and it has nothing to do with whether an embryo is a life. The government cannot protect all rights. They can only do so to the best of their ability.

Reasonable is subjective. I never said I thought it was reasonable, I said it could be interpreted that way.

And I said show that this has actually occurred. If anyone actually considers it reasonable, legal precedent should support your claim.

Irrelevant. We look for the cause of death in the death of any human being. In cases that didn't involve genetic problems, the mother's habits would be suspect.

Again, says you. We don't always look for a cause of death. Autopsies are not performed on every person who dies. Usually, an autopsy is only done when the death is mysterious or there is suspicion of foulplay. As you have yet to establish that the mother's normal habits amount to foulplay, I'm going to ignore the likelihood that they will be treated as such. If 50% of embryo/fetuses spontaneously abort, I don't think most people would consider this particularly mysterious. In fact, it appears to be equally likely as a positive outcome.

At least one judge has acceptd it - it was up on CNN not that long ago. This was simply the first article that popped up on a search (it's dead week here at Tech, which means projects and tests aplenty).

Your link did not show that. And if one did, the argument was supported by the amendment to the state's constitution. An amendment specifically suggests that a drastic measure was necessary to override precedent. Completely the opposite of your claim.

It has nothing to do with changing my mind. I am talking about how the law *could* be interpreted, not how I personally interpret it.

Only you have shown no support for the law actually being interpreted this way. I understand you don't trust legal professionals or juries, but your lack of trust is not enough to support your assertions. Showing ridiculous judgements occur does not support your claim either. You still have to show that ridiculous judgements occur in this kind of case (a case involving an individual behaving in their personal life, not a case involving corporate entities or specific types of professionals) and/or involving a loss of life where the existence of that life was unlikely and the behavior is considered normal behavior.

Again, show a link. I suspect that it was actually shown that he didn't adequately make her aware of the risks involved (part of what he was trained to do) or that he did in fact make some other mistake.

Having spoken to people involved and being around the medical community, I can assure you that

(a) No surgery is performed without someone signing a document telling about the risks. If she didn't read it, that is her problem.

(b) No other mistakes were made. In fact, he caught the problem earlier than usual and went ahead and corrected it, rather than letting her get an infection first.

And doctors and insurance companies who settle because it is cheaper and less risky than going to court is not a reflection of the law as the actually legal battle never happened. It shows nothing of what a jury will or does believe. It has nothing to do with our current discussion as you are talking about what can actually happen in court.

The fact that they settle is a direct result of what can happen in court - exactly the reason that medical malpractice lawsuits should be looked at by a panel of *doctors* before they ever make it to court, but that is another discussion altogether.

Again, if this is true provide a link. Your assertions do nothing for me or your argument.

There are no links here, darling. These are observations of society.

Um, no, there is tons of legal precedent. You have only changed the legal recognition of a living human being.

...to recognize a type of situation with no legal precedent. Show me any legal case involving one human being completely living inside or otherwise off of the bodily systems of another.

Says you (regarding falling under investigation). You still have yet to support this.

Surely you are aware that a cause of death is always listed on a death certificate and that unknown causes are investigated? This is common knowledge.

I suspect we won't since no one knows or can show there was a death.

If an embryo is defined as life, and it is spontaneously aborted, then we can show that there was a death.

And I said show that this has actually occurred. If anyone actually considers it reasonable, legal precedent should support your claim.

Embryos have never been defined as human lives before, nor have there been any other cases in which a human being lived inside or completely off of the systems of another, so there really isn't any legal precedent to show.

Again, says you. We don't always look for a cause of death.
Autopsies are not performed on every person who dies.

No, but they are if there is no idea why the person died. If someone just up and dies, we check it out.

Your link did not show that. And if one did, the argument was supported by the amendment to the state's constitution. An amendment specifically suggests that a drastic measure was necessary to override precedent. Completely the opposite of your claim.

The amendment did not change the wording of the law, which uses marriage only as an example. The law had been applied to numerous nonmarried couples before, not because it was an extension of a law specifically made for married couples, but because they were included in the original wording.

Only you have shown no support for the law actually being interpreted this way.

I have shown how it *can* be interpreted this way. Whether it has yet is irrelevant. All it takes is one case to set precedent.

Actually, the majority opinion on Lawrence v. Texas is what opened up the door to overturning Roe v. Wade. So really, if you want to be accurate, Lawrence v. Texas is responsible for this new furor over overturning Supreme Court decisions. They should have just gone with O'Connor's opinion. Bleh.

Nonsense.

As I noted earlier, Supreme Court has reviewed multiple attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade in the past. There is no new basis for challenging it. A change in Court personnel is the thing most likely to endanger Roe -- although it has survived many predicted demises in its 32 year history.

I don't get what your problem is with Lawrence v. Texas. You've made some odd assertions about it before -- to which I have responded, only to have you then abandon the topic.

Regardless, Lawrence can only be said to strengthen Roe. The majority decision in Lawrence is -- like Roe -- based on the substantive protections of the Due Process Clause and the right to privacy. Justice Kennedy [B]cites with approval/B] and relies on Roe in the majority opinion.

O'Connor's lone concurrence tries to dodge the issue, saying the Court "need not reach" the Due Process Clause decision because the case may be decided on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause. This is disigenuous, because there is no reason why one would answer the Equal Protection Clause question first. Moreover, O'Connor mixes Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause cases and standards in her analysis. O'Connor's ultimate conclusion -- that a law outlawing homosexual sodomy is unconstitutional, but a law banning all sodomy might be constitutional -- is not worthy of praise.

Having spoken to people involved and being around the medical community, I can assure you that

(a) No surgery is performed without someone signing a document telling about the risks. If she didn't read it, that is her problem.

(b) No other mistakes were made. In fact, he caught the problem earlier than usual and went ahead and corrected it, rather than letting her get an infection first.

Uh, completely and utterly untrue. I spent much of my childhood in an emergency room (both my parents work and my mother worked in an emergency room). The doctor is required to explain the risks to the patient before allowing them to sign the document. A doctor can also get into trouble if there is reason to believe the patient cannot understand the risks. Again, show a link rather than make assertions. I can read the individual merits of the case myself rather than hear what you think happened.

The fact that they settle is a direct result of what can happen in court - exactly the reason that medical malpractice lawsuits should be looked at by a panel of *doctors* before they ever make it to court, but that is another discussion altogether.

The fact that they settle is a direct result of the fact that lawyers are expensive. We agree that this is a reason for reform of the way lawsuits are handled.

There are no links here, darling. These are observations of society.

Read: no evidence other than your assertions.

Forgive me if I'm not willing to submit to your observations when links can easily be provided. The fact is that the evidence of what you claim does not exist. I would be surprised if you could find evidence of even the rare occurance of a decision that is completely and utterly outside of the normal realm of manslaughter convictions that supports your claim. That's because judges are there specifically to prevent this eventuality.

...to recognize a type of situation with no legal precedent. Show me any legal case involving one human being completely living inside or otherwise off of the bodily systems of another.

I've told you how you can show legal precedent. You choose not to do so. To pretend that legal precedent requires the case to be identical in nature is fallacious. I've shown you the evidence I am willing to accept and it is clearly evidence that would exist if your claims are true. Are you honestly claiming that in redefining human life would cause legal professionals to suddenly forget how manslaughter is defined and has been applied in the past?

Surely you are aware that a cause of death is always listed on a death certificate and that unknown causes are investigated? This is common knowledge.

Heard of SIDS? That basically means, crap we don't know how this kid died. It's an inspecific condition. How about old age? Again, completely inspecific. SIDS cases are often not autopsied in the interest of protecting the family. It's unnecessary as it serves no purpose. Clearly, your claim is not common knowledge since it's patently false. Show me that all SIDS cases are autopsied or even that most are and I will accept your claim.

If an embryo is defined as life, and it is spontaneously aborted, then we can show that there was a death.

You don't even read your own assertions. My statement was in response to you asking about cases where no one is aware of the spontaneous abortion. Seriously, are you just trying to argue anything that even sounds like a point?

Embryos have never been defined as human lives before, nor have there been any other cases in which a human being lived inside or completely off of the systems of another, so there really isn't any legal precedent to show.

Covered above.

No, but they are if there is no idea why the person died. If someone just up and dies, we check it out.

If someone up and dies and we are not suprised by that because it is likely we don't check it out, e.g. they're eighty. I would say that chance you will die at eighty are probably less than 50%. If we can attribute death to old age, we can certainly attribute death Sudden Embryo Evacuation Syndrome (SEES) which would be absolutely no different than SIDS.

The amendment did not change the wording of the law, which uses marriage only as an example. The law had been applied to numerous nonmarried couples before, not because it was an extension of a law specifically made for married couples, but because they were included in the original wording.

Your own link specifically states that the legal argument falls within the wording of the amendment and highlights a flaw in the amendment. Way to not read your own source. You know the point of amendments is to overturn legal precedent and previously constitutional laws (in this case constitutional refers to the state constitution).

I have shown how it *can* be interpreted this way. Whether it has yet is irrelevant. All it takes is one case to set precedent.

Whether it has yet is relevant to my assertion that it CANNOT be interpreted that way. It's relevant to the fact that you have not adequately shown that it can be and no lawyer could show this fact either. All it takes is one case to set precedent? But you think the millions of cases that have already been tried are irrelevant. Interesting way to ignore reality.

Ok, it's clear that you care only about YOUR observations, YOUR assertions, YOUR beliefs and even a mountain of evidence in the form of millions of manslaughter cases cannot sway you. I don't see the point of continuing this conversation. Unless you show evidence the only thing that you've proven is that you have more stamina than I when it comes to continuing an argument you can't win.

Read: no evidence other than your assertions. Forgive me if I'm not willing to submit to your observations when links can easily be provided.

My assertion is that members of juries rarely know medical background and often feel that doctors are arrogant pricks who deserve to have to pay some of there millions of dollars (which most of them do not have, by the way) to the little guy. How could links easily be provided for that?

I've told you how you can show legal precedent.

That would not actually show legal precedent for this case.

You choose not to do so. To pretend that legal precedent requires the case to be identical in nature is fallacious.

Not identical, but at least similar. There is no other case in all of human experience that is similar to pregnancy.

IAre you honestly claiming that in redefining human life would cause legal professionals to suddenly forget how manslaughter is defined and has been applied in the past?

Suddenly?

Heard of SIDS? That basically means, crap we don't know how this kid died. It's an inspecific condition.

It is not absolutely specifc, but you are grossly oversimplifying. Most syndromes are pretty non-specific. That's why they are syndromes, rather than diseases.

How about old age? Again, completely inspecific.

That generally goes down as "natural causes", I believe - still a cause.

Show me that all SIDS cases are autopsied or even that most are and I will accept your claim.

SIDS is not "unknown causes". We know that SIDS is a syndrome resulting in death. We do not know what, in turn, causes SIDS.

We don't know what causes many cancers either, but we don't put a patient that dies of cancer down as "unknown".

You don't even read your own assertions. My statement was in response to you asking about cases where no one is aware of the spontaneous abortion. Seriously, are you just trying to argue anything that even sounds like a point?

As I pointed out before, we wouldn't be able to investigate such cases. But, much like the death of a homeless person who had no regular acquaintences, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

If we can attribute death to old age, we can certainly attribute death Sudden Embryo Evacuation Syndrome (SEES) which would be absolutely no different than SIDS.

Sure, if we spent research time defining such a syndrome and attempting to find its causes.

Your own link specifically states that the legal argument falls within the wording of the amendment and highlights a flaw in the amendment.

The legal argument falls within the wording of the amendment and would be fine, if it weren't for the fact that the law itself does not explicitly state that it is a protection granted to married couples.

Way to not read your own source.

I already told you that my source was a CNN article a while back. Like I said, this was the first to come up on a search.

Whether it has yet is relevant to my assertion that it CANNOT be interpreted that way.

Has not != Cannot

I have not yet been pregnant. That doesn't mean that I cannot ever be pregnant.

All it takes is one case to set precedent? But you think the millions of cases that have already been tried are irrelevant. Interesting way to ignore reality.

I do not ignore these cases. I have simply pointed out that the law allows for a different interpretation which could overturn precedent.

I have also pointed out that there is no precedent for one human being wholly and completely bodily dependent on another. You think that this case would be seen in one light, but you are not all people any more than I am.

You seem to have missed the fact that I am arguing a viewpoint that *could* be put forth, not one which I actually hold.

Actually, it is absolutely required to refer to the entity. If we do not, then every single cell in the human body is its own separate human life (something I know you are not arguing). As such, the entire organism must meet these rquirements as an entity to be defined as life.

I argue that a developing fetus (which may be nothing more than a few cells) is a “separate entity” from the mother. At this time it wouldn’t fall under your requirements to be defined as an entity, but it is.

Single celled organisms (other than developing embryo’s) can also be regarded as “entities”. The requirements ONLY illustrate later, more advanced stages of life.

No you haven't. All you have done is state, as you have here, "This is true by definition." You have yet to provide the definition that shows this.

I could say that apples are flowers by definition, but without an actual definition of flowers, there is no way to determine (a) if this is true and (b) what other things are flowers.
You don’t understand. I don’t need to give you a check list of what defines human life at every stage of development. For example, I don’t need to say that at stage 1, the embryo is x,y,z, does not contain a,b,c and therefore it’s human life. At stage 2, the embryo is x,y,a now, still waiting for b,c and therefore it’s human life . This would be ridiculous because I’m claiming that it’s human life AT EVERY STAGE!

I can’t make a claim, such as you, that human life is only human life if there is a brain, etc. At the moment of conception, you have human life. It doesn’t matter how developed or undeveloped the embryo is. It’s still human life.

Besides, if human life requires a brain, then children born with only brain stems would be non-human. (Obviously we wouldn’t refer to them as such)

I am claiming that certain requirements must be met to call something a separate life. These are the same requirements used to define life in biology.
And I claim that a developing embryo can always be regarded as a separate life. This claim doesn’t violate the science of biology.

Meanwhile, the burden of proof is *not* on me. Thousands of years of tradition are against you here, as the fetus was not defined as a human life until the quickening in nearly all cultures.
I have absolutely no clue where you get this information. I'm sure you can find eastern traditions that might teach about when the soul enters the body, but surely you can’t be attempting to find refuge in such an unscientific claim. Besides, I’ve read very different accounts.

Since women give birth to humans, the fertilized egg/developing embryo is separate human life. The properties of this human life may change dramatically during these early first few months, but it’s still human life. You see, I’m not making a negative claim, YOU ARE. The burden of proof is on you to prove definitively that the fertilized egg/developing embryo isn’t human life.

Meanwhile, *you* are the one who wants to place restrictions on a woman based on your personal definition of human life. As such, you must show that your definition works.

Not true. I think abortion is wrong but I’m not naive enough to believe that there isn’t a place for it. It sickens me that it’s used as a form of birth control. I’m against the irresponsibility and unfounded sense of entitlement that we all seem to feel nowadays. I believe we’ve lost our morals to self-absorption and we justify abortion in our minds because we desire to be immoral and sleep with whomever we want. NOT because we truly believe there’s nothing wrong with it.

I argue that a developing fetus (which may be nothing more than a few cells) is a “separate entity” from the mother. At this time it wouldn’t fall under your requirements to be defined as an entity, but it is.

The biological requirements do not define an entity - any distinct object is an entity - a rock, a person, a piece of paper -, they define whether or not a given entity is defined as a life.

An embryo/early fetus is certainly an entity, that is not in question. The question is whether or not it meets the biological requirements necessary to be deemed as a separate life, which it does not.

Single celled organisms (other than developing embryo’s) can also be regarded as “entities”. The requirements ONLY illustrate later, more advanced stages of life.

Wrong. Single-celled organisms meet these requirements, albeit in different ways.

You don’t understand. I don’t need to give you a check list of what defines human life at every stage of development. For example, I don’t need to say that at stage 1, the embryo is x,y,z, does not contain a,b,c and therefore it’s human life. At stage 2, the embryo is x,y,a now, still waiting for b,c and therefore it’s human life . This would be ridiculous because I’m claiming that it’s human life AT EVERY STAGE!

And, while I have provided a definition of life, you still have yet to, other than to say "I know it when I see it." That is not a useful definition for the rest of us.

I am pointing out that your opinion, while valid as an opinion, violates biological definition.

I can’t make a claim, such as you, that human life is only human life if there is a brain, etc. At the moment of conception, you have human life. It doesn’t matter how developed or undeveloped the embryo is. It’s still human life.

That is your very subjective opinion, apparently based simply in emotion, which is fine - for an opinion that you never plan to legislate.

Besides, if human life requires a brain, then children born with only brain stems would be non-human. (Obviously we wouldn’t refer to them as such)

I was simplifying things. When I refer to a brain in these discussions, I am referring to a working nervous system. Not that it matters, as a brain stem performs the necessary functions to define life.

And I claim that a developing embryo can always be regarded as a separate life. This claim doesn’t violate the science of biology.

Yes, it does - as the embryo/early fetus does not meet the requirements to be regarded as a living organism - as demonstrated in my last post.

I have absolutely no clue where you get this information. I'm sure you can find eastern traditions that might teach about when the soul enters the body, but surely you can’t be attempting to find refuge in such an unscientific claim. Besides, I’ve read very different accounts.

The Bible makes a clear distinction between born and unborn, if that is the account you are using.

English common law (and US law, up until medical abortions were possible) defined human life as beginning at the quickening (the point at which the mother can feel motion).

The Catholic church defined the point at which the soul entered the body (earlier for male than female, ineterstingly enough) up until relatively recent times, when the definition was changed.

Read up on a little history.

Since women give birth to humans, the fertilized egg/developing embryo is separate human life.

That doesn't follow. I could just as likely say "Since a child is developing towards becoming an adult, a child is an adult."

You see, I’m not making a negative claim, YOU ARE. The burden of proof is on you to prove definitively that the fertilized egg/developing embryo isn’t human life.

As I have shown, from a biological standpoint, it isn't life at all.

Thus, unless your definition of "human life" doesn't require it to biologically be a life, you don't yet have a life.

An embryo/early fetus is certainly an entity, that is not in question. The question is whether or not it meets the biological requirements necessary to be deemed as a separate life, which it does not.

What are the biological requirements for a life again?

What are the biological requirements for a life again?

Obtain and utilize nutrients
Growth and Development
Excretion
Sense and Respond to Stimuli

Fascinating arguement, folks.
For the most part I'll stay out of it since it's already being waged by people far more knowledgable about the details than I am. Merasia seems to be off on a weird tangent, but in all everyone is being most informative. But to me it boils down to one thing- My body, my choice.

I'd rather row. Its much drier than if you wade.

Obtain and utilize nutrients
Growth and Development
Excretion
Sense and Respond to Stimuli

Can you post a link for that?

Also can you demonstrate how an embryo qualifies for this less than other parasites?

An embryo/early fetus is certainly an entity, that is not in question. The question is whether or not it meets the biological requirements necessary to be deemed as a separate life, which it does not.
…Single-celled organisms meet these requirements, albeit in different ways.
The embryo starts as a single cell within the egg before splitting. Would you like to explain your contradiction?

And, while I have provided a definition of life…
One which an embryo meets.

…you still have yet to, other than to say "I know it when I see it."
Than you haven’t been paying very close attention.

I am pointing out that your opinion, while valid as an opinion, violates biological definition.
But that’s incorrect. It doesn’t violate the biological definition of life.

That is your very subjective opinion, apparently based simply in emotion, which is fine - for an opinion that you never plan to legislate.
It’s only subjective if I’m the only one who thinks a fertilized egg will become human.

Yes, it does - as the embryo/early fetus does not meet the requirements to be regarded as a living organism - as demonstrated in my last post.
You keep referring these biological requirements as if they’re written on some stone tablet somewhere.

First, en embryo DOES meet the biological requirements as life. The debate revolves around when human life starts.

The requirements listed are one, BUT NOT THE ONLY, definition of when human life begins. If it were completely proven that human life began at these requirements, there would be no reason for anyone to talk about this. There are PhD biologists who don’t believe that human life has been definitively defined.

The Bible makes a clear distinction between born and unborn, if that is the account you are using.

English common law (and US law, up until medical abortions were possible) defined human life as beginning at the quickening (the point at which the mother can feel motion).

The Catholic church defined the point at which the soul entered the body (earlier for male than female, ineterstingly enough) up until relatively recent times, when the definition was changed.

Read up on a little history.
I stated the burden proof is on you since you were the one making a negative claim. Your response was that previous generations had non-scientific beliefs as to when the fertilized egg became human life. It’s true that I’ve also read different, non-scientific accounts in cultural and traditional viewpoints to this matter. I doubt you believe any of these non-scientific accounts, so why are you attempting to dispute me with them? This is a pointless topic.

That doesn't follow. I could just as likely say "Since a child is developing towards becoming an adult, a child is an adult."
Your analogy doesn’t follow. I’m not proposing that we change the terminology at a developmental point in time (such a child becoming an adult). I’m saying we refer to the life as human from conception to death.

As I have shown, from a biological standpoint, it isn't life at all.
You have shown that it’s one possibility. I’ve shown that there are others.

Can you post a link for that?

I can refer you to any basic biology book. I have ten different biology books sitting here if you would like to come over and browse through them.

Also can you demonstrate how an embryo qualifies for this less than other parasites?

An embryo has no method of sensing and responding to stimuli as an entity. This requirement is not met until the fetus develops a rudimentary nervous system. (By the way, I already discussed this earlier in the thread).

The embryo starts as a single cell within the egg before splitting. Would you like to explain your contradiction?

There is no contradiction. In single-celled organisms, the cell remains on its own, a single entity, meeting all requirements.

An embryo (which is never single-celled, that is a zygote) is a collection of cells which do not yet meet these requirements.

Than you haven’t been paying very close attention.

There is a difference between a list and a definition. If I told you that red balls, blue balls, green balls, and orange balls all qualifed as balls under my personal definition, I have still not given a definition for the word ball. Without an actual definition, you would have no way of determining whether purple round things counted as well.


But that’s incorrect. It doesn’t violate the biological definition of life.

It has no way to sense and respond to stimuli - thus violating the definition.


The requirements listed are one, BUT NOT THE ONLY, definition of when human life begins. If it were completely proven that human life began at these requirements, there would be no reason for anyone to talk about this. There are PhD biologists who don’t believe that human life has been definitively defined.

It is the current biological definition of life - the best we have.

There are biologists who don't believe that human personhood has been defined, or that we must take the potential of an embryo to develop into account, but the definition of life is pretty well agreed upon. Hence the reason I use it.

You have shown that it’s one possibility. I’ve shown that there are others.

No, you haven't. You have made unsupported statements about a field I doubt you have much expertise in.

Of course the biologic definition is one possibility, but it is one reached through a logical and objective method, rather than a subjective "I want it to be this way," which is about all those of us who place a value on the potential of an embryo to become a human being have to go on.

I can refer you to any basic biology book. I have ten different biology books sitting here if you would like to come over and browse through them.



An embryo has no method of sensing and responding to stimuli as an entity. This requirement is not met until the fetus develops a rudimentary nervous system. (By the way, I already discussed this earlier in the thread).

How does a say a bacteria respond any better than an embryo? I'll be more clear since you ignored the general question.

If it's in any basic biology book then a link should be easy to provide. I'm sure one will be included in your next post. I'm quite certain you didn't make up the definition so any link that has a definition should agree with yours. I just need to see one for my own satisfaction.

Am I the only one who largely ignored the actual abortion argument, in favor of reading the fascinating "How the US government actually thinks and works" posts?

Fascinating. And they say there's nothing good on General anymore. Bullsh*t, you just need to know where to look.

I think part of the contention has to do with the basis of the American Legal system...

First, to understand, there are two forms of "law" in operation.

1. Civil Law
2. Common Law

The first, Civil Law, is a decendent of the principles of Roman Law, and is used throughout much of Europe.... In Civil Law, all law is in scripterum (written), and all courts operate by what the letter of the law is.

The second, Common Law is in decent of English Law... Common Law exists either in scripterum (written)[whereby the Common Law is codified] or ex scripterum (unwritten)... The job of the courts is to weigh cases in the realm of both the written codified laws and by the principles in the unwritten law (Common Law)... Courts have much more leeway in Common Law... And thus rullings do not "create new laws" they set precedent from the principles of the underlying framework of the existing legal system (the unwritten law/ Common Law). The US legal system is in decent of the 1750's English Common Law, and not Civil Law.... The Legislatures purpose is to make laws based upon convictions in accordance with codifying the principles of the Common Law... The Courts have the power to over-rule this, in cases where codification does not match the underlying principles of the legal system in place (the Common Law)... Such occured in Roe vs. Wade... The courts decision was that the Texas law violated the Common Law in the violation of rights enumerated in the First, Fourth and Fourteenth amendments, and as such non-codified and thus not-enumernated in accordance with the Ninth.

Thus, no "new law" is created by the courts... but merely the "precedent" of Common Law principles against Codifications which attempt to pre-empt such. And that is the purpose of the US legal system... and the power "extend[s] to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution".

I think part of the contention has to do with the basis of the American Legal system...

First, to understand, there are two forms of "law" in operation.

1. Civil Law
2. Common Law

-SNIP-

Thus, no "new law" is created by the courts... but merely the "precedent" of Common Law principles against Codifications which attempt to pre-empt such. And that is the purpose of the US legal system... and the power "extend[s] to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution".

Well written, if you don't mind I should like to take your explination and use it as the basis for my own conclusion.

Thus, what we are seeing in the US right now is the product of part of the legislature; which believes that the "precedents" being set by the courts are too far removed from either the civil law or the will of the people who are affected by those laws. They believe that their constituents would like to see "precedent" changed to suit the political and social landscape more fully. That the common law is effectively suppressing the will of their consituency.

Take this conclusion with a grain of salt; how much of the politician's bluster is for genuine concern for the people, and how much is for self-aggrandizement is always a subject of contention. Also, be careful in considering who a politician considers their "constituency"

Indeed... constituency should be questioned.... For example, it cannot be completely true that all voters in a legislative officers district adheres to that legislative officers own ideals... Or that he acts in consideration of his entire constituency (in the real sense)... But towards those groups, who through exercize of proper political power, have motivated his goals... Or that he sides with particular interests which best suit his own personnal platform.

It also must be understood that the US Constitution takes precedent over US federal law, state constitutions, and state codifications of laws and enumerations... And it is the purpose of the court to make these determinations where different facets of Common Law (written or unwritten) come into conflict. That is, if codified law in the US Code, State Constitutions, or State codifications do not match with the wither the wording or principles of the US Constitution, it is the court who must make determination on this issue and seek adherence to the basic principles of this nation....

To reiterate to certain groups their own words... "The United States is not a democracy"... It does not, at the heart matter who or how many agree... The United States is a Republic... and more acurately a "Constitutional Republic" founded upon a basic precept as outlined by a Constitution (social contract) between government and the people... And regardless of majority consensus... all codification of law must adhere to the principles of this "social contract" between the Federal authority, the Constituent States, and the people.

The supreme court only said that abortion was a medical proceedure, and therefore is covered by the right to privacy. What goes on between you and your doctor is nobody else's business.

I think that's a good position. Are we going to take a vote in every state legislature one each and every medical proceedure to determine it's legality? What if a religious group that thinks blood transfusions are immoral wins a majority of seats on some state's legislature? Can they then make blood transfusions illegal in that state? What if some woman's group that opposes cosmetic surgury wins a majority of seats? Will facelifts be banned? Medical decisions are between the doctor and patient only.

Hear, hear!
Although I heard recently that Roe was trying to have this over turned cos she has 'seen the error of her ways'.