NationStates Jolt Archive

The only problem I see with GnI's argument is that he is extending it to keeping a child from suing for redress, even after the child exists.

My statement has always been that we cannot restrict a woman from doing whatever she wants while pregnant, but if she knowingly chooses to do things which cause birth defects in a child, then she is responsible for the harm she caused. GnI seems to have a problem even with that.
I didn't see that in GnI's argument. I thought the only problem was that you two didn't seem recognize that he was arguing against fetal rights while you were arguing about remedial rights held by a born child. They are really two different issues, and do not conflict with each other.

If GnI was (mis)understanding your argument as allowing for the criminalization of a woman's legal activities during her pregnancy, then he is mistaken about that, in my opinion. I do believe that anti-choicers would try to extend that to cover fetuses, as well, but I think they would fail. In fact, they already can't do it, and children already have the right to seek remedies against their parents for bad decisions after they are born, such as squandering the child's inheritance or other failures in their duties as legal guardians. Children can even sue for emancipation from both parents' custody on the grounds of bad parenting. Yet none of that applies to fetuses, because children simply are not fetuses.

A child, as an individual person, has the right to sue anyone they think has been the cause of harm to them. Whether they will win such a case or not is a different question. Just suing over something is not the same as criminalizing a behavior. I can be sued if someone injures themselves in my swimming pool, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to own a swimming pool. A child seeking to sue for prenatal damage will have a huge burden of proof to bring, not only on causality but possibly also on parental intent and obligation. But as slim as their chances might be, I think nobody but a child should even have the right to try.

Do you honestly believe that the crack-addict or alcoholic mom is going to have her 'practises' remodelled by legal wrangling?

Just as much as I think any given company will remodel its practices due to lawsuits.

The only problem I see with GnI's argument is that he is extending it to keeping a child from suing for redress, even after the child exists.

Perhaps GnI is like me and cannot understand how issuing laws allowing the child to sue for redress is any different from issueing laws protecting the fetus from harm.

I see no practical difference, whatsoever.

Just as much as I think any given company will remodel its practices due to lawsuits.

That right there only shows that you want to be able to keep women from that particular behavior.

Perhaps GnI is like me and cannot understand how issuing laws allowing the child to sue for redress is any different from issueing laws protecting the fetus from harm.

I see no practical difference, whatsoever.

One has the problem of granting rights to fetuses which somehow interfere with the rights of the mother.

The other grants no new rights. It simply allows a child to assert the legal rights it aready has.


That right there only shows that you want to be able to keep women from that particular behavior.

Of course I do. But I recognize that, legally, a fetus (at least until ~ 3rd trimester, in which it is legally protected) has no legal rights which override any of the mothers'. Thus, only a born human being who can show that harm has been done can have the right to sue her for her actions.

One has the problem of granting rights to fetuses which somehow interfere with the rights of the mother.

The other grants no new rights. It simply allows a child to assert the legal rights it aready has.

No, both grant rights to the fetus, as suing for redress is suing for past wrongs, suing for wrongs committed against the fetus.

Of course I do. But I recognize that, legally, a fetus (at least until ~ 3rd trimester, in which it is legally protected) has no legal rights which override any of the mothers'. Thus, only a born human being who can show that harm has been done can have the right to sue her for her actions.

Besides the fact that sueing for redress would constitute the making amends of harm previously caused (harm committed to the fetus), there is nothing between the second and third trimester, or third trimester and birth that qualifies the child for these rights, that cannot be also attributed to the fetus.

No, both grant rights to the fetus, as suing for redress is suing for past wrongs, suing for wrongs committed against the fetus.

No, the rights are granted to the person - who can sue for the manifestation of damages done when he was a fetus. It is not the same thing as granting rights to the actual fetus.

Meanwhile, legally, human beings already have the right to sue for the manifestations of harm begun while in utero. Thus, nothing in the law changes.

No, the rights are granted to the person - who can sue for the manifestation of damages done when he was a fetus. It is not the same thing as granting rights to the actual fetus.

I know what you are saying, I just don't buy it.

There is a suit for past damages, meaning that priveleges or rights were violated in the past.

Meanwhile, legally, human beings already have the right to sue for the manifestations of harm begun while in utero. Thus, nothing in the law changes.

Are there any laws that allow a child to sue for harm caused in utero by the mother's behavior?

I know what you are saying, I just don't buy it.

And yet, you have yet to say anything that would disprove it, other than yelling "IT'S ALL IN THE PAST!" over and over again.

There is a suit for past damages, meaning that priveleges or rights were violated in the past.

No. There is a suit for current problems caused by past actions. The rights are violated *now*, when the child is disabled.

Are there any laws that allow a child to sue for harm caused in utero by the mother's behavior?

It logically follows from laws that allow a child to sue for harm caused by others' behavior.

And yet, you have yet to say anything that would disprove it, other than yelling "IT'S ALL IN THE PAST!" over and over again.

That is because it is all in the past, both action and harm occur in the past, while it is still a fetus. There is NO harm visited upon the child.

No. There is a suit for current problems caused by past actions. The rights are violated *now*, when the child is disabled.

When was the person anything other than disabled? In what way was a right violated?

It logically follows from laws that allow a child to sue for harm caused by others' behavior.

By the same logic that says, if others cannot end a pregnancy, neither can the mother.

That is because it is all in the past, both action and harm occur in the past, while it is still a fetus. There is NO harm visited upon the child.

The harm continues throughout development - as development is retarded throughout the child's life.

By the same logic that says, if others cannot end a pregnancy, neither can the mother.

That is not the same logic. Only a pregnant woman can choose to end a pregnancy because only a pregnant woman is pregnant. That has nothing to do with whether or not she is responsible for harm she causes to her child.

The harm continues throughout development - as development is retarded throughout the child's life.
Precisely the point. The child is not born in a certain condition that was fully established before birth and never changes afterwards. It is born with damage that causes on-going conditions that manifest as new problems as it grows. It may try to sue for the effects of those new problems that are affecting it now, not for anything that might have happened before it could feel any effects. As you have pointed out several times, if a woman drinks during her pregnancy, and her child is born without any damage, then there is nothing for anyone to blame her for.

That is not the same logic. Only a pregnant woman can choose to end a pregnancy because only a pregnant woman is pregnant. That has nothing to do with whether or not she is responsible for harm she causes to her child.
Again, precisely the point. During pregnancy, only the woman can decide to abort her pregnancy because she is the one who is pregnant, and of course she is responsible for the results of that, because she is the responsible party in charge of her own pregnancy. But responsibility does not imply a tort (a wrongful act) because she has the right, power, and authority to make that decision, regardless of the outcome, because of her status as the pregnant party. As soon as she stops being pregnant, she stops having that specific authority.

This is why VO's insistence that the rights of a child somehow cover a fetus as well, doesn't work. The legal status of a fetus is completely different from the legal status of a child, and never the twain shall meet. The powers/authority of a pregnant woman are different from the powers/authority of a non-pregnant woman, and never the twain shall meet. The power relationship between a pregnant woman and the fetus inside her is completely different from the power relationship of a woman and a born child -- and never the twain shall meet. The difference is not an arbitrary line drawn in the law. It is based on the functional differences of the conditions of pregnancy and post-pregnancy. They cannot be combined and neither can the rules that govern them. Period.

The harm continues throughout development - as development is retarded throughout the child's life.

Yes, the child's development is retarded throughout its life, however, there was no point during that child's life where that wasn't the case. When the child is given the rights of personhood at birth (don't worry M, I still don't think that it is), it never possessed the right to unhindered development, and as such cannot pursue action for the violation of that right.

From the perspective of the child that gained priveleges and rights at birth, there is absolutely no difference between retardation that occured naturally and retardation that occurred through the behavior of the mother.

That is not the same logic. Only a pregnant woman can choose to end a pregnancy because only a pregnant woman is pregnant. That has nothing to do with whether or not she is responsible for harm she causes to her child.

It is pointless to counter this point until there is some settlement on the issue of whether the harm is visited to the child or to the fetus alone.

So I will try a clearer comparison:

Why is a mother not liable for killing a child when she has an abortion? Presumably because the fetus never reaches the point at which it has the privelege of a protected right to life.

Now, what privelege does a child have that would cause a mother to be liable for its retarded development? Presumably the privelege of a protected development (I certainly would not argue against that privelege).

To be consistent, we assume that, in both situations, priveleges are acheived upon birth. The logic stands with the first situation, but what conclusion does it lead to with the second situation?

To find out, we ask ourselves does the fetus ever reach a point where it receives the privelege of full protected development. Since the qualification would be the possession of the ability to actually fully develop at the point of birth, we say no, it does not receive that privelege. No person can sue for the loss of a privelege they never received.

Now, I agree with you in general on this topic, but I contend with the point of development that you require for the extension of this privelege.

*snip*

True, the child is born/gains it's rights already...damaged, but they wouldn't change the fact that the child has been harmed. Something caused the damage to the person, no?

True, the child is born/gains it's rights already...damaged, but they wouldn't change the fact that the child has been harmed. Something caused the damage to the person, no?

No damage was done to the person, damage occurred during the development process while it was still a fetus.

You cannot afford rights based on what the child could have or should have been. You can only afford those rights based on what it is.

No damage was done to the person, damage occurred during the development process while it was still a fetus.

You cannot afford rights based on what the child could have or should have been. You can only afford those rights based on what it is.

Howzat? You're saying someone mentally and physically retarded isn't damaged in any way?

Howzat? You're saying someone mentally and physically retarded isn't damaged in any way?

I said that "no damage was done to the person" implying that damage was done to the fetus. As a fetus retains no rights, and no rights of the person are infringed, there are no rights violated and no basis for suit.

And I don't like to call retarded people "damaged", if you are using it as an adjective.

I said that "no damage was done to the person" implying that damage was done to the fetus. As a fetus retains no rights, and no rights of the person are infringed, there are no rights violated and no basis for suit.

And I don't like to call retarded people "damaged", if you are using it as an adjective.

So, they are not retarded?

So, they are not retarded?

No, they are retarded, but they are not "damaged" people. They are people that are the result of a damaged fetus.

No, they are retarded, but they are not "damaged" people. They are people that are the result of a damaged fetus.

And what is that damaged fetus the result of?

And what is that damaged fetus the result of?

The mother's actions as it applies to our situation.

I am not saying that the mother isn't responsible, and I am not saying that there shouldn't be laws against drug and alcohol use while carrying a fetus. I am only saying that you cannot base the argument on a violation of the child's rights.

For the application of this law, priveleges must be extended to the fetus.

The mother's actions as it applies to our situation.

I am not saying that the mother isn't responsible, and I am not saying that there shouldn't be laws against drug and alcohol use while carrying a fetus. I am only saying that you cannot base the argument on a violation of the child's rights.

For the application of this law, priveleges must be extended to the fetus.

What is the basis of the lawsuit if not damage? (Let's note here that damage is and has been the basis of the lawsuit. The lawsuits that have occurred are for damage to the child as a result of negligence.) And if the child has sustained damage who is responsible for the damage? Again, assuming there is damage to the child, are you claiming it happened before the child existed?

See, the DAMAGES, the INJURY (both words used properly here), caused to the child as a result of the gross negligence of the mother is no different than when similar injury or damages are a result of negligence that occurs after the child is born. A child is injured as a result of gross negligence and the person who was negligent should be held accountable. When and how the gross negligence occurred should not be considered.

One could argue this is the same as saying one shouldn't be allowed to kill a child regardless of when it is and say it's an argument against abortion, but they are not related. One affords rights to the child (the right to not be injured due to gross negligence) and one affords rights to a fetus as a child does not and will never exist.

That right there only shows that you want to be able to keep women from that particular behavior.

I'll state it right out. I do not absolve women from gross negligence simply because it happens in utero. It's not a morality judgement to demand that if you choose to have a child that you not injure that child through gross negligence. In fact, we already make that require that now, it simply is not applied in all states to the actions of a pregnant woman.

I'm not asking for a special law for pregnant women. You are. I am asking that pregnant women be held accountable for damage to a born child that results from gross negligence just as EVERY other parent is at EVERY other stage. Please explain to me what is special about the pregnant woman that makes her less accountable than any other parent at any other stage?

What is the basis of the lawsuit if not damage? (Let's note here that damage is and has been the basis of the lawsuit. The lawsuits that have occurred are for damage to the child as a result of negligence.) And if the child has sustained damage who is responsible for the damage? Again, assuming there is damage to the child, are you claiming it happened before the child existed?

See, the DAMAGES, the INJURY (both words used properly here), caused to the child as a result of the gross negligence of the mother is no different than when similar injury or damages are a result of negligence that occurs after the child is born. A child is injured as a result of gross negligence and the person who was negligent should be held accountable. When and how the gross negligence occurred should not be considered.

When someone is injured, we assume that they have an established well-being that has been degraded. When you break your arm, we say that you were injured based on the fact that you at one time had a working arm.

As for the child, when does it have an established well-being that was degraded for injury to occur. And don't forget the deliniation you make between child and fetus.

One could argue this is the same as saying one shouldn't be allowed to kill a child regardless of when it is and say it's an argument against abortion, but they are not related. One affords rights to the child (the right to not be injured due to gross negligence) and one affords rights to a fetus as a child does not and will never exist.

Yes, if you say that rights or priveleges can only be extended to children after they are born, then there is no argument for abortion, but there is no argument for this legislation either.

And yes they are related, we say that we cannot charge for murder based on what a fetus could have been, potential personhood does not constitute personhood. For the same reason, we cannot charge for harm based on what the fetus could have been, because potential healthy personhood does not constitute healthy personhood.

I'll state it right out. I do not absolve women from gross negligence simply because it happens in utero. It's not a morality judgement to demand that if you choose to have a child that you not injure that child through gross negligence. In fact, we already make that require that now, it simply is not applied in all states to the actions of a pregnant woman.

I'm not asking for a special law for pregnant women. You are. I am asking that pregnant women be held accountable for damage to a born child that results from gross negligence just as EVERY other parent is at EVERY other stage. Please explain to me what is special about the pregnant woman that makes her less accountable than any other parent at any other stage?

You are asking for the same thing I am, you are just using faulty logic to find it. I am not saying that we throw women in jail just for drinking while pregnant, I am saying that the fetus has government protection against being harmed. That means that harm must be proven, therefore only suits of redress are possible.

Where we differ is that you say it is based on the rights of the child (which are not violated in anyway, as unestablished rights cannot be violated), and I am saying that a privelege must be extended to a developing fetus.

And yes they are related, we say that we cannot charge for murder based on what a fetus could have been, potential personhood does not constitute personhood. For the same reason, we cannot charge for harm based on what the fetus could have been, because potential healthy personhood does not constitute healthy personhood.

So because they were never healthy, the child isn't harmed? I guess people born blind can still see then, considering they never actually lost their sight while they were a person.

You are asking for the same thing I am, you are just using faulty logic to find it. I am not saying that we throw women in jail just for drinking while pregnant, I am saying that the fetus has government protection against being harmed. That means that harm must be proven, therefore only suits of redress are possible.

Nope. This isn't true of gross negligence, so why must it be true here?

Where we differ is that you say it is based on the rights of the child (which are not violated in anyway, as unestablished rights cannot be violated), and I am saying that a privelege must be extended to a developing fetus.
They are established rights. Children are already protected from gross negligence. The law does not forgive certain crimes because they are done before the person who ends up being harmed was not born yet. If that were true a lot of actions would be null. Gross negligence is against the law and should be. Generally in the case of children it simply results and a revocation of parental rights unless grievious harm results in which case they are punished and rightfully so. Gross negligence against children should never be acceptable.

So because they were never healthy, the child isn't harmed? I guess people born blind can still see then, considering they never actually lost their sight while they were a person.

More like, "If a mother pokes the eyes out of the fetus, the child that fetus becomes has no case for harm, as it was never harmed."

:rolleyes:

If it comes from a spiritual source, there is. An atheist has no objective basis for any code of behavior or morality, but someone with spiritual beliefs does.

Nor do theists. Faith is emotional, not objective.

So because they were never healthy, the child isn't harmed? I guess people born blind can still see then, considering they never actually lost their sight while they were a person.

People who are born blind have never had any right protecting their ability to see infringed, and thus cannot sue for damages concerning the cause of their blindness.

More like, "If a mother pokes the eyes out of the fetus, the child that fetus becomes has no case for harm, as it was never harmed."

When rights are solely established at birth, yes that is correct.

When someone is injured, we assume that they have an established well-being that has been degraded. When you break your arm, we say that you were injured based on the fact that you at one time had a working arm.

As for the child, when does it have an established well-being that was degraded for injury to occur.

We do? Why?

And don't forget the deliniation you make between child and fetus.

I make the deliniation because we are talking about the harm to the child not the fetus.


Yes, if you say that rights or priveleges can only be extended to children after they are born, then there is no argument for abortion, but there is no argument for this legislation either.

Why? Again, it's not when you take an action. In the eyes of the law it's when the effect occurs. In this case the effect happens to a child that IS NOT in utero.

And yes they are related, we say that we cannot charge for murder based on what a fetus could have been, potential personhood does not constitute personhood. For the same reason, we cannot charge for harm based on what the fetus could have been, because potential healthy personhood does not constitute healthy personhood.
There is no potential person in the cases we are discussing. We are talking about born children. At the point it become an actuality. There is no potential about. If a child is born damaged and it is evident that harm is the effect of gross negligence it should not matter when the action was taken. No one is talking about a potential human.

Last I checked I'm not a potential human. And were I born injured by the actions of my pregnant mother she should be held just as accountable as if she had not fed me as a child or if she had left drugs lying around. Gross negligence should not be excused because it happened in utero. Just as now, when the problem becomes apparent she should be held accountable.

When rights are solely established at birth, yes that is correct.

That simply isn't true. The child was injured as a clear and direct result of the actions of the mother. It does not matter that time was a buffer between action and injury.

Nope. This isn't true of gross negligence, so why must it be true here?

Because, if there is no harm done, there is no reason to file suit. If the mother has an abortion, there is no reason to file suit.

They are established rights. Children are already protected from gross negligence. The law does not forgive certain crimes because they are done before the person who ends up being harmed was not born yet. If that were true a lot of actions would be null. Gross negligence is against the law and should be. Generally in the case of children it simply results and a revocation of parental rights unless grievious harm results in which case they are punished and rightfully so. Gross negligence against children should never be acceptable.

And now we are referring to gross negligence against a fetus, as a potential child does not equal a child.

lol typical rightwingers.

They'll jump through hoops to save an unsentient, unconscious phoetus (not a baby!) but god forbid they should consider the welfare of their living, breathing, sentient citizens.

Abortion is not an absolute wrong or right, it is subject to heavy debate. Most people that oppose it do so on religious grounds (there are really no logical atheist arguments against abortion as an unborn phoetus is not self aware, it is no different to killing a plant) and giving that everyone has different religious views, it should not be illegalised.

People may think it is wrong and abstain from it (just as they may abstain from alcohol, premarital sex etc) but the fact is that those people have no right to force their views on others, as they are essentially unprovable.

Many young pregnent girls actually risk death by giving birth. You cannot put the rights of the unborn over the already living.

People who are born blind have never had any right protecting their ability to see infringed, and thus cannot sue for damages concerning the cause of their blindness.

Okay. I'm calling bullshit. Would you care to show on what you base this? Show me any legal document that has claimed that blind people somehow have different rights than other people.

The fact is their right to see was infringed upon because if not for the gross negligence of the mother they would have been able to see. The fact that they were never able to see has nothing to do with whether or not they were harmed.

Because, if there is no harm done, there is no reason to file suit. If the mother has an abortion, there is no reason to file suit.

What does that have to do with anything? I'm talking about a crime not a lawsuit. I'm talking about laws making it a crime to grossly neglect your child in or out of the womb. If you birth a child and it is injured, you should be held equally accountable as if you had performed the action after the birth. There is no difference in when you acted only in whether or not a child was harmed. We are talking about cases where a child was harmed.

And now we are referring to gross negligence against a fetus, as a potential child does not equal a child.
Duh. Who is talking about a potential child? I'm not. I'm not talking about an actual child. You let me know when I say I am talking about harming a fetus. Feel free to quote me. I am talking about harm visited on a born human being. I don't care when they action that caused the harm occurred. The person should be held criminally responsible for gross negligence.

VO,

Suppose someone were to buy a bag of seeds. Without them knowing, I have coated the seeds in a poisonous chemical, but the seeds seem to be completely normal.

However, when the person plants the seeds, the trees that grow out of them are sickly and will not produce fruit.

Can they sue me for the harm done to their trees? Or have the trees never been harmed, since it was in fact the seeds that were harmed?

We do? Why?

Because that is the only way injury can be determined. Comparing present state to past state.

So if a child is born with a preexisting condition, there is no past state with which to compare where that condition is not present.

I make the deliniation because we are talking about the harm to the child not the fetus.

Then show me how the child has been injured, without simply saying "it isn't perfect when it is born."

Why? Again, it's not when you take an action. In the eyes of the law it's when the effect occurs. In this case the effect happens to a child that IS NOT in utero.

And that is the same logic that says that the effect of an abortion occurs when the child isn't born, rather than when the fetus is killed.

There is no potential person in the cases we are discussing. We are talking about born children. At the point it become an actuality. There is no potential about. If a child is born damaged and it is evident that harm is the effect of gross negligence it should not matter when the action was taken. No one is talking about a potential human.

"At the point it becomes an actuality" the damage is preexisting. There is a reason it is called fetal alcohol syndrome, and it can be detected before birth.

Last I checked I'm not a potential human. And were I born injured by the actions of my pregnant mother she should be held just as accountable as if she had not fed me as a child or if she had left drugs lying around. Gross negligence should not be excused because it happened in utero. Just as now, when the problem becomes apparent she should be held accountable.

And I suppose you would scoff at me saying that your reasoning equates abortion with infanticide.

Another interesting thing is that abortion is usually portrayed as a "women's right". What about the rights of unborn human? So women can not kill people whom they dont want/like but they can kill unborn people?
Besides she can always use a morning after pill if she wasnt protected. No need to kill the baby.
Many people want to get rid of the morning-after pill saying it's not right.

VO,

Suppose someone were to buy a bag of seeds. Without them knowing, I have coated the seeds in a poisonous chemical, but the seeds seem to be completely normal.

However, when the person plants the seeds, the trees that grow out of them are sickly and will not produce fruit.

Can they sue me for the harm done to their trees? Or have the trees never been harmed, since it was in fact the seeds that were harmed?

I suppose you can reclaim the financial loss of purchasing bad seeds and the work put into them, but to say that you can sue them for damaging a tree that was never healthy would strike me as strange.

That's the debate. Does it cross someones toes (IE the child). Its not "Does the government have a right to outlaw it" because they do, but in order to have that right it has to be shown to be wrong. So the discussion is "is it wrong"
It may be morally wrong to abort a child, but the eniroment must come first.
This world is too populated and can't handle that many people.

Okay. I'm calling bullshit. Would you care to show on what you base this? Show me any legal document that has claimed that blind people somehow have different rights than other people.

Sure they have all of the same rights, but those rights they have could have never protected their ability to see, because they never had the ability to see. They cannot sue for the loss of something that they never had.

The fact is their right to see was infringed upon because if not for the gross negligence of the mother they would have been able to see. The fact that they were never able to see has nothing to do with whether or not they were harmed.

So you are saying that fetuses have the right to freely develop the ability to see? That if a child is born without having ever developed the ability to see, that their rights have been infringed?

So you are saying that fetuses have the right to freely develop the ability to see? That if a child is born without having ever developed the ability to see, that their rights have been infringed?

See, I may not have ever taken a law course like some people, but the way I hear it, if person A is harmed by person B's actions, Person A can sue. So why doesn't that apply here? The retarded kid isn't harmed?

See, I may not have ever taken a law course like some people, but the way I hear it, if person A is harmed by person B's actions, Person A can sue. So why doesn't that apply here? The retarded kid isn't harmed?

You must have missed where I explained why harm is not visited against the rightholding child.

EDIT: Which is strange because everytime I have explained that, the ultimate response is: "yes it has," with little to no explanation.

You must have missed where I explained why harm is not visited against the rightholding child.

EDIT: Which is strange because everytime I have explained that, the ultimate response is: "yes it has," with little to no explanation.

So, I'm again assuming that people born blind can still see, as the loss of sight never happened to "the right holding child". Nothing happened to them, they can't be disabled, because they were always blind. "Gimme that handicapped placard you old dingbat! You could never see, so you didn't actually lose an ability, so you're not disabled."

So, I'm again assuming that people born blind can still see, as the loss of sight never happened to "the right holding child". Nothing happened to them, they can't be disabled, because they were always blind. "Gimme that handicapped placard you old dingbat! You could never see, so you didn't actually lose an ability, so you're not disabled."

The fact that I haven't lost something does not imply that I still have it. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that I never had it.

I've never lost your car keys, but that doesn't mean that they are in my pocket.

The fact that I haven't lost something does not imply that I still have it. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that I never had it.

I've never lost your car keys, but that doesn't mean that they are in my pocket.

So, they were born with less than normal mental function...but that doesn't mean they aren't lacking in mental function? Generally something like a loss of function caused by something is harm, right? Maybe someone else can clarify...

So, they were born with less than normal mental function...but that doesn't mean they aren't lacking in mental function? Generally something like a loss of function caused by something is harm, right? Maybe someone else can clarify...

Lack of full mental function at birth is caused by harm done to the fetus, and as such does not represent harm against the person.

The whole point is that, by deliniating between the fetus and person, the person cannot sue for conditions they were born with, as they cannot show that they have actually lost any abilities or rights.

Because that is the only way injury can be determined. Comparing present state to past state.

Really? Are you sure? We can't compare, oh, I don't know, present state to what we reasonably know would have been the state absent of the gross negligence? I mean you could assume the child would have been born retarded anyway, but you could aslo assume a house would have burnt down without the arson. Pretty silly way to view the law.

We have the absolute ability to compare the actual case the what would be the expected case if no crime were committed.

So if a child is born with a preexisting condition, there is no past state with which to compare where that condition is not present.

Hmmmm... and this would make some difference if we couldn't compare the child to reasonable expectations of their health. This has been done before to address injuries that take a long, long time to manifest.

Then show me how the child has been injured, without simply saying "it isn't perfect when it is born."

Do you know what the term 'retarded' means? It means it didn't happen normally. It means something or someone prevent the normal behavior, retarded it. Retarded mental growth is a comparison to the expected growth. Perfect has nothing to do with it.

And that is the same logic that says that the effect of an abortion occurs when the child isn't born, rather than when the fetus is killed.

Uh-huh. There is no child. So there are no rights to be respected. In the cases we are discussing a child exists.

If you can simply point me to the body of the dead child (rather than the dead fetus), I'd be happy to accept that a child was killed. I'll wait. Let me know when you're ready.

"At the point it becomes an actuality" the damage is preexisting. There is a reason it is called fetal alcohol syndrome, and it can be detected before birth.

No, it's not. You can't have preexisting damage if the being we are discussing didn't preexist. How can a child have damage to the child before there was a child? That makes so little sense the sentence is even annoying.

When the child comes into existence it suffers from an injury caused by the gross negligence of the mother. The fact that damage initially occurred to a fetus doesn't mean it never happened to the child. If it never happened to the child then you are either arguing the child or the damage does not exist. There is no other alternative.

And I suppose you would scoff at me saying that your reasoning equates abortion with infanticide.
You're correct I would. Feel free to point me to the infant. The child and the child's right exist in my reasoning and do not in the case of an abortion. If you don't exist. You can't have rights. However, once you exist, you get all of your rights. If the child exists, and we are talking about an existing child, it already has a recognized right not to be the victim of gross negligence. You want to treat certain negligence as if it doesn't exist simply because it happened prior to birth.

Again, if architect is grossly negligent when designing a building. If it falls down are the only ones who can sue the people who were alive when the building was built? See the damage to the child cannot occur before there was a child. The architect damaged the building which resulted in damage to people. The mother damaged the fetus which resulted in damage to the child. Unless there is no child or no damage then the responsibile party should be held accountable. In the case of abortion there is no child and it would fall under the ol' "unless there is no child" clause of my argument.

Lack of full mental function at birth is caused by harm done to the fetus, and as such does not represent harm against the person.

The whole point is that, by deliniating between the fetus and person, the person cannot sue for conditions they were born with, as they cannot show that they have actually lost any abilities or rights.

So...they haven't lost anything, or they can't show it, but they did?

Lack of full mental function at birth is caused by harm done to the fetus, and as such does not represent harm against the person.

Because the harm is not direct doesn't make it not exist. By that reasoning, I can pull the trigger on a gun but the damage to you was done by the bullet so I've committed no crime. I can't wait to present this defense in court. I'll be the richest defense attorney that ever lived.

The whole point is that, by deliniating between the fetus and person, the person cannot sue for conditions they were born with, as they cannot show that they have actually lost any abilities or rights.
Again, please evidence this. I'll wait.

So, they were born with less than normal mental function...but that doesn't mean they aren't lacking in mental function? Generally something like a loss of function caused by something is harm, right? Maybe someone else can clarify...

You're doing fine. The fact is that simply because the function never manifested itself doesn't mean that we shouldn't recognize the lack of it as damage. By that reasoning if I damaged my child's growth at any age that caused it stunt, it can't be considered gross negligence because the child never had the functions that it never developed.

Sure they have all of the same rights, but those rights they have could have never protected their ability to see, because they never had the ability to see. They cannot sue for the loss of something that they never had.

So if a three-year-old is given a drug by a company that knew it would cause sterility it is not criminally negligent for the damage to this child because the child never developed the ability to produce children. Hmmm... strange logic that is.

So you are saying that fetuses have the right to freely develop the ability to see? That if a child is born without having ever developed the ability to see, that their rights have been infringed?
They don't have the right to freely develop anything. They have the right to not be denied abilities due to gross negligence. This is already recognized under current gross negligence laws. If I stunted or retarded the growth of my child as the result of gross negligence no lawyer in the world would try to argue that since the child hadn't completely developed into an adult whatever loss of function occurs can't be considered damaged. They'd get run out of court on a rail and should.

Guess what, everybody? We can chemically sterilize our children so long as we do it before they are fertile. Thanks, VO2. Where would children be without you? Well, seeing and becoming fertile adults, but hey, it's not like they're damaged or anything.

Because the harm is not direct doesn't make it not exist. By that reasoning, I can pull the trigger on a gun but the damage to you was done by the bullet so I've committed no crime. I can't wait to present this defense in court. I'll be the richest defense attorney that ever lived.

The child cannot claim to be harmed, as the condition is present for the entirety of its existence, and some degredation of condition is necessary for harm to be present.

No analogy you have used has even touched on this.

Dempublicents made an analogy with the bad seeds that lead to a sickly tree, but everyone would say that the person sold bad seeds, not that they diseased someone's tree.

Again, please evidence this. I'll wait.

It is self-evident. You cannot sue for infringement of rights that occured prior to the establishment of rights.

Guess what, everybody? We can chemically sterilize our children so long as we do it before they are fertile. Thanks, VO2. Where would children be without you? Well, seeing and becoming fertile adults, but hey, it's not like they're damaged or anything.

Perhaps you missed where I said that we should extend protection to the fetus, that claiming to protect the rights of the child is a faulty basis.

I have also said that interfering with the process of the pregnancy is an infringement on the rights of the woman.

The child cannot claim to be harmed, as the condition is present for the entirety of its existence, and some degredation of condition is necessary for harm to be present.

"Retarded" implies a "degredation of condition" from the normal level.

You're doing fine. The fact is that simply because the function never manifested itself doesn't mean that we shouldn't recognize the lack of it as damage. By that reasoning if I damaged my child's growth at any age that caused it stunt, it can't be considered gross negligence because the child never had the functions that it never developed.

Presumably the child had a right to health that was granted to it upon its birth, thereby making your actions a violation of his rights.

This is yet another analogy that does not address the line between fetus and child.

So if a three-year-old is given a drug by a company that knew it would cause sterility it is not criminally negligent for the damage to this child because the child never developed the ability to produce children. Hmmm... strange logic that is.

Presumably the child had a right to health that was granted to it upon its birth, thereby making your actions a violation of his rights.

This is yet another analogy that does not address the line between fetus and child.

"Retarded" implies a "degredation of condition" from the normal level.

Yes, which requires that the child had exhibited a normal level of development to have been harmed. Since we separate fetus from child, the individual cannot show a normal level of development.

Yes, which requires that the child had exhibited a normal level of development to have been harmed. Since we separate fetus from child, the individual cannot show a normal level of development.

So...people born retarded...aren't retarded?

So...people born retarded...aren't retarded?

So people born retarded were never not retarded. If one is retarded for the entirety of one's existence, retardation is not a degradation of condition.

So people born retarded were never not retarded. If one is retarded for the entirety of one's existence, retardation is not a degradation of condition.

Sure it is, a degradation of your condition, from the normal standard of condition for people in general.

Sure it is, a degradation of your condition, from the normal standard of condition for people in general.

Harm is not measured by comparing one person to another. It is measured by comparing one person to their earlier self.

Harm is not measured by comparing one person to another. It is measured by comparing one person to their earlier self.

Noun

harm

1. Injury; hurt; damage; detriment; misfortune.
2. That which causes injury, damage, or loss.

Verb

harm (harms, harmed, harming)

1. to cause injury to another; to hurt
2. To cause damage to something

By what reasoning does it have to be judged by comparing to one's former self?

Noun

harm

1. Injury; hurt; damage; detriment; misfortune.
2. That which causes injury, damage, or loss.

Verb

harm (harms, harmed, harming)

1. to cause injury to another; to hurt
2. To cause damage to something

By what reasoning does it have to be judged by comparing to one's former self?

When something is harmed, it is a process, so there must be a starting point and an ending point. The process of harm is distinguished when that ending point is less desirable than the starting point.

I mean how else can you interpret "to cause injury" or "to cause damage."

If I have harmed an automobile, caused damage to an automobile, what have I done?

When something is harmed, it is a process, so there must be a starting point and an ending point. The process of harm is distinguished when that ending point is less desirable than the starting point.

I mean how else can you interpret "to cause injury" or "to cause damage."

If I have harmed an automobile, caused damage to an automobile, what have I done?

Probably reduced it's quality. Of course, you could also do this by sabotaging the robots on the assembly line, before the car is even made, and the car would come out damaged, as a result of your actions. And if'n we decide to make cars people, it could sue you.

I'm pro-life...preaching communism and murder have nothing in common.

I'm pro-life...preaching communism and murder have nothing in common.

Huh?

The child cannot claim to be harmed, as the condition is present for the entirety of its existence, and some degredation of condition is necessary for harm to be present.

No degradation is required in order for sterility to occur. You simply have to prevent the appropriate growth. Retarding growth is not the same as degrading the child's condition. It's not allowing it to develop properly. How is this figured out? By comparing it to normal development.

No analogy you have used has even touched on this.

I guess it depends on whether or not rational arguments appeal to you. I'll make no judgement on whether they do, but forgive me if I'm not moved by your claim.

Dempublicents made an analogy with the bad seeds that lead to a sickly tree, but everyone would say that the person sold bad seeds, not that they diseased someone's tree.

Uh-huh. Yes, that's exactly the same. Unless we're appealing to the rational again. When there is a difference in law between a seed and a tree we'll talk.

Meanwhile, no one would claim that the tree was not damaged. No one rational anyway. I know you're rational and that you see the flaw in your argument no matter how much you pretend otherwise. I've noticed there is a big difference in the argument you make and the argument you know is correct. I'm not worried if you won't admit it. No one is buying that the child is not damaged. Not even you.

It is self-evident. You cannot sue for infringement of rights that occured prior to the establishment of rights.

Actually you can. Time of effect is what the law recognizes. It doesn't care if the action happened before your existence. Again, as I pointed out if I am grossly negligent in the building of a building it doesn't matter if my victim was alive when I did it.

The only making a ridiculous claim that a child was harmed prior to existence is you. You've already admitted harm which is why you originally argued for lawsuits. There is nothing rational about claiming a child was harmed before it existed and thus it's rights were not infringed upon. It's silly.

It's perfectly legal to auction property. A fetus is considered property. I'm permitted to sell my sperm or eggs. I am not legally permitted to auction off a child, however. According to you as long as I completed the transaction prior to birth, I haven't broken the law. Of course, the law doesn't agree with you because the law recognizes that the time of action is not the same as time of effect. And it only cares about time of effect. The child is affected by the gross negligence of the mother. It doesn't matter when that negligence occurs.

When something is harmed, it is a process, so there must be a starting point and an ending point. The process of harm is distinguished when that ending point is less desirable than the starting point.

I mean how else can you interpret "to cause injury" or "to cause damage."

If I have harmed an automobile, caused damage to an automobile, what have I done?

Now, you're just making things up. The law recognizes that harm does not stop simply because the action does. It's not a comparison between before and after. It's a comparison between what happened and what we would reasonably expect to happen absent of the action. You don't have to take something from me. You could simply prevent me from getting something. According to you, that wouldn't be harm, but that's just silly.

Perhaps you missed where I said that we should extend protection to the fetus, that claiming to protect the rights of the child is a faulty basis.

I have also said that interfering with the process of the pregnancy is an infringement on the rights of the woman.

It's not necessary to extend rights to fetus simply because you don't understand the law. Goofball arguments aside, the child is harmed. There is no way to claim no harm was visited on the child. The argument's not impressive. I can claim I have three legs and argue it with all vigor. Not admitting the flaw in your argument doesn't make it cease to exist. Your argument is flawed. The child is harmed. There is no doubt of this.

You've tried every way to get around this simple fact and it just smacks of desperation. "The child's not harmed." "The fetus harmed the child." "We can only effects as harm right when it occurs." Keep ringing that bell. Perhaps, we'll all lose track of reality and the FACT that the child is harmed and who caused it in the scenario we're discussing. Yes, the fetus is harmed too, but that doesn't change that the child is harmed.

EDIT: I reread this and it sounds more harsh than I intended it, but the truth is I simply don't believe you're buying what you're selling. If the harm was onl to the the fetus then one could only sue for the loss of quality of life the fetus experienced. In order for one to sue for redress to the child, one must first accept that the child was harmed. You accept that the child was injured since you allow for lawsuits and you can't possibly be claiming the fetus experienced the loss. For example did the fetus miss out on its site or did the child? The entire argument has no basis when one breaks it down. None.

When you are unborn, you are not a person. You are an embryo. You are a fetus. You are a multicellular organism the growth of which is fed by another person's bodily fluids. You are not a human.

Incidentally, according to the Tenth Amendment (the last amongst the Bill of Rights) of the Constitution, the government has absolutely no authority to regulate what you do with your own body so long as your actions do not go to the extent of harming others. Additionally, who decides what is wrong and what is right? The people who say that abortion is wrong do so, because they interpret the texts of their religion to say so. However, as is clearly stated in the first Amendment to the Constitution (the most important one in the Bill of Rights), the government make make no law even remotely based on religion. Therefore, as ruled by the Supreme Court of the United States, the government has no athority over abortion and whether it is right or wrong to dispose of a fetus produced by your own body. There is no justification for the government's involvement in people's bodies.

Really? Are you sure? We can't compare, oh, I don't know, present state to what we reasonably know would have been the state absent of the gross negligence? I mean you could assume the child would have been born retarded anyway, but you could aslo assume a house would have burnt down without the arson. Pretty silly way to view the law.

We have the absolute ability to compare the actual case the what would be the expected case if no crime were committed.

That would not be a problem, as long as you realize that this is judging the harm done to the fetus, and not the child. You are assuming mutual starting points of the fetus and mutual developmental processes, and identifying deficiencies in one as hindrances to the developmental process, i.e. harm.

Hmmmm... and this would make some difference if we couldn't compare the child to reasonable expectations of their health. This has been done before to address injuries that take a long, long time to manifest.

And you are measuring the harm done to the development of the fetus, not to the child.

Do you know what the term 'retarded' means? It means it didn't happen normally. It means something or someone prevent the normal behavior, retarded it. Retarded mental growth is a comparison to the expected growth. Perfect has nothing to do with it.

Yes, the development of the fetus is retarded.

Uh-huh. There is no child. So there are no rights to be respected. In the cases we are discussing a child exists.

Exactly, since the child never lived, it never had a right to life. A child cannot have abilities protected that it never had.

If a mother is liablie for a malformed child, even if it was never normal, then a mother is liable for a dead child, even if it was never living.

No, it's not. You can't have preexisting damage if the being we are discussing didn't preexist. How can a child have damage to the child before there was a child? That makes so little sense the sentence is even annoying.

I have been saying all along that the child isn't damaged, that the fetus is damaged. The damage preexists the child, so it cannot be attributed to the child.

But that is the result when you draw artificial differences between 9 month old fetus and 1 minute old newborn.

If you want to maintain the difference, would you say that the damage occurs at the point of birth?

When the child comes into existence it suffers from an injury caused by the gross negligence of the mother. The fact that damage initially occurred to a fetus doesn't mean it never happened to the child. If it never happened to the child then you are either arguing the child or the damage does not exist. There is no other alternative.

I am saying that the separation of child from fetus puts us into a situation where damage to the fetus cannot constitute damage to the child.

You're correct I would. Feel free to point me to the infant.

You did say that harm caused to the fetus should be treated the same as harm caused to the child. Therefore death to the fetus should be treated no differently than death to the child.

The child and the child's right exist in my reasoning and do not in the case of an abortion. If you don't exist. You can't have rights. However, once you exist, you get all of your rights. If the child exists, and we are talking about an existing child, it already has a recognized right not to be the victim of gross negligence. You want to treat certain negligence as if it doesn't exist simply because it happened prior to birth.

I am saying that negligence can't be committed against a future person.

I am also saying that a child cannot be granted rights to an ability it never had.

Again, if architect is grossly negligent when designing a building. If it falls down are the only ones who can sue the people who were alive when the building was built? See the damage to the child cannot occur before there was a child. The architect damaged the building which resulted in damage to people. The mother damaged the fetus which resulted in damage to the child. Unless there is no child or no damage then the responsibile party should be held accountable. In the case of abortion there is no child and it would fall under the ol' "unless there is no child" clause of my argument.

Once again this analogy does not address the divide between fetus and child. In your analogy, the house is a house is a house, while the child is a seperate entity from the fetus.

That would not be a problem, as long as you realize that this is judging the harm done to the fetus, and not the child. You are assuming mutual starting points of the fetus and mutual developmental processes, and identifying deficiencies in one as hindrances to the developmental process, i.e. harm.

Yes. Actually, in the case of lawsuits, this is quite common. Comparing them to expected normal development based on what information is available. As farm as judging harm to the fetus, nope. Still wrong. It was wrong the first time you said. It's been wrong ever since. If the fetus is never born I could care less. However, if the woman has a child that child deserves to be protected from gross negligence. The woman or anyone else should be punished for any gross negligence they are guilty of, regardless of when it happens.

If a woman goes out drinking for weeks striaght and then goes on a heroin bender, followed by an abortion, none of my business. However, if she chooses to have that child and there is any evidence that she was aware of the pregnancy, then she is guilty of gross negligence and deserves to be punished. You know what that means? I'm not judging harm to the fetus. The fetus can be harmed ALL DAY LONG. However, if harm to the fetus results in harm to the child then the person responsible should be held responsible.


And you are measuring the harm done to the development of the fetus, not to the child.

Am I? Can you point to exactly where? Where did I suggest anything about a developmental problem in the fetus? Please quote me. Last I checked I was talking about harm to the child. Only to the child. But quote me if you can. If the child is perfectly healthy then there is no problem. If the child has developmental problem, THE CHILD, and it is a result of gross negligence, the person responsible for the harm should be punished.

Yes, the development of the fetus is retarded.

You're the only one talking about the fetus. I am talking about the child. Are you claiming the child develops absolutely normally? If so, there is no issue. Now, however, if the child is not healthy and it is a result of gross negligence then the person responsible will be held responsible.


Exactly, since the child never lived, it never had a right to life. A child cannot have abilities protected that it never had.

It can't have a right to life if it doesn't exist. It has nothing to with it's ability to live. We don't protect one's right to live in actuality. We protect one's right to not have life denied. In the case of a fetus, there is no 'one'. If I kill someone I have denied them life. In the case of fetus, I've killed no one.

However, there is a child in the case of a malformed child (nice word by the way. No harm done, it's just malformed. Ridiculous.)

If a mother is liablie for a malformed child, even if it was never normal, then a mother is liable for a dead child, even if it was never living.

There is no child. Keep spinning. Maybe someone else isn't paying attention. You're not responsible for rights for a nonexistent being. If a woman is responsible for a malformed child, guess what has to be there first? A child. There is no child in the event of an abortion. However, if you can point to the body of the child, I'd be happy to consider. Keep in mind it must be a child first. In the event of an abortion you're going to have a little trouble with that.

I have been saying all along that the child isn't damaged, that the fetus is damaged. The damage preexists the child, so it cannot be attributed to the child.

The child isn't damaged? It's healthy? I love how you keep trying to redefine damage. Yes, malformed isn't damaged. Seriously, does this ever work? This argument is sad. You know it's damaged. I know it's damaged. The fact that the damage occurred during the period when the child was being created doesn't make it not continue into its childhood. You fail.

But that is the result when you draw artificial differences between 9 month old fetus and 1 minute old newborn.

Nothing artificial. I don't draw that difference. I actually consider it to be a person at the point where the forebrain engages. However, you can't abort at that point, so we're not comparing those. We don't draw an artificial difference. I know of no place that allows abortion in the third trimester unless medically necessary.

If you want to maintain the difference, would you say that the damage occurs at the point of birth?

I would say the damage to the person occurs at the moment it becomes a person. That's what I would say. It's pointless to debate the point of personhood, it's not germaine to the debate. However, the person certainly cannot be damaged before it exists which in this scenario is when the gross negligence occurs. The person is damaged at the moment it becomes a person

I am saying that the separation of child from fetus puts us into a situation where damage to the fetus cannot constitute damage to the child.

Really? Why? The fetus is not a child. The child is not a fetus. Damage to the fetus becomes damage to the child. That doesn't make them the same thing. However, maybe we have the same problem with embryo and fetus or child and adult. The only point of contention is, really, person and non-person. And if it is not yet a person, then there are no rights. Once it becomes a person it has rights and among them is the right to not have a healthy life denied by gross negligence.

You did say that harm caused to the fetus should be treated the same as harm caused to the child. Therefore death to the fetus should be treated no differently than death to the child.

The death of fetus is not the death of a person. However, when a child is born retarded because of gross negligence in utero, a person exists and so does the damage.

No, I didn't. I said harm to the child should be treated as harm to the child. I said it very clearly. Many times. The child is harmed. We are talking about that harm. I don't care about harm to the fetus. I'm not worried that the fetus was denied quality of life. The child on the other hand...

I am saying that negligence can't be committed against a future person.

The law disagrees. If a person is injured due to gross negligence, it doesn't matter if they existed at the time of the action. I have given you several other example. But how about you go into the court and claim it's not harm. It should amuse the judge. They like silly arguments that redefine words.

I am also saying that a child cannot be granted rights to an ability it never had.

Really? Again, then I guess I can deny it the ability to conceive because it certainly didn't have that ability at birth. It never developed the ability. I mean so what if it was my fault. I can't be held responsible because it's not harm. Of course, that only works if you make up the definition of harm, but since you don't mind doing that, well, I guess it's a problem.

You pretend as if it's not the same but a child is not born fertile. It is born with the potential to be fertile. If it never becomes fertile because of gross negligence I will be held accountable even if the harm doesn't manifest until later, even if the damage to quality of life occurs later. That's how it works. But, hey, perhaps if you argue that it's 'malformed' you can convince the law that what you saw is a given actually is a given. Current precedent disagrees with you.

Once again this analogy does not address the divide between fetus and child. In your analogy, the house is a house is a house, while the child is a seperate entity from the fetus.
It's not the house that is damaged. That's the point. We are talking about damage to the person as a result of damage to the house that occurred before the person existed. I notice that you're happy to create a larger seperation between the fetus and a child than a house and a child. Now, there is a rational way to argue. Can't wait to hear the next argument. Perhaps we'll hear more about how the time of effect doesn't matter despite all legal precedent to the contrary. I wait with bated breath.

EDIT: Quote me saying that I am not talking about damage to the child or quit making the claim. At this point, it's simply being obtuse. I am talking about the damage to the quality of life of the child. It exists, clearly. By definition. That's been demonstrated to you. You choose to call it malformation, but that's the EXACT same thing.

"You're car's damaged."
"Nuh-uh, it's malformed."

I suppose you can reclaim the financial loss of purchasing bad seeds and the work put into them, but to say that you can sue them for damaging a tree that was never healthy would strike me as strange.

The financial loss doesn't come in until the trees don't produce fruit. Since the damage was done to the seeds, by your reasoning, there was no actual loss of money - the trees were never going to produce fruit, so nothing has been lost.

Now, you're just making things up. The law recognizes that harm does not stop simply because the action does. It's not a comparison between before and after. It's a comparison between what happened and what we would reasonably expect to happen absent of the action. You don't have to take something from me. You could simply prevent me from getting something. According to you, that wouldn't be harm, but that's just silly.

Harm is a process, there is a starting point and a stopping point. If I prevent you from action, there is still a starting point and a finishing point.

Therefore harm cannot occur to the child in the instance of his birth.

And you are measuring the harm done to the development of the fetus, not to the child.

Wrong. The harm being measured is that manifested in the developmental retardation of the child. No measurements whatsoever are taken of the developmental problems of the fetus.

Yes, the development of the fetus is retarded.

As is the development of the child. Developmental defects don't suddenly disappear upon birth. The process continues as the child grows.

If a mother is liablie for a malformed child, even if it was never normal, then a mother is liable for a dead child, even if it was never living.

This doesn't logically follow. There is no "dead child" if no child was every born. There is a malformed child, however, if a malformed child is born.

I have been saying all along that the child isn't damaged, that the fetus is damaged. The damage preexists the child, so it cannot be attributed to the child.

And your statement completely ignores the biology of the statement. The developmental process that has been altered continues throughout the child's development. It doesn't suddenly stop when the child is born. The *cause* of the damage occurred in utero, but the damage itself continues throughout the child's life.

You seem to think that "damage" has to be an instantaneous thing. It does not. It can be, and often is, a continuous process.

You did say that harm caused to the fetus should be treated the same as harm caused to the child. Therefore death to the fetus should be treated no differently than death to the child.

If he had actually said that, you might have a point. However, he didn't. He said that harm caused to the child in utero should be treated no differently than harm caused to the child ex utero. Harm to the fetus is irrelevant unless harm to the child can be shown.

It's not necessary to extend rights to fetus simply because you don't understand the law. Goofball arguments aside, the child is harmed. There is no way to claim no harm was visited on the child. The argument's not impressive. I can claim I have three legs and argue it with all vigor. Not admitting the flaw in your argument doesn't make it cease to exist. Your argument is flawed. The child is harmed. There is no doubt of this.

You've tried every way to get around this simple fact and it just smacks of desperation. "The child's not harmed." "The fetus harmed the child." "We can only effects as harm right when it occurs." Keep ringing that bell. Perhaps, we'll all lose track of reality and the FACT that the child is harmed and who caused it in the scenario we're discussing. Yes, the fetus is harmed too, but that doesn't change that the child is harmed.

EDIT: I reread this and it sounds more harsh than I intended it, but the truth is I simply don't believe you're buying what you're selling. If the harm was onl to the the fetus then one could only sue for the loss of quality of life the fetus experienced. In order for one to sue for redress to the child, one must first accept that the child was harmed. You accept that the child was injured since you allow for lawsuits and you can't possibly be claiming the fetus experienced the loss. For example did the fetus miss out on its site or did the child? The entire argument has no basis when one breaks it down. None.

Your "everybody is an idiot who doesn't understand me" style of argument really tests my patience.

Am I? Can you point to exactly where? Where did I suggest anything about a developmental problem in the fetus? Please quote me. Last I checked I was talking about harm to the child. Only to the child. But quote me if you can. If the child is perfectly healthy then there is no problem. If the child has developmental problem, THE CHILD, and it is a result of gross negligence, the person responsible for the harm should be punished.

If the child has a developmental problem at birth, that means that it had a developmental problem for the whole of its existence.

One is not harmed by the possession of a bad quality that one has always had.

You must limit the legal separation of the fetus and child, or there is no harm done to the child.

You're the only one talking about the fetus. I am talking about the child. Are you claiming the child develops absolutely normally? If so, there is no issue. Now, however, if the child is not healthy and it is a result of gross negligence then the person responsible will be held responsible.

I am saying that, from the child's perspective, there never was an opportunity to develop normally. Therefore the child cannot claim harm when he does not develop normally.

It can't have a right to life if it doesn't exist. It has nothing to with it's ability to live. We don't protect one's right to live in actuality. We protect one's right to not have life denied. In the case of a fetus, there is no 'one'. If I kill someone I have denied them life. In the case of fetus, I've killed no one.

Exactly, by killing the fetus you kill no one, but by poisoning the fetus, somehow you harm a child.

However, there is a child in the case of a malformed child (nice word by the way. No harm done, it's just malformed. Ridiculous.)

Yes, the child is malformed, the result of a damaged fetus. But there is a legal separation between the fetus and child that makes the fetus part of the woman, and the child his own person. Damage to the fetus is damage to the woman, not damage to the child.

There is no child.

Just as there is no perfectly formed child for the mother to be responsible for. The mother is responsible for the well being of a malformed actual child, not a perfect potential child.

Your "everybody is an idiot who doesn't understand me" style of argument really tests my patience.

You're not an idiot and you do understand me. I simply don't buy that even you believe what you're saying. The fact that you're very carefully trying to word it so that you can claim you're saying something different that I am is evidence. The fact that you would allow a child to sue is evidence. You want me to see it your way or not at all and amusingly I agree with you. The fetus is harmed. Unquestionably. The harm is the fault of the person who was grossly negligent. No question.

I'm talking about harm to the child however. The problem is you're not claiming the harm disappears once the fetus becomes a child. Instead you're claiming that it suddenly is no longer harm, which is just utterly ridiculous.

Make no mistake about it, there hasn't been a moment when I thought you were an idiot or intended to imply it. I also don't think you're having a problem understanding my argument, not for a moment. I did very clearly say however that I don't believe you. At all.

Wrong. The harm being measured is that manifested in the developmental retardation of the child. No measurements whatsoever are taken of the developmental problems of the fetus.

The developmental problems of the child are present at the creation of the child. A child cannot consider a problem that they have always had as harm. Changes in the developmental process post-birth can be counted as harm to the child.

The harm that you want to charge for are changes in the developmental process of the fetus that are often present months before the child even exists.

As is the development of the child. Developmental defects don't suddenly disappear upon birth. The process continues as the child grows.

Yes, but the child never had the opportunity for normal development, and isn't that the harm committed in this situation, denied ability to develop normally.

Tell me how a child can suffer the harm of being denied a normal development, when it never possessed the ability in the first place.

This doesn't logically follow. There is no "dead child" if no child was every born. There is a malformed child, however, if a malformed child is born.

Actually it does follow.

For a person to be responsible for a dead child, then there must have been a living child. It follows that, if a person is responsible for a malformed child, there must have been a perfectly formed child.

And your statement completely ignores the biology of the statement. The developmental process that has been altered continues throughout the child's development. It doesn't suddenly stop when the child is born. The *cause* of the damage occurred in utero, but the damage itself continues throughout the child's life.

You seem to think that "damage" has to be an instantaneous thing. It does not. It can be, and often is, a continuous process.

I am saying that it is not an instantaneous thing, that it is a process. However, the fetus is legally a separate entity from the child, and at the creation of the child, the hindered development is the standard process for the child. The child could never have normal development, so it is not harmed by not by having normal development. The only way that you can say that the child had a chance for normal development (to prove that it was harmed) is to limit the legal separation between the child and fetus.

Therein lies the ethical dilemma.

If he had actually said that, you might have a point. However, he didn't. He said that harm caused to the child in utero should be treated no differently than harm caused to the child ex utero. Harm to the fetus is irrelevant unless harm to the child can be shown.

I'm sorry, but the child in utero is a separate entity we call the fetus, and because of that separation, harm to the fetus does not equate into harm to the child.

And harm to the fetus caused by the mother should be irrelevant no matter what.

If the child has a developmental problem at birth, that means that it had a developmental problem for the whole of its existence.

Yep. I'm not claiming otherwise. That developmental problem retards its development which is what we're talking about.

One is not harmed by the possession of a bad quality that one has always had.

So you keep saying. Yet you would allow one to sue for redress for harm that doesn't exist. Clearly, you're not claiming the fetus has a loss of quality of life. You are claiming the child has a loss of quality of life.

You must limit the legal separation of the fetus and child, or there is no harm done to the child.

If the child's quality of life is affected by gross negligence and you're not denying that it isn't, then it is harmed. That's clear. It does not matter how seperated from it the instrument of harm is. The person guilty of gross negligence harmed it via the fetus. It doesn't matter if one considers the fetus to be the same as the child or not, the child was still harmed via the fetus.

I am saying that, from the child's perspective, there never was an opportunity to develop normally. Therefore the child cannot claim harm when he does not develop normally.

Yes, there was. That opportunity was denied by the gross negligence of another. Absent the negligence the child would have reasonably been expected to develop normally. I know you understand this but you simply WANT SO BAD for someone to recognize the rights of a fetus. Amusingly, how does a sudden recognition of fetal rights change the child's perspective? It still won't be a person and the damage to the person will STILL occur at the moment the person is recognized to exist.

Exactly, by killing the fetus you kill no one, but by poisoning the fetus, somehow you harm a child.

Yup. Because there is no one when the fetus dies. There is a person that absolutely exists when the child is harmed. You can't equate the two because there is only a child in one of those cases.

Yes, I know this is a strange claim, but one must exist to be harmed. *gasp* Now once existence occurs one can be harmed by any action at any time that denies one the quality of life that would have occurred absent the action. This is a long-standing legal principle. It's the basis for pretty much all lawsuits in the country.

Yes, the child is malformed, the result of a damaged fetus. But there is a legal separation between the fetus and child that makes the fetus part of the woman, and the child his own person. Damage to the fetus is damage to the woman, not damage to the child.

So? The child is prevented from developing normally by gross negligence on the part of the woman. The damaged fetus was the instrument, just as sure as her using a bat. Malformation is damage. Damage is harm. It's amusing that you try to pretend otherwise.

Just as there is no perfectly formed child for the mother to be responsible for. The mother is responsible for the well being of a malformed actual child, not a perfect potential child.
Amusing. Ridiculous, but amusing. The child does experience normal development due to gross negligence. Keeping claiming that's not harm. Maybe my brain will fall out and I'll forget the definition.

The law does not recognize potential persons but it does recognize the potential of persons. They are significantly different. The CHILD is denied the potential for a normal life by gross negligence. It's not about perfect. It's about what the child that exists was denied by the actions of the mother. Amusingly, you're not claiming the mother did not do anything to deny this child normal development. In fact, you are openly admitting that in this scenario the mother is at fault for difference in the child. The law should hold her accountable. Interestingly, according to you if she used a house then she should be held accountable but if she did so via a fetus then she should get away with it.

The developmental problems of the child are present at the creation of the child. A child cannot consider a problem that they have always had as harm. Changes in the developmental process post-birth can be counted as harm to the child.

The harm that you want to charge for are changes in the developmental process of the fetus that are often present months before the child even exists.

You know you keep making this claim. Please show how in the legal definition of harm that a change in state is required rather than allowing for a denial of the state that would have occurred absent the action.

You're not an idiot and you do understand me. I simply don't buy that even you believe what you're saying. The fact that you're very carefully trying to word it so that you can claim you're saying something different that I am is evidence. The fact that you would allow a child to sue is evidence. You want me to see it your way or not at all and amusingly I agree with you. The fetus is harmed. Unquestionably. The harm is the fault of the person who was grossly negligent. No question.

I'm talking about harm to the child however. The problem is you're not claiming the harm disappears once the fetus becomes a child. Instead you're claiming that it suddenly is no longer harm, which is just utterly ridiculous.

Make no mistake about it, there hasn't been a moment when I thought you were an idiot or intended to imply it. I also don't think you're having a problem understanding my argument, not for a moment. I did very clearly say however that I don't believe you. At all.

Your implication is that I would be stupid to believe my own argument, which is insulting because I do believe it.

I am saying that harm is a process that brings about a degraded condition, whether it be actual damage done, or being limited opportunity.

However, a child has an established condition when it is born, and for harm to be shown to a child, we judge whether a process degraded that established condition.

EDIT: And I have rethought this and come to the conclusion that no priveleges should be extended to the fetus.

The developmental problems of the child are present at the creation of the child. A child cannot consider a problem that they have always had as harm. Changes in the developmental process post-birth can be counted as harm to the child.

Harm does not have to be changes at the time. The developmental process of the child has just as many problems as that of the fetus.

Development is a process. All of the developmental problems are not present at the creation of the child, because all of the developmental processes have not yet begun.

The harm that you want to charge for are changes in the developmental process of the fetus that are often present months before the child even exists.

Wrong. I am talking about a child suing the developmental defects she suffers from - not the particular developmental defects in the fetus.

Yes, but the child never had the opportunity for normal development, and isn't that the harm committed in this situation, denied ability to develop normally.

Once again, you get into the issue of a person who was made sterile as a child. They never had the opportunity to have children, therefore they cannot sue.

Were it not for the actions of the mother, the child would have said opportunity. And that is what the child is suing for.

Tell me how a child can suffer the harm of being denied a normal development, when it never possessed the ability in the first place.

The same way that anyone would suffer that harm. Do you think that those who are born with developmental defects don't suffer from it just because they have never known anything else?

For a person to be responsible for a dead child, then there must have been a living child. It follows that, if a person is responsible for a malformed child, there must have been a perfectly formed child.

Only if you look at it bass-ackwards. The first portion is true, but the second does not necessarily follow from the first, because there actually is a child. That child is malformed, but should not have been. It is only because of the actions of the mother that it is not healthy.

I am saying that it is not an instantaneous thing, that it is a process.

And that process continues long after birth.

I'm sorry, but the child in utero is a separate entity we call the fetus, and because of that separation, harm to the fetus does not equate into harm to the child.

No, it doesn't. But harm to the fetus causes harm to the child. I have never stated that harm to the fetus equates to harm to the child, only that the result of harm to the fetus is harm to the child.

Much like the seed/tree example. I had seeds in my warehouse and used whatever chemicals I felt like there. The result of my treatment of the seeds was that the trees someone grew could not bear fruit. What I did to the seeds was not the harm to the person. The harm to the person was the loss of financial prospects now that he cannot sell the fruit. By your reasoning, he never could have had a chance to sell the fruit, because the seeds were never going to produce trees that bore fruit.

For a person to be responsible for a dead child, then there must have been a living child. It follows that, if a person is responsible for a malformed child, there must have been a perfectly formed child.

Well, when you put it that way... it's still wrong. Here's the actually case.

For a person to be responsible for a dead child, then there must first be a child that is dead. For a person to be responsible for a malformed child there must first be a child that is malformed.

See how that works. Since there is no child in the first case, it can't be dead. However, there is a child in the second case and it is malformed, but your own admission. In law first you take a person, who has rights to be protected, and then you see how those rights were violated by looking at what one could reasonably expect absent the grossly negligent action. That is how malpractice is looked at. The person may have died anyway, but the law reviews whether the outcome was different than what could be reasonably expected. It has nothing to do with comparison to what was before. It has to do with doing a comparison with what would reasonably have been expected. In an abortion you can't do that because there is no person with rights to protect.

You know you keep making this claim. Please show how in the legal definition of harm that a change in state is required rather than allowing for a denial of the state that would have occurred absent the action.

Certainly denied opportunity where opportunity existed is a change of state.:confused:

Your implication is that I would be stupid to believe my own argument, which is insulting because I do believe it.

Well, if you believe it, I'm sorry. I do believe it's quite silly to claim that malformation is not damage because of some requirement for damage that you made up and that for some reason you think we have to adhere to.

VO, I find you to be a very reasonable person who gets so caught up in his argument that you forget that you're a reasonable person. I understand that some people aren't reasonable. I don't believe you're one of those people. The argument seems to become more important that reasonably reviewing the points of the other side. And, yes, it takes one to know one.

I am saying that harm is a process that brings about a degraded condition, whether it be actual damage done, or being limited opportunity.

And this harm occurred. Good. I agree.

However, a child has an established condition when it is born, and for harm to be shown to a child, we judge whether a process degraded that established condition.

No. We don't. We simply look at what would have occurred absent the harm. We don't need an earlier state to compare it to. We simply look at what could be reasonably expected absent the gross negligence. If you look at law there is much precedent for this.

EDIT: And I have rethought this and come to the conclusion that no priveleges should be extended to the fetus.

That doesn't address the issue however. Do you accept that extending priveleges to the fetus is not required in order to recognize harm?

Certainly denied opportunity where opportunity existed is a change of state.:confused:

Look at it this way. A man is dying. Two doctors are there. One doctor takes the patient and makes a mistake that prevents the man from being saved. Reasonably had the other doctor helped the man or any other doctor helped the man, the man would have survived.

The state entering the harm was dying. The state leaving the harm was dead. The harm however is not the change of state, but what state would have occurred absent the doctor's negligent actions which would have been a living, healthy man. The law judges on potential all the time, but the rights it is protecting belong to a person first. Then we can look at the potential of that person absent the action of doctor/mother.

In the case of abortion there is no person whose rights need protecting. However if a child is born there is no question that a person with rights exist. Legal precedent shows that it is perfectly acceptable to look at the current state of a person and compare it to what would have reasonably been expected absent gross negligence. This is often necessary in gross negligence cases currently, because one cannot be sure what would have occurred absent the action, so we must use reason.

Abortion and gross negligence in utero are not different because we don't recognize potential. The law recognizes potential all the time. They are different because the law does not recognize a person does or ever did exist in the case of abortion.

http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/articles/1992stat.htm#SWOO

Here is the reason why I changed my mind on this issue.

My original stance was an emotional reaction, and taking a look at the public policy statements at the bottom brought be around to what I think is the best course of action.

American Medical Association - "Criminal sanctions or civil liability for harmful behavior by the pregnant woman toward her fetus are inappropriate... Therefore be it... resolved that the AMA oppose legislation which criminalizes maternal drug addiction.. ." American Medical Association Board of Trustees Report, Legal Interventions During Pregnancy,
264 J.A.M.A. 2663 (1990).

Center for the Future of Children - "A woman who uses illegal drugs during pregnancy should not be subject to special criminal prosecution on the basis of allegations that her illegal drug use harms the fetus. Nor should states adopt special civil commitment provisions for pregnant women who use drugs." Center for the Future of Children, Recommendations, 1 The Future of Children 8 (1991).

Also, there are quite a few court cases listed that set precedent that a woman is not liable for negligence or child endangerment in the case of drug use.

http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/articles/1992stat.htm#SWOO

Here is the reason why I changed my mind on this issue.

My original stance was an emotional reaction, and taking a look at the public policy statements at the bottom brought be around to what I think is the best course of action.





Also, there are quite a few court cases listed that set precedent that a woman is not liable for negligence or child endangerment in the case of drug use.

I know this is the case now. That's why I'm arguing. However, the woman should be held just as acountable for denying the child quality of life through gross negligence regardless of when she does it. We have made pharmaceutical companies liable for damage to a child from drugs taken by a pregnant mother. We have made other people responsible. I would like to know what is special about a pregnant mother that she should deserve protection that no one else ever gets, and that she should be permitted to deny a child quality of life with wanton disregard.

yep

why are there so many baby killers in ther world?

That's the beauty of a democratic/republican government, majority decides right or wrong. The issue of innate rightness or wrongness doesn't matter in legislation.

Not true, that is why there are constitutions. The majority decides something is right all the time, and that gets struck down by the courts. You would not want to live in a tyranny by the majority, I guarentee it. Ask blacks in The old US conferderacy.. Ask Christians in the Sudan. Ask rich people in Western Europe heh heh.

They are different because the law does not recognize a person does or ever did exist in the case of abortion.

In many US states, killing a pregnant woman will get you 2 murder charges. Ask Scott Peterson. The left fought those laws tooth and nail because of the obvious abortion implications.

In many US states, killing a pregnant woman will get you 2 murder charges. Ask Scott Peterson. The left fought those laws tooth and nail because of the obvious abortion implications.

...she was 8 months pregnant. That's third trimester, you can't have an abortion electively then anyways.

In many US states, killing a pregnant woman will get you 2 murder charges. Ask Scott Peterson. The left fought those laws tooth and nail because of the obvious abortion implications.

Elective abortion is already illegal at that point. Scott Peterson killed a viable fetus. Had it been removed from the womb at that point, in absense of murdering it, it would have lived.

Odd, but interesting debate for the past few pages.

VO2 is arguing what appears to me to be a consistent, but nonsense position, but VO2 has adequately pointed out the nonsensical position opposing him.

Both arise from an artificial denial of personhood in my opinion.

As Jocabia et al. have argued, it is obvious that a child has been harmed in the case of a damaged fetus developing into a child. It is both nonsense and consistent with personhood and it's rights ony being established at birth.

The other side of this coin though is that we are left in an equally nonsensical position where damaging the fetus is somehow wrong when terminating its life is not.
Killing is the ulitmate injury, yet it is the only "injury" you can legally commit.

One could envision a case where a defense might be that you intended to kill the fetus, not injure it, so it's not your fault. You'd be consistent with the rights as we know them, but still in the realm of nonsense.

In order to maintain the consistency and avoid as much of the nonsense as possible, I think we need to push the personhood defining point earlier than birth.

Odd, but interesting debate for the past few pages.

VO2 is arguing what appears to me to be a consistent, but nonsense position, but VO2 has adequately pointed out the nonsensical position opposing him.

Both arise from an artificial denial of personhood in my opinion.

As Jocabia et al. have argued, it is obvious that a child has been harmed in the case of a damaged fetus developing into a child. It is both nonsense and consistent with personhood and it's rights ony being established at birth.

The other side of this coin though is that we are left in an equally nonsensical position where damaging the fetus is somehow wrong when terminating its life is not.
Killing is the ulitmate injury, yet it is the only "injury" you can legally commit.

One could envision a case where a defense might be that you intended to kill the fetus, not injure it, so it's not your fault. You'd be consistent with the rights as we know them, but still in the realm of nonsense.

In order to maintain the consistency and avoid as much of the nonsense as possible, I think we need to push the personhood defining point earlier than birth.

In order to make it applicable to even a majority of abortions you would have to push personhood back to before it qualifies as a fetus. Secondly, trying to change the definition of personhood to correct a problem that you made up isn't really a rational position. Killing a fetus is the only harm that should be legal because there is no person so there is not damage to a person. You want to correct the 'problem' of not harming a person, because the idea offends you, by creating a person where none exists. Amusing, but not really a compelling argument.

Good think we're pretending like you don't have an agenda here. You start with the premise that abortions are wrong and then claim that we have to rework the basis of your argument so that you can prove it. Whether abortion is wrong is the crux of the abortion debate. You can't just skip the whole debate by declaring it wrong to begin with.

It should be noted that 'killing' a fetus isn't legal up until birth as you imply. Third trimester abortions are generally illegal and almost no doctors will perform them. The only period where elective abortions are effecting a fetus contians a small portion of the actual abortions.

The other side of this coin though is that we are left in an equally nonsensical position where damaging the fetus is somehow wrong when terminating its life is not.

You missed the entire point. Damaging the fetus would not be legally wrong. Only damage that harmed the child would be. As such, if you damaged the fetus, but then the child was perfectly normal - there would be no legal case.

One could envision a case where a defense might be that you intended to kill the fetus, not injure it, so it's not your fault. You'd be consistent with the rights as we know them, but still in the realm of nonsense.

That isn't a legal argument would fly. It might get you a lesser sentence - as intent is taken into account. However, a crime is what actually happens, not what you intended to do. In Savannah, GA, there was a woman who shot a gun, intending to scare her ex-boyfriend. She was not trying to hit him (according to her, anyways). However, the bullet bounced off of something and did hit him - killing him. She was still liable for his death, whether she meant to cause it or not.

The same sort of logic would apply here. If an abortion was attempted, but somehow failed and a child was born - and was harmed, the child would have access to legal recourse.

You missed the entire point. Damaging the fetus would not be legally wrong. Only damage that harmed the child would be. As such, if you damaged the fetus, but then the child was perfectly normal - there would be no legal case.

He did not miss the point. Our legal definitions of what constitutes a child and what constitutes a fetus put us into a position where a child cannot sue based on what it might have been.

Fetuses are considered complete domain of the woman, they are hitching a ride within the mother and as such have no right to a free development. It has no legal standing to permit it to bring charges against the mother's behavior while it was in utero.

He did not miss the point. Our legal definitions of what constitutes a child and what constitutes a fetus put us into a position where a child cannot sue based on what it might have been.

Fetuses are considered complete domain of the woman, they are hitching a ride within the mother and as such have no right to a free development. It has no legal standing to permit it to bring charges against the mother's behavior while it was in utero.

The problem is that the abortion debate has made it so people won't tolerate suing the mother. The child can already sue everyone else. The problem is that people like SE will try to extend the argument we're having into abortion and it's exactly why a child can't sue the mother. He IS the problem. People worry about that kind of ridiculous extension. It has NOTHING to do with the definition of child, person or fetus. It has to do with a fearful protection of the women that GnI discussed and hit right on the head.

The moment we allow this kind of lawsuit there will be people trying to equate it to the abortion debate. However, it simply doesn't play. We are talking about injury to the child. Only if someone builds and artificial wall at birth is there a problem here and it seems only the people with an agenda of redefining person are claiming that wall exists and forgive me if I notice how it just so happens to benefit their agenda. That wall does not exist. No one is claiming that the fetus is NOT a precursor to the person, at least not the people who agree with the current definition of person. It is a precursor and things that affect the fetus affect the person provided the person comes to exist. How anyone can deny that rationally is beyond me. It's like claiming the foundation is related to the house. The foundation is not the house and it can't be sold as a house, but once a house exists it's certainly related to the house and things that affect the foundation certainly affect the house.

The only ones who seem to have an issue with what Dem and I are saying are people who have an admitted agenda that has nothing to do with debate but gains from what they are arguing. No coincidence there. So far the only one who has admitted that they were arguing something irrational because it fit their agenda is GnI. If only everyone was so willing.

Legal action should not be initiated to control the behavior of a woman while pregnant, it is an infringement on her self-determination and renders a portion of her body to the control of a non-person.

Legal action against a mother for her behavior concerning her pregnancy will result in forced abortions and increased risk of further injury to the woman and fetus, as the mother will be unwilling to seek medical help for both the pregnancy or her addiction for fear of punishment.

The introduction of this law effectively makes not the harming of the fetus, but giving birth to deformed children illegal. Where does the line stop? What is the effective difference between this law and making giving birth to deformed or retarded children illegal? Cases have been brought up where women were charged for injuring their fetuses in car wrecks, how do you feel about those cases? Where can you draw the line for negligence?

As I have been trying to point out earlier, to pass this law we must remove the complete legal separation between child and fetus, or extend rights to a fetus, both of which makes the ethical argument for abortion much more plausible.

Those are rational arguments.

Jocabia

It is also of note that your claim that the agreement of four posters implies superior rationality is rather specious when we remember that the overwhelming majority of legal precedent, women's advocate groups, and medical associations disagree with you.

One of the many things that I see in the abortion debate is the following

Pro-lifer: Abortion is wrong because X, Y and Z
Pro-choicer: Ok thats fine. You believe that but dont force me to abide by your beliefs

The flaw in this argument is that
A: - It assumes the points raised by the pro-lifer are subjective (which is often not the case, but that's not what I am here discussing)
B: - It assumes that government does not have a role in choosing to enforce right and wrong

The fact is the government chooses things that it considers right and wrong and enforces them or not. The idea that if something is wrong we should still be able to choose about it is absurd. Imagine the scenerio where theft is legal because the government has no place enforcing right and wrong. The government is in that place. What it is important to do is to discuss whether or not abortion is objectively wrong or not. Not whether the government has the right to enforce it, that much is a given.

It depends on your definition of right and wrong. The government has a duty to protect the rights of its citizens from violation. Murder, theft, fraud, assault, destruction of property, etc. etc. are violations of rights to life, property, etc. What it does not have a duty to do is enforce subjective 'moral' (a.k.a. religious, in most circumstances) standards of right and wrong.

The only objective right and wrong is individual rights and the violations thereof. All religious sociomoral standards of right and wrong such as it is wrong to be gay, have an abortion, use a condom, etc. etc. are subjective, and the enforcement of such codes violates rights, which makes the enforcement of such codes inherently wrong, from the perspective of an objective governing system. Thus, the only standard of right and wrong the government has any right, much less duty, to enforce is an objective one concerned with the protection of rights.

Subjective standards of right and wrong are not some special case separate from objective morality, both of which a government has a duty to enforce. You can't be simultaneously dedicated to objective morality and subjective morality. Encoding subjective, arbitrary, whimsical moral standards into law because social traditionalists make the recursive, unsupported, logically self-contradictory case that it is the government's 'duty' to do so is in fact an objectively, rationally immoral violation of rights.

Summation: The government has no special duty to enforce 'right and wrong' defined subjectively. It already enforces right and wrong. It has no other primary function. Attempting to append an additional duty to enforce right and wrong as the dominant socioreligious faction sees it, as if it was either part and parcel to the rest of the currently incomplete enforcement of real right and wrong, or as if the government didn't already enforce a moral standard, just makes government a manifestation of a contradiction in terms.

Legal action should not be initiated to control the behavior of a woman while pregnant, it is an infringement on her self-determination and renders a portion of her body to the control of a non-person.

Here's the problem. It does not render control. It forces her to make a choice. Self-determination does not allow one to injure another and this has always been true. We are talking about ensuring that she not injure a person, not a non-person. You keep trying to turn it into something it's not and then argue from that platform. If we were talking about a non-person then you're attempts to equate this with abortion would be appropriate. But we are talking about the damage to the person.

As for the forced abortions, we are only requiring that women not birth children damaged by gross negligence. Now if you are claiming they will have to get abortions to prevent legal action, keep in mind by the time the damage from negligence is visible abortion is illegal. Women will be forced to choose to make reasonable efforts to protect their children just as anyone does who is responsible for a child (a child, not a fetus) or they will have to choose to not have one. What is unreasonable is expecting EVERYONE to protect the child EXCEPT the mother.

One of the many things that I see in the abortion debate is the following

Pro-lifer: Abortion is wrong because X, Y and Z
Pro-choicer: Ok thats fine. You believe that but dont force me to abide by your beliefs

The flaw in this argument is that
A: - It assumes the points raised by the pro-lifer are subjective (which is often not the case, but that's not what I am here discussing)
B: - It assumes that government does not have a role in choosing to enforce right and wrong

The fact is the government chooses things that it considers right and wrong and enforces them or not. The idea that if something is wrong we should still be able to choose about it is absurd. Imagine the scenerio where theft is legal because the government has no place enforcing right and wrong. The government is in that place. What it is important to do is to discuss whether or not abortion is objectively wrong or not. Not whether the government has the right to enforce it, that much is a given.




"B: - It assumes that government does not have a role in choosing to enforce right and wrong"

maybe i am weird...but wtf do you or anyone else have to say what a women can do with her body?
do you know better then everyone?

i can agree that there needs to be laws to prevent anarchy/chaos/etc.
but are they not generally norms of behavior that is accepted as a rule by more then a majority of society...ie...murder/rape/robbery?

what you are saying is not a clear right and wrong...it is subject to many variables(the women was raped/the condom ripped..ad nauseam)

it is patently wrong for me to break into your home..sodomise you,beat you silly then rob you.
i think most would agree?

abortion is just a devisive issue to keep us divided while they hoodwink us on things we should really care about,rather then getting sidetracked on issues that have no real resolution.

me shooting you in the head so i dont have to fight you while i rob you is pretty obviously wrong..most would agree..no?

abortion is not the same.

i am/was raised roman catholic..was an alter boy..yada yada yada....so the ten comandments are pretty clear to me,i see nowhere in there anything about abortion,smoking pot,self mutilation,etc.

right and wrong is pretty clear to me...abortion is not...so i will not presume to be holier then thou and tell a women what she can do to her body,considering the many circumstances that would influence her decision.

there is not many variables when i decide to bust into your home and kill you for money!

Jocabia

It is also of note that your claim that the agreement of four posters implies superior rationality is rather specious when we remember that the overwhelming majority of legal precedent, women's advocate groups, and medical associations disagree with you.

Again, we know the agenda of those groups. You're wrong, legal precedent does not disagree with me. Legal precedent already recognizes in utero harm to the child. The only thing that any of the groups you mentioned do not recognize is harm by the mother and it is because as GnI rightly pointed out, they fear the religious right will exploit such things to extend it to abortion no matter how irrational it is to do so.

You're making a circular argument. You start with equating abortion and post-birth damage and use it to equate *gasp* abortion and post-birth harm.

I don't think trying to protect the mother is irrational and having claimed it is. I called your argument irrational, not your conclusion. I simply disagree with your conclusion.

SE is arguing that the problem is this wall, but the people constructing the wall are the people who claim it's a problem. Interesting, isn't it? As always, it's the anti-choice folks bastardizing ideas to try any way possible to attempt their goals.

I know this is the case now. That's why I'm arguing. However, the woman should be held just as acountable for denying the child quality of life through gross negligence regardless of when she does it.

Is that in the drug situtation?

What about miscarriages? Man-slaughter?

The problem is that the abortion debate has made it so people won't tolerate suing the mother.


There is good reason for that. How would you define a "proper" case.

How long before it turns into "She had miscarriage????? What did she do wrong?"

In order to make it applicable to even a majority of abortions you would have to push personhood back to before it qualifies as a fetus.

Who's trying to make it applicable to a majority of abortions?
Are you simply making up positions to argue against now?


Secondly, trying to change the definition of personhood to correct a problem that you made up isn't really a rational position.

It's a problem I'm observing and making note of. You are free to deny it is a problem, or, you can cast aspersions on me personally again, whatever floats your boat.


Killing a fetus is the only harm that should be legal because there is no person so there is not damage to a person.

Yes, that argument has been made quite clear.
If there is no person until birth, then no person has been damaged by the killing.


You want to correct the 'problem' of not harming a person, because the idea offends you, by creating a person where none exists. Amusing, but not really a compelling argument.


None of that captures my argument at all.


Good think we're pretending like you don't have an agenda here. You start with the premise that abortions are wrong and then claim that we have to rework the basis of your argument so that you can prove it. Whether abortion is wrong is the crux of the abortion debate. You can't just skip the whole debate by declaring it wrong to begin with.


If I'd actually done any of that, I'd probably respond with something like, "Why not? You've skipped the entire debate by insisting that the fetus is not a person, asserting that abortion therefore can't be killing anyone"

But, since I never said any such thing, I'll just move on and ignore your remarks as you begin to teeter back into the personal attacks.


It should be noted that 'killing' a fetus isn't legal up until birth as you imply. Third trimester abortions are generally illegal and almost no doctors will perform them. The only period where elective abortions are effecting a fetus contians a small portion of the actual abortions.

Sure, so noted. I don't really care how many abortions are carried out when and who wants them or who performs them, it has nothing to do with anything we're discussing.
I would add though, if 3rd trimester abortions are already illegal, then there should be no reason not to extend rights and person status at the 3rd trimester.

You missed the entire point. Damaging the fetus would not be legally wrong. Only damage that harmed the child would be. As such, if you damaged the fetus, but then the child was perfectly normal - there would be no legal case.


No, that's exactly the point I got.


That isn't a legal argument would fly. It might get you a lesser sentence - as intent is taken into account. However, a crime is what actually happens, not what you intended to do. In Savannah, GA, there was a woman who shot a gun, intending to scare her ex-boyfriend. She was not trying to hit him (according to her, anyways). However, the bullet bounced off of something and did hit him - killing him. She was still liable for his death, whether she meant to cause it or not.

The same sort of logic would apply here. If an abortion was attempted, but somehow failed and a child was born - and was harmed, the child would have access to legal recourse.

I know what you're saying, but that doesn't strike me as any sort of logic.
The one way of ensuring you can't be charged or sued would be to kill something. Merely damaging it would be an action you are held accountable for.
Your Savannah case doesn't apply because she is liable whether she kills him or injures him. That is not the case in our fetus/child discussion.

He did not miss the point. Our legal definitions of what constitutes a child and what constitutes a fetus put us into a position where a child cannot sue based on what it might have been.

Never mind that every other human being can sue based on what they might have been. Children just don't count, eh?

Fetuses are considered complete domain of the woman, they are hitching a ride within the mother and as such have no right to a free development. It has no legal standing to permit it to bring charges against the mother's behavior while it was in utero.

The fetus has no legal standing. The child does. And it can bring charges regardless of when the action that harmed it was taken.


How long before it turns into "She had miscarriage????? What did she do wrong?"

If she has a miscarriage, there is never any child. Thus, no one can sue for harm.


No, that's exactly the point I got.

Then the comments I replied to didn't make sense.

I know what you're saying, but that doesn't strike me as any sort of logic.
The one way of ensuring you can't be charged or sued would be to kill something. Merely damaging it would be an action you are held accountable for.
Your Savannah case doesn't apply because she is liable whether she kills him or injures him. That is not the case in our fetus/child discussion.

The point is that she wasn't trying to do either - kill him or injure him. That's just what happened.

You asked about a case in which someone was trying to do something that would cause no harm, but ended up actually causing harm. Thus, the two cases are very similar. The woman in Savannah was not trying to cause harm, but she did. And now she is liable for it.

The problem is that people like SE will try to extend the argument we're having into abortion and it's exactly why a child can't sue the mother. He IS the problem.

Fascinating, you have a crystal ball that reads my mind and predicts my future and what I will argue.
All that and I AM the problem? Do we get to make the thread all about me again? I thought we were done with that?

Only if someone builds and artificial wall at birth is there a problem here and it seems only the people with an agenda of redefining person are claiming that wall exists and forgive me if I notice how it just so happens to benefit their agenda. That wall does not exist.

Have we not established that personhood begins at birth?
If that wall does not exist then I need to re-evaluate what is being said here.


No one is claiming that the fetus is NOT a precursor to the person, at least not the people who agree with the current definition of person. It is a precursor and things that affect the fetus affect the person provided the person comes to exist. How anyone can deny that rationally is beyond me.

It's beyond me who you think is denying that, rationally or otherwise.


The only ones who seem to have an issue with what Dem and I are saying are people who have an admitted agenda that has nothing to do with debate but gains from what they are arguing.

Admitted agenda? Alleged agenda is a more truthful statement. But then, everyone has an agenda, even those pushing to maintain the status quo.


So far the only one who has admitted that they were arguing something irrational because it fit their agenda is GnI. If only everyone was so willing.

Amen.

Then the comments I replied to didn't make sense.


There is a point that VO2 has been making for a while, and now I'm using a similar point, although I'm drawing a different conclusion, or at least a different direction to travel from that point.

You don't need to agree with either one of us to see the point, but it does make sense.


You asked about a case in which someone was trying to do something that would cause no harm, but ended up actually causing harm.

No, I was talking about a case where someone was trying to do something that would kill, but ended up actually causing harm.

Cause no harm and kill only become equivalent in the odd landscape of fetal rights and abortion.

There is a point that VO2 has been making for a while, and now I'm using a similar point, although I'm drawing a different conclusion, or at least a different direction to travel from that point.

You don't need to agree with either one of us to see the point, but it does make sense.

No, it doesn't. In no other legal or moral arena do we consider harm to only occur at the instant of an action. If effects from that action continue into the future, we consider the harm to continue as well.

And yet VO's entire argument relies upon harm only being able to occur at the instant of the action committed.

No, I was talking about a case where someone was trying to do something that would kill, but ended up actually causing harm.

Cause no harm and kill only become equivalent in the odd landscape of fetal rights and abortion.

Technically, most abortions don't kill anything other than tissue. Many medical procedures kill tissue.

Of course, once a fetus is a living organism, one couldn't argue that killing it was not harming it. However, a fetus is not a legally recognized human person. As such, killing it is no more an actionable offense than killing most other organisms. And a fetus cannot sue, any more than most organism can. Only once it becomes a legally recognized human person - at birth - does it have recourse to sue.

One of the many things that I see in the abortion debate is the following

Pro-lifer: Abortion is wrong because X, Y and Z
Pro-choicer: Ok thats fine. You believe that but dont force me to abide by your beliefs

The flaw in this argument is that
A: - It assumes the points raised by the pro-lifer are subjective (which is often not the case, but that's not what I am here discussing)
B: - It assumes that government does not have a role in choosing to enforce right and wrong

The fact is the government chooses things that it considers right and wrong and enforces them or not. The idea that if something is wrong we should still be able to choose about it is absurd. Imagine the scenerio where theft is legal because the government has no place enforcing right and wrong. The government is in that place. What it is important to do is to discuss whether or not abortion is objectively wrong or not. Not whether the government has the right to enforce it, that much is a given.


First of all, you sound like you believe that position A is correct right out of the gate, no argument necessary. Abortion is not a black and white issue, it's a gray area in the personal lives of all involved in the situation.

Second, well, you can take the argument of government limiting so called wrongs all the way over the edge if you want. Where do you draw the line between government enforcement and personal freedoms? Also, who amongst the governing body is deciding what is right and wrong? Do the people themselves have a say in this? How do you assure a level playing field in the decision making about what is right and wrong and ensure that one powerful group doesn't drown out a less powerful group?

There are many ethical wrongs that the government doesn't enforce, like the right to listen to rap music that is predominantly about killing other people and selling drugs, or eating yourself to death by way of self imposed obesity. Many among us, including myself, would love to be able to tell fatties to shut their damn pie holes before they get to the point where taxpayers have to take care of their non working asses.....but, does anyone really have a right to physically stop these people from this destructive behaviour? And if the government actually did have the right to physically stop this behaviour, just what kind of country would we really be living in? Certainly not one that I would consider to be free.

The introduction of this law effectively makes not the harming of the fetus, but giving birth to deformed children illegal. .

It does no such thing. It makes it illegal to cause a deformed child to be born by gross negligence. It's not to stop reasonable action, it's to stop unreasonable action. Only by arguhing a slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy, can anyone really make any kind of argument against it.

Fascinating, you have a crystal ball that reads my mind and predicts my future and what I will argue.

Will? Did. You did argue it. You start with your conclusion in hand ask us to accept as an argument for your conclusion.

All that and I AM the problem? Do we get to make the thread all about me again? I thought we were done with that?

You ARE the problem. GnI rightly pointed out that people would use this argument that we're making to attempt to extend personhood to the fetus. You proved him right and he's right it's a problem.

Note: You and I happen to agree on the definition of personhood (or close to it), however, as personhood undeniably exists at the time we are suggesting redress, it's not germaine to the point. The fact that people keep trying to act is if it is, proves GnI is correct that people can't see the obvious a reasonable line between the point when personhood begins and the crux of this argument.

Have we not established that personhood begins at birth?
If that wall does not exist then I need to re-evaluate what is being said here.

No, we haven't established that personhood begins at birth. It's not germaine to the point. The point is whenever personhood begins (and we're assuming it is sometime in the latter stages of pregnancy or at birth) that is when the ability for recourse for injury begins. Prior to that, there is no recourse and thus abortion and redress for gross negligence are not related.


It's beyond me who you think is denying that, rationally or otherwise.

VO is arguing that fetus is harmed but the person is not. It draws a wall of seperation that does not exist. The fetus is the precursor to the person. If the person is not injured when the fetus is injured it can only be if the harm was somehow redressed. Otherwise, it's clear that the harm would travel to the person. VO has been arguing otherwise.


Admitted agenda? Alleged agenda is a more truthful statement. But then, everyone has an agenda, even those pushing to maintain the status quo.

You didn't admit you wish to redefine personhood to earlier in the pregnancy? GnI didn't admit his agenda? VO2 didn't admit his? There is nothing alleged when you state it. Shall I quote you?


Amen.

Quick, what's my agenda other than the law we are arguing about? I'd be interested in hearing it. You imply that I have one that is influencing what I'm arguing. May I hear it.

There is good reason for that. How would you define a "proper" case.

How long before it turns into "She had miscarriage????? What did she do wrong?"

Yes, because that's what's happened in all other cases where we deal with gross negligence, right? Again, everyone keeps arguing the slippery slope but we have precedent and it hasn't happened. People are already liable for gross negligence with little probelm. As I've asked everyone else in this argument and NO ONE has been able to answer, what is different about the pregnant mother that it MUST go down the slippery slope when none other do? Keep in mind that it's counterintuitive. Pregnant women have the best excuse for not being able to reasonably avoid harm as, which has been also pointed out several times, they are suck with the fetus. It can't be handed off like other parental situations.

Is that in the drug situtation?

What about miscarriages? Man-slaughter?

There is not a person. That's the point. When a child is born there is a person. In the case of miscarriage there is no person. We aren't redefining people. We are simply protecting existing people from harm even if that protecting requires preventing gross negligence prior to the birth of that person.

Who's trying to make it applicable to a majority of abortions?
Are you simply making up positions to argue against now?




It's a problem I'm observing and making note of. You are free to deny it is a problem, or, you can cast aspersions on me personally again, whatever floats your boat.

We're talking about your argument. How about you do that as well? Glad, that's settled.


Yes, that argument has been made quite clear.
If there is no person until birth, then no person has been damaged by the killing.

Right. You want to make this about abortion. It's not. They aren't related.


None of that captures my argument at all.

You appear to have a great deal of difficulty expressing yourself. Now, of course, it could be my problem, but since you haven't explained HOW I mischaracterized your argument or what you were actually trying to say, we have no way of knowing that now do we. Look very familiar. Hopefully, we don't have to make the entire thread about that again, and you can simply more clearly state your position. Because I essentially directly reworded your claim.

Meanwhile, as per usual, you managed to tell me how I didn't properly understand your point without actually stating your point. In fact, it appears you managed an entire post without really making a point. But yes, it must just be me. There was no one else pointing out the exact same thing I was complaining about.

Now, what was it I was complaining about earlier? Oh, it was complaining someone mischaracterized your argument but you were unwilling to state that position for clarity. Look familiar. Oh, that's right, you did twice in this very post. How useful.

If I'd actually done any of that, I'd probably respond with something like, "Why not? You've skipped the entire debate by insisting that the fetus is not a person, asserting that abortion therefore can't be killing anyone"

We didn't skip it. We're simply not talking about it. If it becomes a person then the law I'm arguing for is a non-question.

But, since I never said any such thing, I'll just move on and ignore your remarks as you begin to teeter back into the personal attacks.

Ha. I only commented on your argument. That you take that personally is not my fault. In fact, it appears you've managed to completely avoid stating what's wrong with what I said at all. This looks very similar to your mosud operandi. "You're wrong, but I'm not going to tell you what I actually meant."


Sure, so noted. I don't really care how many abortions are carried out when and who wants them or who performs them, it has nothing to do with anything we're discussing.
I would add though, if 3rd trimester abortions are already illegal, then there should be no reason not to extend rights and person status at the 3rd trimester.
I actually believe they should be considered a person, but there are plenty of reasons not to extend personhood to the fetus at that point. Person has a definition. If one doesn't believe that a late-term fetus is a person, why should they say it is just because you want them to?

One of the many things that I see in the abortion debate is the following

Pro-lifer: Abortion is wrong because X, Y and Z
Pro-choicer: Ok thats fine. You believe that but dont force me to abide by your beliefs

The flaw in this argument is that

The flaw in this argument (which I'm sure someone's raised in 40-odd pages already) is that the pro-lifer has only had to say "X, Y and Z". What actually ARE the arguments? No, don't bother: I know we've heard them all before, hundreds of times. But it's interesting the way Adriatica II chose to put this. Pro-lifers have 'X, Y and Z' while pro-choicers have only "don't force me to abide by your beliefs". Is that really the way you see it?

The fact is that 'pro-lifers' and 'pro-choicers' (or 'people against or in favour of abortion' as I like to call them, because it's less fatuous) BOTH have 'X, Y and Z' - not to mention A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and so on. The only problem is that they won't recognise even the validity (which isn't to say they truth) of each other's arguments. As in this case, we've evidently got a pro-lifer who genuinely doesn't seem to realise that there can be arguments in favour of abortion.

So the entire premise of the thread - or at least the original post - is flawed.

What it is important to do is to discuss whether or not abortion is objectively wrong or not. Not whether the government has the right to enforce it, that much is a given.

That IS a given, and that is as far as it goes. Regardless of what others might already have said (I freely admit I haven't read the whole thread), there is no 'objectively wrong', nor 'objectively right'. Right and wrong are determined solely by human society. What is wrong to us might have been quite acceptable to societies in times gone by. Take slavery, for example, assuming no-one's mentioned it: we consider it abhorrent - but only a few hundred years ago it was perfectly natural. Now, it might be argued that in fact it was wrong all along and we just didn't realise it - but that's just wishful thinking.

No, it doesn't. In no other legal or moral arena do we consider harm to only occur at the instant of an action. If effects from that action continue into the future, we consider the harm to continue as well.

And yet VO's entire argument relies upon harm only being able to occur at the instant of the action committed.



No, VO2's argument relies on harm occuring before rights are extended. It relies on the harm happening while the harm can only happen to the tissue that that is in the woman's body and fully uder her control and rights.


Technically, most abortions don't kill anything other than tissue. Many medical procedures kill tissue.


That's not a "technical" description, it's an opinion that the life growing and developing is nothing other than tissue.

Technically, I can kill all of your tissue and say the same thing, I didn't kill anything other than tissue.
Except that we consider the sum total of your flesh a person and killing all of your tissue to be criminal.


Of course, once a fetus is a living organism, one couldn't argue that killing it was not harming it. However, a fetus is not a legally recognized human person. As such, killing it is no more an actionable offense than killing most other organisms. And a fetus cannot sue, any more than most organism can. Only once it becomes a legally recognized human person - at birth - does it have recourse to sue.

Right.
Understood, but again, that has given the right to outright kill the tissue without liabilty, but any other negative interaction with the tissue is actionable.

Morality is supposed to have no effect on government decision. Ideally, a government decision is based solely on the effect it will have on society. Right and wrong are irrelevant, the only thing that matters is what's best for society.

No, VO2's argument relies on harm occuring before rights are extended.

And the only way he can say that harm only occurs before rights are extended is to state that harm can only possibly occur at the time of the action, ignoring the harm the child suffers from developmental defects for the rest of his life.

It relies on the harm happening while the harm can only happen to the tissue that that is in the woman's body and fully uder her control and rights.

And, once again, ignores the harm that occurs to the child through developmental defects. The developmental problems don't just stop at birth. They continue throughout development. Unless VO is willing to argue that harm can only take place at the moment of action, then his "harm only occurs to the fetus" argument is illogical.

That's not a "technical" description, it's an opinion that the life growing and developing is nothing other than tissue.

No, it is a technical description. I don't believe that the embryo/early fetus is "nothing" more than tissue. However, from a scientific and medical standpoint, that is what it is. It does not yet meet the requirements to be deemed an organism, so it isn't, in and of itself, a life. Each individual cell is alive, like cells in a petri dish, but they do not combine to make an entire life - not until the requirements therein are met.

Technically, I can kill all of your tissue and say the same thing, I didn't kill anything other than tissue.

No, you couldn't. I meet the requirements to be deemed an organism. As such, if you killed all of my tissue, you would have also killed an organism. (me)

Right.
Understood, but again, that has given the right to outright kill the tissue without liabilty, but any other negative interaction with the tissue is actionable.

Not "any other negative interaction." Only that interaction which is known to have caused harm to the born child.

Not "any other negative interaction." Only that interaction which is known to have caused harm to the born child.
Lest this be misinterpreted, you're not talking about any interaction that might cause harm, but interaction that caused harm that could have reasonably been avoided, no?

Jocabia

It is also of note that your claim that the agreement of four posters implies superior rationality is rather specious when we remember that the overwhelming majority of legal precedent, women's advocate groups, and medical associations disagree with you.

I wanted to touch on this again, because I want to be clear. I don't think your conclusion is irrational nor do I think your entire argument is irrational. When I say I suspect you don't actually believe what you're saying, I am not talking about the conclusion. The conclusion is just an opinion, and in this case, a laudable one. I understand wanting to protect the mother from becoming an incubator without rights while she's pregnant. I think we need to be vigilant at preventing that from happening.

The part I don't think is rational is claiming that harm to to a fetus doesn't translate to harm to a child. If one damaged the parts that would later become a gun and no damaged gun resulted, one of three things happened. One, the parts were repaired before the gun came into being. Two, the damage to the parts did not actually affect the gun in any way. Three, the parts never became a gun. There is no fourth "damage to the parts doesn't count" argument. A fetus becomes a child and you admit there is 'malformation' in the child as a result of the gross negligence. The whole damage argument is just a game because you wanted your conclusion to be right. I don't believe you actually held your argument to be true. What evidence do I have? Well, there is the whole fact that you abandoned it as soon as you found a better argument. Hmmmm... could that be an indicator that you notice the flaw as well? It doesn't have to be, but I'd like to believe it is. Otherwise, you become a guy that was seriously arguing that malformation doesn't count as harm by building a wall between a being and its precursor.

I hope that's clear. My beef with what you were saying is the damage to the fetus isn't damage to the child argument. And legal precedent is definitely on my side. You can claim all you like that when one sues a pharmaceutical company for in utero damage that it is the mother suing, but if you look at the cases it is the child that receives the compensation. It is not the child suing on behalf of the mother, but the mother suing on behalf of the child.

'There is no slippery slope'...?

"New federal guidelines ask all females capable of conceiving a baby to treat themselves -- and to be treated by the health care system -- as pre-pregnant, regardless of whether they plan to get pregnant anytime soon.

Among other things, this means all women between first menstrual period and menopause should take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875_pf.html

'There is no slippery slope'...?



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875_pf.html

I'm not saying people won't try. They try in every aspect of life. It's a constant battle and no one is arguing it's not. The point is that they aren't winning. They haven't succeeded in extending gross negligence claims any further because at some level some judge sees the same thing you're seeing. People will always try to break the law even those that make it. We'll always be here to stop them. However, we can't deny protection to children because we're afraid of them. When we allow them to cause others to suffer, be it pregnant mothers or children born malformed because we're afraid to address it, they win. That's not some slippery slope analysis, it's a description of what is actually occurring currently.

There are also people who wish to legally be permitted to get abortions up until birth, the slippery slope argued by the anti-choice people, does that make their slippery slope argument correct? No. It doesn't. Because in a slippery slope we don't just have to have people trying to do something. In a slippery slope, it has to work.

EDIT: For the record, I see nothing in that article that does anything more than recommend. Recommending and requiring are much different animals. This is the same government that promotes abstinence-only education. They aren't attacking women. They're attacking sex. We all know what this is about. And the key is that they can recommend things without it becoming a legal issue, but the moment they pass laws, the judges get to see the cases and therein lies the wall they haven't yet gotten past.

I'm not saying people won't try. They try in every aspect of life. It's a constant battle and no one is arguing it's not. The point is that they aren't winning. They haven't succeeded in extending gross negligence claims any further because at some level some judge sees the same thing you're seeing. People will always try to break the law even those that make it. We'll always be here to stop them. However, we can't deny protection to children because we're afraid of them. When we allow them to cause others to suffer, be it pregnant mothers or children born malformed because we're afraid to address it, they win. That's not some slippery slope analysis, it's a description of what is actually occurring currently.

There are also people who wish to legally be permitted to get abortions up until birth, the slippery slope argued by the anti-choice people, does that make their slippery slope argument correct? No. It doesn't. Because in a slippery slope we don't just have to have people trying to do something. In a slippery slope, it has to work.

It's a matter of zeitgeist. This rightwing fundamentalism IS the slippery slope.

40 years ago, zeitgeist legalised abortion. The 'slope' was a trend towards liberty. Today, the 'slope' is regulatory and anti-permissive. It is rightwing and pro-religious fundamentalism.

Another interesting thing is that abortion is usually portrayed as a "women's right". What about the rights of unborn human? So women can not kill people whom they dont want/like but they can kill unborn people?
Besides she can always use a morning after pill if she wasnt protected. No need to kill the baby.
You do realize that medically the woman's own body tries to kill the Fetus. It is NOTHING more than a parisite hyjacking the woman's body.
If the fetus can not defend it's self in-utero then it will die by the mother's own immune system.
In fact, many doctors beleive that is the most common natural cause of miscarrages within the first trimester.
As cold as it seems a child is a parisite any way you medically look at it.

Lest this be misinterpreted, you're not talking about any interaction that might cause harm, but interaction that caused harm that could have reasonably been avoided, no?

Yeah, I tried to cover that with the "action that is known to...." but it might not have been clear. I'm not talking about a woman tripping and falling here. I'm talking about a willful action that she knows can cause harm - one that she does not have to partake of (ie. drinking).

It's a matter of zeitgeist. This rightwing fundamentalism IS the slippery slope.

40 years ago, zeitgeist legalised abortion. The 'slope' was a trend towards liberty. Today, the 'slope' is regulatory and anti-permissive. It is rightwing and pro-religious fundamentalism.

And we should fight that, but we shouldn't do it at the expense of children's health. You're right. We have a problem. A big one. But here's the kicker. Look at history. THEY have always been the problem and WE have always been the solution. Their trends are always short-lived. If history has any bearing, we win.

The reason why MLK was successful when the panthers weren't is because when we stick by the principles we are fighting for, we win. Going down the wrong road for the right reasons has never gotten the job done. We have to do the hard work. We have to have the commitment. And, most of all, we have to not just let easily preventable attrocities occur simply because it's the easy and less scary route.

Rational disassembly of their agenda is the only thing that has ever worked in the long-term and we've been doing it successfully for 200 years.

And we should fight that, but we shouldn't do it at the expense of children's health. You're right. We have a problem. A big one. But here's the kicker. Look at history. THEY have always been the problem and WE have always been the solution. Their trends are always short-lived. If history has any bearing, we win.

The reason why MLK was successful when the panthers weren't is because when we stick by the principles we are fighting for, we win. Going down the wrong road for the right reasons has never gotten the job done. We have to do the hard work. We have to have the commitment. And, most of all, we have to not just let easily preventable attrocities occur simply because it's the easy and less scary route.

I wish I believed it... but it's just not true. 'Their' trends are NOT short-lived... they are next-to eternal. How long has there been an American nation? And - for how much of that has woman had a LEGAL right to abortion? Societies have a tendecy to limit freedoms - it takes a practical revolution to reverse that trend. Study the history of the US, and you see an almost uninterrupted downward trend in liberty... with just a few bright blips on the downward spiral.

I wish I believed it... but it's just not true. 'Their' trends are NOT short-lived... they are next-to eternal. How long has there been an American nation? And - for how much of that has woman had a LEGAL right to abortion? Societies have a tendecy to limit freedoms - it takes a practical revolution to reverse that trend. Study the history of the US, and you see an almost uninterrupted downward trend in liberty... with just a few bright blips on the downward spiral.

For how long have black people had the right to vote? Women? Civil rights?

Look at the world trend. Freedoms aren't becoming more limited. And the 200-year trend in the US is toward more freedom not less. Show me any freedom that has become more and more restricted as the US has grown.

Are you actually claiming that the majority of people in the US were more free 200 years ago? 150? 50 years ago?

EDIT: Well, drugs. But that's a trend that has a very short history, isn't about legislating morality (it's about money) and is dying as we speak.

I wish I believed it... but it's just not true. 'Their' trends are NOT short-lived... they are next-to eternal. How long has there been an American nation? And - for how much of that has woman had a LEGAL right to abortion?

The vast majority of the history of the nation, actually. There were only 3-5 decades in which there were laws present against abortions. Up until medical (ie. safe) abortions became available, old English common law was followed - and abortions were allowed up until the time of the quickening (when the mother began to feel movement). They were certainly looked down upon, but were generally not illegal. Midwives were usually contacted to carry them out.

The vast majority of the history of the nation, actually. There were only 3-5 decades in which there were laws present against abortions. Up until medical (ie. safe) abortions became available, old English common law was followed - and abortions were allowed up until the time of the quickening (when the mother began to feel movement). They were certainly looked down upon, but were generally not illegal. Midwives were usually contacted to carry them out.

Yes, basically they got upset when women stopped having to risk death. Apparently, it's only murder if you're not likely to die from the procedure.

The vast majority of the history of the nation, actually. There were only 3-5 decades in which there were laws present against abortions. Up until medical (ie. safe) abortions became available, old English common law was followed - and abortions were allowed up until the time of the quickening (when the mother began to feel movement). They were certainly looked down upon, but were generally not illegal. Midwives were usually contacted to carry them out.

It's not the same as a 'legal right'. If I'm the only person on a deserted island I have all kinds of freedoms, but no actual 'rights'.

It's not the same as a 'legal right'. If I'm the only person on a deserted island I have all kinds of freedoms, but no actual 'rights'.

The legal right was always there, however. It was infringed upon for a span of a few decades. Up until then, the fact that a woman could decide to abort was recognized in the law - albeit by common law, rather than by codified law.

We aren't talking about a deserted island here. We are talking about legality in the USA. And abortion was legal for most of that history - always in a limited sense, of course.

For how long have black people had the right to vote? Women? Civil rights?

Look at the world trend. Freedoms aren't becoming more limited. And the 200-year trend in the US is toward more freedom not less. Show me any freedom that has become more and more restricted as the US has grown.

Are you actually claiming that the majority of people in the US were more free 200 years ago? 150? 50 years ago?

EDIT: Well, drugs. But that's a trend that has a very short history, isn't about legislating morality (it's about money) and is dying as we speak.

Actually, drugs and guns were the items at the forefront of my mind. Is the 'war on drugs' dying? I've seen no evidence to suggest it - quite the opposite if anything - with tobacco and alcohol slowly becoming drawn in to the same 'illegal' category...

It's not the same as a 'legal right'. If I'm the only person on a deserted island I have all kinds of freedoms, but no actual 'rights'.

Yes, but now they do have the legal right. That's the point. Again, can you point to these trends please? All my review of the situation seems like the trend is this, people like us choose a social issue to defend, a freedom. They notice we're fighting for it and they try to pass more oppressive laws. They succeed for a bit and people get beaten up and thrown in jail and whatnot. And then we win. Look at every major freedom landmark in the country and you'll see that exact trend. We win.

When this country started only a small group of people had most of the rights we all now enjoy and only one group had any rights at all. Religious freedom was sketchy. Women had virtually no rights. Minorities (at least those with brown skin) have virtually no rights. Now, women can own property. Women can vote. Divorce is legal. We address domestic violence with better and better methods. Women are educated. Women work, can hold offices, can become CEOs. Black people can vote. Black people have civil rights. We no longer have seperate but equal. Black people are educated. Interracial marriage is allowed. Black people can work, hold offices, become CEOs.

I don't know what trends you're looking at, but it seems to me like freedom isn't in any danger in this country that we haven't seen and defeated before.

Actually, drugs and guns were the items at the forefront of my mind. Is the 'war on drugs' dying? I've seen no evidence to suggest it - quite the opposite if anything - with tobacco and alcohol slowly becoming drawn in to the same 'illegal' category...

Really? So you haven't seen a number of states passing laws that allow marijuana? Yes, the federal government claims not to recognize them, but I know people who openly use medical marijuana and even some people who get it from the government. That war is a dying war.

As far as alcohol and tobacco, tobacco is only sanctioned in as much as it affects others. You are permitted to smoke where people aren't forced to 'enjoy' it against their will. And again, you are talking about a fairly new trend.

Alcohol has not been sanctioned at all that I've seen and it appears to me that the number of dry counties is decreasing and I see the 'not on Sunday' laws being lifted across the country.

The advertising limits are stupid, but you can't really argued that the actual usage has been affected at all.

As far as guns, that's a tricky subject. At the inception of this country it took like a minute to reload a gun. Now, we can carry a weapon in our jackets that could kill a hundred people before anyone could react to it. Comparing the gun liberties of 200 years ago to now is virtually impossible. It's like comparing email to snail mail. They may be loosely related, but they aren't really the same at all.

EDIT: By the way, the two trends you noted are not trends championed by the right wing or religious fundamentalists. Anti-Gun and anti-big tobacco tends to be a left-wing argument. I would like to see where the religious fundamentalists are winning in making things more restrictive, because I have yet to see it.

You do realize that medically the woman's own body tries to kill the Fetus. It is NOTHING more than a parisite hyjacking the woman's body.
If the fetus can not defend it's self in-utero then it will die by the mother's own immune system.
In fact, many doctors beleive that is the most common natural cause of miscarrages within the first trimester.
As cold as it seems a child is a parisite any way you medically look at it.
Medically probably not, but without said (possible) parasite we stop existing as a race. Also it’s not a foreign creature; it was created and nurtured by the body that willingly gives it nutrients.

Medically probably not, but without said (possible) parasite we stop existing as a race. Also it’s not a foreign creature; it was created and nurtured by the body that willingly gives it nutrients.

And if there was any danger that the human race was dying out, I might worry that allowing people to choose to have children isn't enough. As it is, the only trends I know of are places where births have to be limited to control population. Last I checked the world population was growing. I think if you're going to use survival as a species as an argument there has to be some indication that this is actual something we need to worry about.

I apologize for this long post, but this is a complicated issue, and I want to present these points in total, not piecemeal in response to many other posts. -- M.

http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/articles/1992stat.htm#SWOO

Here is the reason why I changed my mind on this issue.

My original stance was an emotional reaction, and taking a look at the public policy statements at the bottom brought be around to what I think is the best course of action.
American Medical Association - "Criminal sanctions or civil liability for harmful behavior by the pregnant woman toward her fetus are inappropriate... Therefore be it... resolved that the AMA oppose legislation which criminalizes maternal drug addiction.. ." American Medical Association Board of Trustees Report, Legal Interventions During Pregnancy,
264 J.A.M.A. 2663 (1990).
Center for the Future of Children - "A woman who uses illegal drugs during pregnancy should not be subject to special criminal prosecution on the basis of allegations that her illegal drug use harms the fetus. Nor should states adopt special civil commitment provisions for pregnant women who use drugs." Center for the Future of Children, Recommendations, 1 The Future of Children 8 (1991).
Also, there are quite a few court cases listed that set precedent that a woman is not liable for negligence or child endangerment in the case of drug use.
I'm glad you posted these, but I think you are missing a fine line of distinction. These quotes, and the current laws, are NOT actually saying that a woman cannot be considered to have committed actionable negligence during her pregnancy.

What they ARE in fact saying is that THE STATE cannot criminalize for pregnant women behaviors that would otherwise be legal for any non-pregnant person, and that the state specifically cannot do so on the claim/assumption that it is preventing negligence.

The quotes say absolutely nothing about what the woman's child may later choose to do on its own, after it is born. They are only calling for limitations on the state's power to try to prevent negligence. What we are talking about here is who has a right to pass judgment on what a woman does during her pregnancy? These quotes are saying that THE STATE should not have that right. They do not say that nobody should have it.

So why would we allow a private citizen (the born child) to sue for negligence that society (the state) chose not to try to prevent?

Consider it this way:

A) Someone -- a person, i.e. a "legal person" who has both the ability and the legal right and standing to make decisions, commitments, changes of plans, etc -- must be responsible for controlling how a pregnancy goes -- i.e. whether it is aborted or carried, what kind of pre-natal care to take, what kind of birthing procedure to use, what kind of medications/medical treatments to take or refuse, what kind of risks to run or avoid, etc, etc. The sources you quote here support my position, i.e. the only legal person who should be allowed to make such decisions about pregnancy is the pregnant woman herself. She and she alone has both the ability and the standing to make such decisions, and therefore she and she alone should have the legal right to do so. This legal right to make controlling decisions must consist of BOTH responsibility for the decisions AND authority over them.

What does this mean? It means simply that society must trust the judgment of the pregnant woman. No one else gets to tell her how to run her own pregnancy. Period.

B) But this DOES NOT absolve her of responsibility or accountability for the outcome of her decisions, nor does it absolve her of the responsibility to make the decisions in the first place. If she makes bad decisions or fails to make decisions at all, and if, and only if, actual harm to a born child results directly from her negligence/failure, then THE CHILD may have a right to seek redress or other remedy for the harmful results of her negligence/failure. The state may not take such action, either before or after the fact, because the state has not been harmed by her negligence/failure. Only one person has been harmed by it, and that is the born child. And that is why the child (an affected person) may have a right that neither the fetus (not a person) nor the state (not affected) can have.

C) So if the child did not exist at the time the harm was done, and if the fetus is not a legal person and so has no standing to bring a legal action to protect itself from the woman's decisions or lack thereof, then what really is being harmed? What is it that the child can sue over? And if a woman cannot be punished for doing something NOW, why should anyone have a right to punish her for it LATER?

Because, in cases/scenarios such as we are discussing here, the human body is being treated, legally, as if it is property. In this context, pregnancy is a process by which a human body is built. During the pregnancy, the woman (as the plant owner, if you will) has control over the process of building the body. Through most of that process, nobody is using the body; it is not functional and cannot support life itself. The woman may do with it as she pleases until the third trimester. It is presumed that at some point during the 3rd trimester, the owner/operator (if you will) of that body will move into it. But even then, the woman still controls the process, as long as the process is ongoing -- she may still authorize an abortion if it becomes necessary to do so. The eventual owner/operator of the body (the child) will take full ownership of the body upon birth, and the woman will relinquish her control to it at that time (upon delivery, as a matter of fact (with babies just as with everything else)).

So, if the woman is negligent during her pregnancy, what has her negligence actually caused? It has harmed the body the child was given to live in. In other words, she produced a defective product. If a car manufacturer, through negligence, produces a car with a faulty engine that catches fire when you start it up, you have the right to seek a remedy against the manufacturer for your expenses and for any injuries you may suffer as result of the defective functioning of that car -- but only if you can show that your losses/injuries were directly caused by the manufacturer's negligence. You accuse the manufacturer of negligence, so you have the burden of proving that there was negligence. But even if this stacks the odds against you, you still have the right to sue for damage that was done to a car long before you ever got the use of it.

The same with a child's right to sue its own mother, or a doctor, or a drug company, for damage done NOT TO IT AS A PERSON, BUT TO ITS BODY, while it was in utero. In the case of seeking action against the mother, the child would have to prove negligence, meaning that it would have to prove that a reasonable person could have been expected to know better than to do what she chose to do.

(BTW, the "reasonable person" standard is ubiquitous in law, especially civil law, where it is the universal standard for drawing the lines by which we prove that a responsible party failed to fulfill their responsibilities. You see this and similar phrases in hundreds of different kinds of legal agreements.)

BUT ONCE AGAIN, if a child can punish its mother for negligence after the fact, why can't society take action to prevent negligence before the fact?

Very simply, because it is before the fact. You cannot punish someone for something they haven't done yet, nor can you hold someone accountable for something that hasn't happened yet. The woman has both the right and the authority to make decisions about her pregnancy. You cannot second guess her decisions before there is any proof that they will have bad consequences of any kind. That's all there is to it.

This is what I meant when I said to you several pages ago that we can't have everything the way we'd like and can't save everyone we wish we could save. We cannot avoid all risks, and in the case of pregnancy, we must accept the risks inherent in trusting someone's judgment, i.e. the pregnant woman's.

<snip>
The same sort of logic would apply here. If an abortion was attempted, but somehow failed and a child was born - and was harmed, the child would have access to legal recourse.
Actually, I think the people a born child could take action against would be limited by the circumstances of the failed abortion.

If a woman seeks a legal elective abortion, and it fails, and she either doesn't realize it until too late, or she decides not to try again, then the child born with a damaged body might have an action against THE DOCTOR for malpractice but not against THE WOMAN, because the woman was completely within both her rights and her responsibilities in making those decisions.

But if the damage was caused by a failed abortion that was not legal -- i.e. too late for an elective abortion -- then the child may be able to seek action against the woman for failing in her responsibilities.

However, if a failed abortion was deemed medically necessary at the time it was attempted, then, again, the doctor might be liable for malpractice, but the woman would not be liable for anything for authorizing the attempt.

'There is no slippery slope'...?
"New federal guidelines ask all females capable of conceiving a baby to treat themselves -- and to be treated by the health care system -- as pre-pregnant, regardless of whether they plan to get pregnant anytime soon.

Among other things, this means all women between first menstrual period and menopause should take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875_pf.html
Jocabia, what makes this a "slippery slope" situation is the concept of treating fertile women as "pre-pregnant" and wanting to gear all their health care decisions around the expectation of pregnancy, whether they are trying for one or not.

You are right that, in the form quoted, this is nothing more than a recommendation, but GnI is also right is saying it is evidence of a slippery slope. Regardless of what women may choose to do, if the health care system (doctors, hospitals, insurers) were to take up these recommendations, the practical effect would be to refocus women's health care AWAY from protecting women for their own sake and TOWARDS protecting women as functional incubators. It would create medical discouragement for any activity by a fertile woman that would tend to harm her fertility -- things such as being a competitive athlete, the intense training for which commonly suppresses the menstrual cycle.

You'll notice that these recommendations do not say women should avoid smoking and should control their asthma and diabetes for their own sakes, so they may live long and happy lives in which they will be free to do as they please. No, it says women should do this in order not to interfere with their ability to produce babies.

The recommendation does not have to become law in order to undermine women's rights. If it is adopted by enough people in the health care system, it will have the same effect -- and be even harder to undo, as it will come from the attitudes of individuals not from the process of a law that could be challenged.

Jocabia, what makes this a "slippery slope" situation is the concept of treating fertile women as "pre-pregnant" and wanting to gear all their health care decisions around the expectation of pregnancy, whether they are trying for one or not.

You are right that, in the form quoted, this is nothing more than a recommendation, but GnI is also right is saying it is evidence of a slippery slope. Regardless of what women may choose to do, if the health care system (doctors, hospitals, insurers) were to take up these recommendations, the practical effect would be to refocus women's health care AWAY from protecting women for their own sake and TOWARDS protecting women as functional incubators. It would create medical discouragement for any activity by a fertile woman that would tend to harm her fertility -- things such as being a competitive athlete, the intense training for which commonly suppresses the menstrual cycle.

You'll notice that these recommendations do not say women should avoid smoking and should control their asthma and diabetes for their own sakes, so they may live long and happy lives in which they will be free to do as they please. No, it says women should do this in order not to interfere with their ability to produce babies.

The recommendation does not have to become law in order to undermine women's rights. If it is adopted by enough people in the health care system, it will have the same effect -- and be even harder to undo, as it will come from the attitudes of individuals not from the process of a law that could be challenged.

I don't disagree with him that the religious right does actively seek to travel down the slope. The point is they will fail and have failed. It doesn't excuse us from the responsibility of protecting children nor does it excuse the fact that we give pregnant women to damage children due to gross negligence when no other parent at no other stage is afforded such a 'right'.

I won't sacrifice children to fear of a slippery slope that is equally available in every other case of gross negligence and has equally been tested.

And the only way he can say that harm only occurs before rights are extended is to state that harm can only possibly occur at the time of the action, ignoring the harm the child suffers from developmental defects for the rest of his life.

And, once again, ignores the harm that occurs to the child through developmental defects. The developmental problems don't just stop at birth. They continue throughout development. Unless VO is willing to argue that harm can only take place at the moment of action, then his "harm only occurs to the fetus" argument is illogical.



I think perhaps it's the usage of harm that might be getting in the way. I believe that VO2 is using harm to be what occurs when the actions that cause the damge occur. It may be an instant, it may be prolonged, but he is differentiating between the actions that harm and the long term effects.

Much like a person might strike a person with a stick for a period of 5 minutes, then, they stop "harming" the victim. The effects of that 5 minutes of being harmed may be long lasting, they may even be permanent, but the period of being harmed was 5 minutes.

I realise though that you making your point that regardless of when the harm occurred, the offender is culpable for the effects. In all other cases, your point is exceedingly obvious, except that in this case, it is clouded by the fact that we have an entity without rights under the complete control of someone else, including life and death.


No, it is a technical description. I don't believe that the embryo/early fetus is "nothing" more than tissue. However, from a scientific and medical standpoint, that is what it is. It does not yet meet the requirements to be deemed an organism, so it isn't, in and of itself, a life. Each individual cell is alive, like cells in a petri dish, but they do not combine to make an entire life - not until the requirements therein are met.


No, not really.
Who started this idea of it not being deemed an organism anyway?
Biological definitions of how we classify things would include an option for the trait to either exist, to have existed, or will develop and exist.

Much like the definition of mammal that includes hair and the porpoise, which is hairless when developed, has hair early on but loses it. It's still a mammal after it loses all hair.

The definition of organism isn't a measure of when something becomes an organism, it's a measure of which things are or aren't organisms.
Humans qualify.



Not "any other negative interaction." Only that interaction which is known to have caused harm to the born child.

Right, agreed and understood.

I don't disagree with him that the religious right does actively seek to travel down the slope. The point is they will fail and have failed. It doesn't excuse us from the responsibility of protecting children nor does it excuse the fact that we give pregnant women to damage children due to gross negligence when no other parent at no other stage is afforded such a 'right'.

I won't sacrifice children to fear of a slippery slope that is equally available in every other case of gross negligence and has equally been tested.

Other than possibly being slightly apart on where on the slope it's appropriate to stop, I fully agree with this.

I don't disagree with him that the religious right does actively seek to travel down the slope. The point is they will fail and have failed. It doesn't excuse us from the responsibility of protecting children nor does it excuse the fact that we give pregnant women to damage children due to gross negligence when no other parent at no other stage is afforded such a 'right'.

I won't sacrifice children to fear of a slippery slope that is equally available in every other case of gross negligence and has equally been tested.
Well, unfortunately, I will have to disagree with you on the issue of preventative laws or regulations. I base this on my argument, outlined a few posts previous, that because of the way pregnancy works, society has no ethical choice but to trust the judgment of the pregnant woman in running her own pregnancy. We have unlimited options to educate women as to what the right decisions are and to ecourage and help them to make the right decisions, but we cannot take away their ultimate power to decide.

Plus, there is the issue of punishing a woman (in this case by limiting her right to control her own pregnancy) before we can know that her decisions have resulted in harm to anyone. As I said also in that earlier post, we can't punish people for things they haven't done yet, and we can't hold them accountable for things that haven't happened yet. If we try to do so with pregnant women, then, as my support of GnI's slippery slope argument shows, I think we would be making the pregnancy more important than the woman.

GnI's slippery slope argument is valid because it is inevitable that anti-choice people will use fetal-harm prohibitions to undermine the right to abortion and possibly even certain contraceptives. You yourself admit this. As I have said to VO2 earlier in this thread, why should we create laws that would give such ammunition to our enemies, when we have other approaches available to us (i.e. aggressive pregnancy education and progressive social programs to help addicts (carrots), as well as remedial laws in case there is still negligence (stick))?

The definition of organism isn't a measure of when something becomes an organism, it's a measure of which things are or aren't organisms.
Humans qualify.


Unfortuantely, humans without brain function tend not to.

Unfortuantely, humans without brain function tend not to.


Brain function is not part of the definition of organism.
It may be part of our definition of a living human, but that's a different question/classification.

If a woman seeks a legal elective abortion, and it fails, and she either doesn't realize it until too late, or she decides not to try again, then the child born with a damaged body might have an action against THE DOCTOR for malpractice but not against THE WOMAN, because the woman was completely within both her rights and her responsibilities in making those decisions.

Yes, that is what I meant. If a botched (legal) abortion resulted in a malformed child, the child would have a malpractice suit in the makings. It would seem a little odd, I suppose, but the child could show harm, whereas a proper abortion would not result in a child with such rights.


I think perhaps it's the usage of harm that might be getting in the way. I believe that VO2 is using harm to be what occurs when the actions that cause the damge occur. It may be an instant, it may be prolonged, but he is differentiating between the actions that harm and the long term effects.

...which is pretty much exactly what I said.

I make no such differentiation. If there are long-term developmental effects, then the harm is still continuing.

Much like a person might strike a person with a stick for a period of 5 minutes, then, they stop "harming" the victim. The effects of that 5 minutes of being harmed may be long lasting, they may even be permanent, but the period of being harmed was 5 minutes.

It's really more like poisoning someone. The poison itself may only be in their body for a period of minutes or hours. Thus, according to VO, the harm would stop at minutes or hours. However, many poisons can set up processes of harm which lead to liver damage, kidney failure, etc. well after the poison itself is out of the system. I would claim that these processes are still harm.

No, not really.
Who started this idea of it not being deemed an organism anyway?

Those who looked at the biological definition of life.

Biological definitions of how we classify things would include an option for the trait to either exist, to have existed, or will develop and exist.

We can never know "will develop and exist." Thus, a definition cannot be dependent on "maybes".

Much like the definition of mammal that includes hair and the porpoise, which is hairless when developed, has hair early on but loses it. It's still a mammal after it loses all hair.

In truth, the definition of mammal doesn't include having hair. Having hair, at some point, is a descriptor of nearly all mammals. However, it is the relationships between different species that classify them all as mammals, even those who go outside of the "norm", like platypuses laying eggs.

The definition of organism isn't a measure of when something becomes an organism, it's a measure of which things are or aren't organisms.

Indeed. And only those things which meet the definition can qualify. This means that, at some point, something may not be an organism, and at another, may be one. We could look at any given entity and try and apply the definition and see if it works. Rocks? Doesn't work. Trees? Does work. Embryos/early fetuses? Doesn't hold. The last trait they gain which is necessary is the ability to sense and respond to stimuli - which doesn't come until a rudimentary nervous system is in place.

Humans qualify.

Indeed. But all human tissue does not.

Brain function is not part of the definition of organism.
It may be part of our definition of a living human, but that's a different question/classification.

Brain function is not, but some global mechanism with which to sense and respond to stimuli is a part of the definition. In human beings, that mechanism is the nervous system.

Brain function is not part of the definition of organism.
It may be part of our definition of a living human, but that's a different question/classification.

It's necessary to "respond to stimuli" as an organism, as opposed to a bunch of cells.

...which is pretty much exactly what I said.

I make no such differentiation. If there are long-term developmental effects, then the harm is still continuing.


I'm not sure how that's what you said.
You don't make a differentiation, VO2 is making a differentiation.
I deliberately chose words to describe the differing viewpoints that avoided a phrase such as "the harm is continuing" or "the harm has stopped" to account for both views.


It's really more like poisoning someone. The poison itself may only be in their body for a period of minutes or hours. Thus, according to VO, the harm would stop at minutes or hours. However, many poisons can set up processes of harm which lead to liver damage, kidney failure, etc. well after the poison itself is out of the system. I would claim that these processes are still harm.


Sure, I understand your point, I think we all agree that the effects can be seen and sometimes only become apparent significantly into the future, although I don't know why you prefer to use poison as the example.


Those who looked at the biological definition of life.


I've looked at it.
I've studied biology.
That isn't a particular claim of biology. We can cite some definitions if you want to prove it.


We can never know "will develop and exist." Thus, a definition cannot be dependent on "maybes".


If we're talking biology, we definitely can, and do.
If we're talking about it from a philosophical point of view where we don't know whether our 7 year old child will develop through and exist after puberty, sure. There are no guarantees in life.


In truth, the definition of mammal doesn't include having hair.

Yes it does.
From WorldReference.com:

mammal
A noun
1 mammal

any warm-blooded vertebrate having the skin more or less covered with hair; young are born alive except for the small subclass of monotremes and nourished with milk



Indeed. And only those things which meet the definition can qualify. This means that, at some point, something may not be an organism, and at another, may be one.


That's not quite true.
Let's add in the definition of an organism then to demonstrate:

From Biology-Online.org:
organism

(Science: biology) Any individual living thing, whether animal or plant. A living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently. A system considered analogous in structure or function to a living body; the social organism. Any living thing that exhibits living characteristics and is composed of one cell or more.

Note the bracketed portion that states, "or can develop".

Skin tissue in a Petri dish, for example does not qualify; it can never develop the necessary traits.
The fetus does, because it can and is developing the required traits.

When we consider this organism a person and extend to them rights and protection under the law is the question. Whether it is an organism or not is not a required question, it is biologically clear.

From Biology-Online.org:
organism

(Science: biology) Any individual living thing, whether animal or plant. A living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently. A system considered analogous in structure or function to a living body; the social organism. Any living thing that exhibits living characteristics and is composed of one cell or more.

Note the bracketed portion that states, "or can develop".

They're parentheses. And note, it has to be a living thing that has or can develop...

They're parentheses.

Yes, you are correct, they are.
I could have said, "note the parenthetical portion".
Parenthetical and bracketed are synonyms though, so it's all good.

Main Entry: parenthetical
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: incidental
Synonyms: bracketed, episodic, explanatory, extraneous, extrinsic, in parenthesis, incidental, inserted, intermediate, interposed, qualifying, related, subordinate thesaurus.reference.com


And note, it has to be a living thing that has or can develop...

Correct.
It's a living thing. It's an organism. It's human.
Is it a person? Or more accurately, when is it a person?
That's what we argue and disagree on in these debates.

Correct.
It's a living thing. It's an organism. It's human.
Is it a person? Or more accurately, when is it a person?
That's what we argue and disagree on in these debates.

Ehhh...The cells are living, but they aren't together as one functioning thing. I suppose you could say each cell is an organism, but together, before the nervous system, they're some kind of colony at best.

Well, unfortunately, I will have to disagree with you on the issue of preventative laws or regulations. I base this on my argument, outlined a few posts previous, that because of the way pregnancy works, society has no ethical choice but to trust the judgment of the pregnant woman in running her own pregnancy. We have unlimited options to educate women as to what the right decisions are and to ecourage and help them to make the right decisions, but we cannot take away their ultimate power to decide.

Plus, there is the issue of punishing a woman (in this case by limiting her right to control her own pregnancy) before we can know that her decisions have resulted in harm to anyone. As I said also in that earlier post, we can't punish people for things they haven't done yet, and we can't hold them accountable for things that haven't happened yet. If we try to do so with pregnant women, then, as my support of GnI's slippery slope argument shows, I think we would be making the pregnancy more important than the woman.

GnI's slippery slope argument is valid because it is inevitable that anti-choice people will use fetal-harm prohibitions to undermine the right to abortion and possibly even certain contraceptives. You yourself admit this. As I have said to VO2 earlier in this thread, why should we create laws that would give such ammunition to our enemies, when we have other approaches available to us (i.e. aggressive pregnancy education and progressive social programs to help addicts (carrots), as well as remedial laws in case there is still negligence (stick))?

We have the same obligation with all parents. We have to trust them unless they abuse that trust. Gross negligence is no small matter. We're not going around willy nilly accusing parents of gross negligence. It doesn't refer to being traumatized mommy didn't hug you enough. It requires action that is pretty clearly unreasonable. There is no reason why gross negligence laws would suddenly apply to a woman who drank didn't visit the OB/Gyn often enough or such. It certainly wouldn't apply to the situations listed in the article by GnI. Gross negligence has to be, well, gross.

Another interesting thing is that abortion is usually portrayed as a "women's right". What about the rights of unborn human? So women can not kill people whom they dont want/like but they can kill unborn people?
Besides she can always use a morning after pill if she wasnt protected. No need to kill the baby.
But sadly some consider THAT Abortion also. Remember that Pharmisist trial thing?

From Biology-Online.org:
organism

(Science: biology) Any individual living thing, whether animal or plant. A living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently. A system considered analogous in structure or function to a living body; the social organism. Any living thing that exhibits living characteristics and is composed of one cell or more.

You're not seriously claiming this is how biologists test whether something is an organism, are you? This is a simple definition and like all definitions it lacks in nuance. An egg is a living thing that 'can develop' into an independent person. It needs a sperm in order to do it, but you could say the same thing about the embryo (it must implant, it must gestate, it must receive the proper hormones from the mother). Note that none of those things are simply receiving nourishment. They are receiving stimuli from the mother's body that is necessary for survival. This stimuli is received at a cellular level because it behaves at that point like every other organ of the mother's body.

I wanted to touch on this again, because I want to be clear. I don't think your conclusion is irrational nor do I think your entire argument is irrational. When I say I suspect you don't actually believe what you're saying, I am not talking about the conclusion. The conclusion is just an opinion, and in this case, a laudable one. I understand wanting to protect the mother from becoming an incubator without rights while she's pregnant. I think we need to be vigilant at preventing that from happening.

The part I don't think is rational is claiming that harm to to a fetus doesn't translate to harm to a child. If one damaged the parts that would later become a gun and no damaged gun resulted, one of three things happened. One, the parts were repaired before the gun came into being. Two, the damage to the parts did not actually affect the gun in any way. Three, the parts never became a gun. There is no fourth "damage to the parts doesn't count" argument. A fetus becomes a child and you admit there is 'malformation' in the child as a result of the gross negligence. The whole damage argument is just a game because you wanted your conclusion to be right. I don't believe you actually held your argument to be true. What evidence do I have? Well, there is the whole fact that you abandoned it as soon as you found a better argument. Hmmmm... could that be an indicator that you notice the flaw as well? It doesn't have to be, but I'd like to believe it is. Otherwise, you become a guy that was seriously arguing that malformation doesn't count as harm by building a wall between a being and its precursor.

I hope that's clear. My beef with what you were saying is the damage to the fetus isn't damage to the child argument. And legal precedent is definitely on my side. You can claim all you like that when one sues a pharmaceutical company for in utero damage that it is the mother suing, but if you look at the cases it is the child that receives the compensation. It is not the child suing on behalf of the mother, but the mother suing on behalf of the child.

Youd did claim that GnI was also making an irrational argument as well, which I took to mean that you cannot reach the conclusion by rational argument. But I accept your explanation of what you meant.

And I have also been saying that the legal separation between fetus and child implies that no harm occurs to the child. Dividing the fetus and the child into separate entities provides no legal basis for the child to claim harm or a violation of rights in this situation.

And once again your analogy doesn't take into account the legal division here. Legally we are not talking about parts coming together to make a whole, we are talking about the end of one entity and the creation of another. In order to better protect the mother, the law doesn't represent reality, as there is no definitive division between child and fetus. They most certainly are the same entity.

And once again, here is the ethical dilemma, do we protect the mother with laws that don't follow reality? Or do we respect the reality that a child is the same entity as the fetus, and weaken the protection of the mother.

This is a simple definition and like all definitions it lacks in nuance.

No definition of life is complete. It's one of the tough questions in biology because it's possible to break any definition with some non-living system.


An egg is a living thing that 'can develop' into an independent person.

No, it can't, you point out the reason yourself, it needs to combine with a sperm before what kind independent person will develop is determined.
Therefore, while it is a living thing, it isn't an organism.


This stimuli is received at a cellular level because it behaves at that point like every other organ of the mother's body.

Except that it is not an organ of the mother's body, it is a separate organism with it's own genetic code unique from the mother. This means we don't rely on our powers of observation that might limit it to being merely another organ of the mother.

Youd did claim that GnI was also making an irrational argument as well, which I took to mean that you cannot reach the conclusion by rational argument. But I accept your explanation of what you meant.

Conclusions are rarely irrational and this particular conclusion is opinion. In both cases, I had a problem with a particular argument. GnI admitted his argument was being made not because he believed it but because he feared the outcome in the event of a slippery slope. I basically have a problem with one aspect of your argument.

And I have also been saying that the legal separation between fetus and child implies that no harm occurs to the child. Dividing the fetus and the child into separate entities provides no legal basis for the child to claim harm or a violation of rights in this situation.

The law disagrees with you. If what you say is true there would have been no cases of a child winning a lawsuit for damage sustained in utero. Since there have been, you'll forgive me if I recognize the legal basis.

Secondly, the law offers no such legal seperation. It simply states that a child has personhood while a fetus does not. It does not say that things that occur in the womb that affect the child don't exist as you've been claiming.

And once again your analogy doesn't take into account the legal division here. Legally we are not talking about parts coming together to make a whole, we are talking about the end of one entity and the creation of another. In order to better protect the mother, the law doesn't represent reality, as there is no definitive division between child and fetus. They most certainly are the same entity.

There is no legal division. The law doesn't recognize personhood until a point by necessity. Otherwise, what do you do, every person that will ever live must exist forever legally? There has to be a start. The law makes no claim that anything that happens prior to that point cannot affect the person the fetus becomes. The only one making that claim is you. Unless you'd like to show me a legal case that stated that a pharmaceutical company cannot be held liable for damage in utero because the child didn't exist yet. Or in fact, any law that states such a thing. You can make claims about the woman's rights trumping the child's eventual rights (which is the only thing your links claimed) but that does not equate to this line of seperation you keep claiming exists when you've established no precedent for it.

My analogy doesn't take it into account because it doesn't exist. You created an artificial wall that has no precedent and use it to dismiss every comparison by claiming it cannot be accounted for. Please, show me any precedent that shows that the fetus and child are not intrinsically linked (provided a child exists). Please show me any of the groups you claim hold your view and how they claim the fetus and the child have nothing to do with each other or that events done to the fetus have no bearing on the child. I'll wait.

And once again, here is the ethical dilemma, do we protect the mother with laws that don't follow reality? Or do we respect the reality that a child is the same entity as the fetus, and weaken the protection of the mother.
We already recognize the fetus becomes the child and that they are connected directly. I've seen no one claim otherwise, but you. The balancing of rights is the issue and is a rational argument. However, arguing the damage doesn't exist because it isn't yet a person is ludicrous.

Except that it is not an organ of the mother's body, it is a separate organism with it's own genetic code unique from the mother. This means we don't rely on our powers of observation that might limit it to being merely another organ of the mother.

*coughchimeracough* Like I said, a colony at best, it's not one organism.

I'm glad you posted these, but I think you are missing a fine line of distinction. These quotes, and the current laws, are NOT actually saying that a woman cannot be considered to have committed actionable negligence during her pregnancy.

Actually legal precedence states that a mother should not be held liable for negligence or child endangerment for actions that she undertakes while she is pregnant.

What they ARE in fact saying is that THE STATE cannot criminalize for pregnant women behaviors that would otherwise be legal for any non-pregnant person, and that the state specifically cannot do so on the claim/assumption that it is preventing negligence.

I don't think you actually understand the purpose of law enforcement. In effect, no one is actually forbidden from committing an action by law, rather the are suffer punishment that is great enough to cancel out any benefits that they would hope to achieve through their undesirable action.

So any liability placed on the mother for actions she undertook during her pregnancy is a punitive measure enforced to keep the mother from behaving in that manner. The purpose of this law would be to prevent negligence.



Perhaps you don't understand how lawsuits are based and settled.:confused:

[QUOTE]A) Someone -- a person, i.e. a "legal person" who has both the ability and the legal right and standing to make decisions, commitments, changes of plans, etc -- must be responsible for controlling how a pregnancy goes -- i.e. whether it is aborted or carried, what kind of pre-natal care to take, what kind of birthing procedure to use, what kind of medications/medical treatments to take or refuse, what kind of risks to run or avoid, etc, etc. The sources you quote here support my position, i.e. the only legal person who should be allowed to make such decisions about pregnancy is the pregnant woman herself. She and she alone has both the ability and the standing to make such decisions, and therefore she and she alone should have the legal right to do so. This legal right to make controlling decisions must consist of BOTH responsibility for the decisions AND authority over them.

What does this mean? It means simply that society must trust the judgment of the pregnant woman. No one else gets to tell her how to run her own pregnancy. Period.

I agree with you on that.

B) But this DOES NOT absolve her of responsibility or accountability for the outcome of her decisions, nor does it absolve her of the responsibility to make the decisions in the first place. If she makes bad decisions or fails to make decisions at all, and if, and only if, actual harm to a born child results directly from her negligence/failure, then THE CHILD may have a right to seek redress or other remedy for the harmful results of her negligence/failure. The state may not take such action, either before or after the fact, because the state has not been harmed by her negligence/failure. Only one person has been harmed by it, and that is the born child. And that is why the child (an affected person) may have a right that neither the fetus (not a person) nor the state (not affected) can have.

Oh. So you are free to many any decision regarding her body except the ones that the government declares are bad. That sounds like autonomy to me.

C) So if the child did not exist at the time the harm was done, and if the fetus is not a legal person and so has no standing to bring a legal action to protect itself from the woman's decisions or lack thereof, then what really is being harmed? What is it that the child can sue over? And if a woman cannot be punished for doing something NOW, why should anyone have a right to punish her for it LATER?

Because, in cases/scenarios such as we are discussing here, the human body is being treated, legally, as if it is property. In this context, pregnancy is a process by which a human body is built. During the pregnancy, the woman (as the plant owner, if you will) has control over the process of building the body. Through most of that process, nobody is using the body; it is not functional and cannot support life itself. The woman may do with it as she pleases until the third trimester. It is presumed that at some point during the 3rd trimester, the owner/operator (if you will) of that body will move into it. But even then, the woman still controls the process, as long as the process is ongoing -- she may still authorize an abortion if it becomes necessary to do so. The eventual owner/operator of the body (the child) will take full ownership of the body upon birth, and the woman will relinquish her control to it at that time (upon delivery, as a matter of fact (with babies just as with everything else)).

So, if the woman is negligent during her pregnancy, what has her negligence actually caused? It has harmed the body the child was given to live in. In other words, she produced a defective product. If a car manufacturer, through negligence, produces a car with a faulty engine that catches fire when you start it up, you have the right to seek a remedy against the manufacturer for your expenses and for any injuries you may suffer as result of the defective functioning of that car -- but only if you can show that your losses/injuries were directly caused by the manufacturer's negligence. You accuse the manufacturer of negligence, so you have the burden of proving that there was negligence. But even if this stacks the odds against you, you still have the right to sue for damage that was done to a car long before you ever got the use of it.

This makes no sense, the mother is building a body for the child to move into?

Even if these repeated comparisons between the woman's body and a car factory or a building lot for a house weren't shallow, this argument is still unconvincing.

BUT ONCE AGAIN, if a child can punish its mother for negligence after the fact, why can't society take action to prevent negligence before the fact?

Very simply, because it is before the fact. You cannot punish someone for something they haven't done yet, nor can you hold someone accountable for something that hasn't happened yet. The woman has both the right and the authority to make decisions about her pregnancy. You cannot second guess her decisions before there is any proof that they will have bad consequences of any kind. That's all there is to it.

Negligence happens regardless of whether damage is done. The damage done is usually considered to determine both punishment or compensation.

No definition of life is complete. It's one of the tough questions in biology because it's possible to break any definition with some non-living system.

Yes, there are problems with virii. However, you fail to account for the fact that the definition does work for humans and a fetus doesn't qualify until it has a rudimentary nervous system. The definition you displayed is simplistic to the point of absurdity and to be quite frank, you know better than that.

No, it can't, you point out the reason yourself, it needs to combine with a sperm before what kind independent person will develop is determined.
Therefore, while it is a living thing, it isn't an organism.

This is also true of the epigenetic development which requires the hormonal interaction with the woman. You could make the exact same argument several times until the point where the fetus becomes a functioning system of its own. That doesn't happen until a rudimentary nervous system exists. The fetus requires outside input to control it's development and responses. It requires things to be added to it for some time until it 'can' do anything. Face it, you posted a vague, simplistic definition that does not get the job done. Sure, you can force it to apply, but then that's why it's vague. I can also force it to apply equally to the egg because of the flaw int he definition you posted.

Except that it is not an organ of the mother's body, it is a separate organism with it's own genetic code unique from the mother. This means we don't rely on our powers of observation that might limit it to being merely another organ of the mother.
So if something has a different genetic code from the mother it cannot be an organ of the mother? Are you sure about that?

Can you show me where a unique genetic code is listed in the definition of one organism becomes two? I've not seen any such claim other than by people trying to make an abortion argument. Can you show me in the definition of an organ that it must contain identical genetic coding to the host body? I'd be interested in seeing that as well. I'll wait.

I didn't see the genetic code listed at all in the definition you posted, yet you use it for argument twice here (once with the egg and once regarding organs). Interesting. I guess they left it out. Thanks for proving the flaw in the definition.

*coughchimeracough*

Tetragametic chimerism is an abnormality. It doesn't have any more bearing on our discussion than the fact that hermaphrodites exist would make it impossible to determine whether you are male or female.

Actually legal precedence states that a mother should not be held liable for negligence or child endangerment for actions that she undertakes while she is pregnant.

But only the mother. That's not because of the argument you're making but because it's a balancing of rights that necessarily conflict. It has nothing to with an artificial seperation like the one you're creating.

I would also point out that civil law does not have the purpose you claim and M is talking about civil action on behalf of the child. Civil action seeks to right a wrong. It can be punitive, but the purpose is not to change future actions but instead to correct past action. You are talking about criminal law.

Tetragametic chimerism is an abnormality. It doesn't have any more bearing on our discussion than the fact that hermaphrodites exist would make it impossible to determine whether you are male or female.

Not really...I imagine a quick karyotype could handle that. It's not just "do you have a vagina and boobs, or a penis?".

Tetragametic chimerism is an abnormality. It doesn't have any more bearing on our discussion than the fact that hermaphrodites exist would make it impossible to determine whether you are male or female.

No, actually, hermaphrodites don't change the definition of male or female. Male and female has a distinct definition unaffected by your claim.

Chimerism is the reason genetics is not the measure of what is and isn't an organism. Once again you start with conclusion in hand and then claim it as your conclusion. A definition can do no such thing. It must be applicable to an unknown and end up properly identifying it. Definitions are unnecessary when identifying a known. If I examined a chimera and because of a flaw in the definition came up with it being two organisms, then the definition is flawed. It's really quite simple.

Meanwhile, the definition you listed said nothing about unique genetics so it appears not even you agree with it.

Not really...I imagine a quick karyotype could handle that. It's not just "do you have a vagina and boobs, or a penis?".

Exactly. The genetalia is not a measure of the sex of an organism. To state otherwise is to pretend we are talking about ignorant bumpkins rather than scientific individuals aware of the ACTUAL definition of the sex of a person.

However, you fail to account for the fact that the definition does work for humans and a fetus doesn't qualify until it has a rudimentary nervous system.

You fail to account for the fact that a fetus is human and qualifies not solely on what it is at any one moment, but also on what it will develop to.

The abortion debate is the only time any such distinction is even attempted, because it impacts the agendas of both of the dominant "sides".


This is also true of the epigenetic development which requires the hormonal interaction with the woman. You could make the exact same argument several times until the point where the fetus becomes a functioning system of its own. That doesn't happen until a rudimentary nervous system exists. The fetus requires outside input to control it's development and responses. It requires things to be added to it for some time until it 'can' do anything.

Yes, you are correct, it's possible to push that argument. You could even push it out beyond birth depending on how you frame it.


I can also force it to apply equally to the egg because of the flaw int he definition you posted.


No, you cannot apply it to the egg. An egg is not developing, it is waiting for fertilization.


So if something has a different genetic code from the mother it cannot be an organ of the mother? Are you sure about that?


In normal, human biology, yes, I'm quite sure.

We have the same obligation with all parents. We have to trust them unless they abuse that trust. Gross negligence is no small matter. We're not going around willy nilly accusing parents of gross negligence. It doesn't refer to being traumatized mommy didn't hug you enough. It requires action that is pretty clearly unreasonable. There is no reason why gross negligence laws would suddenly apply to a woman who drank didn't visit the OB/Gyn often enough or such. It certainly wouldn't apply to the situations listed in the article by GnI. Gross negligence has to be, well, gross.
I'm not disagreeing with you about that. If you remember my earliest posts here, I was arguing for circumstances under which the state (not even the child) could decide the negligence was so great that it would negate the woman's parental rights altogether. But I disagree with you about whether society should impose laws to prevent such negligence prior to it occuring -- preventative or pre-emptive laws.

I understand the argument in favor of such preventative laws. If a law said a woman could be punished for drinking during pregnancy without waiting to see if her child is actually harmed by it, on the grounds that harm is likely and the risk is known, that could be similar to saying that an industrial company can be punished for dumping mercury into a water source without waiting to measure contamination in fish and drinking water.

But my problem with this is that there is no way to impose such restrictions on pregnant women without saying that they cannot be trusted to make the right decisions about their pregnancies. And that is exactly what the anti-choice movement argues -- women must not be permitted to choose because they may not make the "desired" choice. To my mind, your argument looks as if you are trying to reserve for yourself, to serve your agenda in preventing FAS (for instance), a power over women that you would deny to anti-choicers, to serve their agenda to prevent abortions.

But everything about your argument would create a supportive precedent for anti-choicers. If I were an anti-choicer, I would jump all over a law that said women must be prevented by prohibitions and punishments from harming their fetuses as support for my contention that abortion is harm to a fetus and, therefore, women should be barred from doing it.

I would love to be able to wipe tragic disorders like FAS off the face of the earth, but I truly believe that women must have the right to control their own bodies and their own pregnancies, and therefore, I cannot advocate a restriction that would undermine that right, even if it means I must make do with the much slower methods of education and social services to combat FAS. It's not just that I'm afraid of the slippery slope. Such restrictions would already violate my principles, all by themselves, without having to lead to anything further.

You fail to account for the fact that a fetus is human and qualifies not solely on what it is at any one moment, but also on what it will develop to.

Even your definition was about what living things would develop into. Say...a 6 year old, a living thing that can develop into something capable of reproduction.

In normal, human biology, yes, I'm quite sure.

...too bad everything ain't normal...

Not really...I imagine a quick karyotype could handle that. It's not just "do you have a vagina and boobs, or a penis?".

I didn't say that it was vagina vs. penis.

Since you brought them in, your quick karyotype won't handle a chimera that was formed from 2 zygotes of opposite sex either.
The point I'm making though is, just as the fact that it may be impossible to determine sex on an abnormal organism doesn't cast all sex detrermination into doubt.
The fact that you can't identify discreet organisms in an abnormal organism such as your chimera doesn't mean that you can't identify discreet organisms when the biology is normal.

Even your definition was about what living things would develop into. Say...a 6 year old, a living thing that can develop into something capable of reproduction.


Yes.


...too bad everything ain't normal...

Too true.

Actually legal precedence states that a mother should not be held liable for negligence or child endangerment for actions that she undertakes while she is pregnant.
Not held liable by the state. If, as you imply, you know the law better than I do, you should know that there are circumstances in which the state can bring charges or actions even if the injured party doesn't want to. The sources you quoted were specifically speaking to situations in which it was proposed that the state should do that in regard to negligence during a prengancy, or where the state actually did try to do that, and they are saying the state should not do that.

In cases where the state cannot bring charges of its own, then it doesn't matter what the offending or negligent party does -- there is no offense unless the injured party says so. If the injured party doesn't, then there is no crime, no negligence, no offense, and, if nobody complains, then there is no harm in the eyes of the law.

I don't think you actually understand the purpose of law enforcement. In effect, no one is actually forbidden from committing an action by law, rather the are suffer punishment that is great enough to cancel out any benefits that they would hope to achieve through their undesirable action.

So any liability placed on the mother for actions she undertook during her pregnancy is a punitive measure enforced to keep the mother from behaving in that manner. The purpose of this law would be to prevent negligence.
Once again, you are jumping into implying that I don't understand basic things just because you disagree with me (that's insulting, VO), and in this case, you are separating related sentences from each other in order to do it. The remark you are criticizing is still part of the comment on the content of the specific quotes you cited, not a comment about what the law can or can't do in general.

Obviously, the state is capable of using punitive laws as preventative measures. Your sources -- and I -- are saying that the state should not do that in regard to this issue. We're not saying the state can't do it. We are saying the state should not do it.

Perhaps you don't understand how lawsuits are based and settled.:confused:
Actually, I do understand how lawsuits work, from the pov of litigation attorneys.

What I don't understand is your apparent inability to make a distinction between criminal law and civil law. Your sources and I are both saying that the state should not have the right to use criminal statutes to control the decisions of pregnant women. I am personally adding the further argument that this would not affect the rights of a born child to pursue a private suit under civil statutes. One does not depend on the other.

I agree with you on that.
Then you see why I disagree with the idea of using preventative punitive measures to control the decisions women make.

Oh. So you are free to many any decision regarding her body except the ones that the government declares are bad. That sounds like autonomy to me.
I said the government should not have a right to stop a woman from making decisions about how to run her own pregnancy. The government has nothing to do with a born child's decision to blame her for her decisions after the fact.

This makes no sense, the mother is building a body for the child to move into?

Even if these repeated comparisons between the woman's body and a car factory or a building lot for a house weren't shallow, this argument is still unconvincing.
It's an analogy. I know it's not perfect, but it describes (broadly) the way the laws about liability for in utero harm treat the human body -- as a piece of functional property that is controlled during its development by one party but ends up in the control of a different party who had nothing to do with its development.

Negligence happens regardless of whether damage is done. The damage done is usually considered to determine both punishment or compensation.
Please see my remarks at the beginning of this post. If there is no harm, then why should anyone complain about negligence? In the absence of harm, how can you prove negligence? Laws that would allow the state to punish negligence in advance of any harm being shown would criminalize a whole set of decisions and take away the woman's control of her own pregnancy -- which you agree she has and should have. Now you might be able to argue that the state should be allowed to punish negligence after the fact, whether the child wants to or not, but I don't see how you can reconcile preventative punishments with a belief in the right of the woman to control her pregnancy.

Except that it is not an organ of the mother's body, it is a separate organism with it's own genetic code unique from the mother. This means we don't rely on our powers of observation that might limit it to being merely another organ of the mother.

People who try to argue this always go to the "separate genetic code" thing, as if that is an absolute indicator of a separate organism.

Tell me, are you familiar with chimeras?

Exactly. The genetalia is not a measure of the sex of an organism. To state otherwise is to pretend we are talking about ignorant bumpkins rather than scientific individuals aware of the ACTUAL definition of the sex of a person.

The sex of a mammal that isn't the standard XX = vagina, XY = penis does get fairly messy though. Are those with CAIS male or female? They have generally always been seen as female. They have been raised and developed as such. Yet, on a chromosomal basis, they are male.

From a legal standpoint, governments have gone both ways. Some define sex by genetics, others by morphology.

When it comes right down to it, when we start getting into such unusual cases, the definition of "sex" becomes rather unclear - and I've seen arguments for both development and genetics being used.


No, you cannot apply it to the egg. An egg is not developing, it is waiting for fertilization.

Of course an egg is developing - on its own pathway. And, depending on whether or not it is released from the ovaries, or is fertilized, or receives certain hormones, that pathway will be different.

In normal, human biology, yes, I'm quite sure.

The funny thing about biology is that, the more we study it, the more we find to be rather abnormal. And, while it may sometimes be impossible, our definitions must include as much of biology as possible.

You fail to account for the fact that a fetus is human and qualifies not solely on what it is at any one moment, but also on what it will develop to.
It's a human because it has human DNA. We aren't looking for the definition of a human. We are looking for the definition of an organism. How about you not try to change the focus? What does it being human have to do with it? The definition of organism is not unique to humans and it requires that it be able to identify an unique organism without taking DNA into account.

The abortion debate is the only time any such distinction is even attempted, because it impacts the agendas of both of the dominant "sides".

That's why it's appropriate to use the regular definition, not one made up for this argument. The regular definition does not include unique DNA because it's not necessary. Scientists know how to tell when something is a part of one organism or another individual organism. DNA is not how they do it.

Yes, you are correct, it's possible to push that argument. You could even push it out beyond birth depending on how you frame it.

Thank you. Now we know why your definition is flawed. The proper definition has no such flaw. Let's use that.

No, you cannot apply it to the egg. An egg is not developing, it is waiting for fertilization.

The egg most certainly does develope. It will continue to develope provided it gets the right things or it will simply die. This is also true of the embryo. Again, you start with your conclusion in hand. It doesn't fit your definition because you say it doesn't. We've already established the flaw in your definition. As you said it could make the line just about anywhere. Since we agree, let's stop arguing for your definition and use the proper one.


In normal, human biology, yes, I'm quite sure.
Really? So we have to force a chimera to happen? Oh, right. Mutations like a chimera while uncommon are a part of normal biology. I believe what you intend to say is in common humans. Chimeras are naturally occurring. They are normal. There is a reason they occur. If you are just going to go by what is most common then we could argue that gays are not normal. In normal human biology, chimeras are naturally occurring.

I didn't say that it was vagina vs. penis.

Since you brought them in, your quick karyotype won't handle a chimera that was formed from 2 zygotes of opposite sex either.

Actually it would. Part of the definition accounts for such things. Thanks for playing. You mentioned hermaphrodites. Hermaphodism has nothing to do with genetics which is how we measure sex.


The point I'm making though is, just as the fact that it may be impossible to determine sex on an abnormal organism doesn't cast all sex detrermination into doubt.

No, the definition accounts for all humans. That's why we don't use the penis or vagina as the definition for sex. Thanks for playing.

The fact that you can't identify discreet organisms in an abnormal organism such as your chimera doesn't mean that you can't identify discreet organisms when the biology is normal.
Define abnormal. You can identify discreet organisms in a chimera, my friend, unless one uses the wrong method, say.... your method. This is precisely why unique DNA is not a requirement.

Your claim also would make twins one organism. It doesn't account for organisms that reproduce asexually. Etc. The actual means of identifying organisms has no such problem. Generally the problem only occur when people with an agenda try to make up a definition that only applies to developing humans while pretending they are actually using an objective scientific definition.

I'm not disagreeing with you about that. If you remember my earliest posts here, I was arguing for circumstances under which the state (not even the child) could decide the negligence was so great that it would negate the woman's parental rights altogether. But I disagree with you about whether society should impose laws to prevent such negligence prior to it occuring -- preventative or pre-emptive laws.

I understand the argument in favor of such preventative laws. If a law said a woman could be punished for drinking during pregnancy without waiting to see if her child is actually harmed by it, on the grounds that harm is likely and the risk is known, that could be similar to saying that an industrial company can be punished for dumping mercury into a water source without waiting to measure contamination in fish and drinking water.

But my problem with this is that there is no way to impose such restrictions on pregnant women without saying that they cannot be trusted to make the right decisions about their pregnancies. And that is exactly what the anti-choice movement argues -- women must not be permitted to choose because they may not make the "desired" choice. To my mind, your argument looks as if you are trying to reserve for yourself, to serve your agenda in preventing FAS (for instance), a power over women that you would deny to anti-choicers, to serve their agenda to prevent abortions.

But everything about your argument would create a supportive precedent for anti-choicers. If I were an anti-choicer, I would jump all over a law that said women must be prevented by prohibitions and punishments from harming their fetuses as support for my contention that abortion is harm to a fetus and, therefore, women should be barred from doing it.

I would love to be able to wipe tragic disorders like FAS off the face of the earth, but I truly believe that women must have the right to control their own bodies and their own pregnancies, and therefore, I cannot advocate a restriction that would undermine that right, even if it means I must make do with the much slower methods of education and social services to combat FAS. It's not just that I'm afraid of the slippery slope. Such restrictions would already violate my principles, all by themselves, without having to lead to anything further.

Again, why is it different than all other gross negligence? We do trust them to make their own decisions until they violate that trust. We don't seek out a violation just like all other violations of the law. We do not abridge their rights until they show a compelling reason for abridgement, like damaging the child. It has to happen after the fact, because of such a requirement and rightfully so. However, we still have to look at addressing those that grossly neglect their children. Again, we already deal with this. I don't know why everyone keeps acting like we'll suddenly forget how gross negligence works simply because it's a pregnant woman.

You claim this supports anti-choicers, but of course we are talking about an argument for protecting people who are born, not protecting people who will never be born. We are addressing damage to people, not fetuses. They can try to apply it to fetuses but they will still have the same burden. Prove a person is hurt. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen them succeed yet.

Again, why is it different than all other gross negligence? We do trust them to make their own decisions until they violate that trust. We don't seek out a violation just like all other violations of the law. We do not abridge their rights until they show a compelling reason for abridgement, like damaging the child. It has to happen after the fact, because of such a requirement and rightfully so. However, we still have to look at addressing those that grossly neglect their children. Again, we already deal with this. I don't know why everyone keeps acting like we'll suddenly forget how gross negligence works simply because it's a pregnant woman.

You claim this supports anti-choicers, but of course we are talking about an argument for protecting people who are born, not protecting people who will never be born. We are addressing damage to people, not fetuses. They can try to apply it to fetuses but they will still have the same burden. Prove a person is hurt. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen them succeed yet.
Operative word: "yet."

Seriously, J, I don't want to fight with you about this. The difference we are arguing about -- preventative measures vs. remedial measures -- is a hair's breadth difference even though, in my opinion, it would have a massive effect on how women are treated by the law. I have explained why I think it is different from gross negligence in other areas of life, but, in your opinion, this isn't enough. I also understand where you are coming from, but, as I explained, I can't reconcile it with my views of women's rights in re pregnancy, so I cannot accept this approach to the issue. I don't believe we can reconcile this difference by hashing it out right now, right here. For such complex issues, I think we need to take breaks to think them through every now and then. There are so many points to consider.

But only the mother. That's not because of the argument you're making but because it's a balancing of rights that necessarily conflict. It has nothing to with an artificial seperation like the one you're creating.

There is an artificial seperation, otherwise a child would not have full rights of personhood and the fetus would have no rights, as has been stated by both sides of this issue.

And as I said before, it is a matter of expediency that the seperation is made complete when the mother is involved.

I would also point out that civil law does not have the purpose you claim and M is talking about civil action on behalf of the child. Civil action seeks to right a wrong. It can be punitive, but the purpose is not to change future actions but instead to correct past action. You are talking about criminal law.

You are correct, although I could not fathom how this wrong could be righted in civil court.

Not held liable by the state. If, as you imply, you know the law better than I do, you should know that there are circumstances in which the state can bring charges or actions even if the injured party doesn't want to. The sources you quoted were specifically speaking to situations in which it was proposed that the state should do that in regard to negligence during a prengancy, or where the state actually did try to do that, and they are saying the state should not do that.

In cases where the state cannot bring charges of its own, then it doesn't matter what the offending or negligent party does -- there is no offense unless the injured party says so. If the injured party doesn't, then there is no crime, no negligence, no offense, and, if nobody complains, then there is no harm in the eyes of the law.

Once again, the state determines who is liable in all cases, civil or criminal. There is no way that the child can show that the mother is liable without appealing to the state.

And every state within the US with the exception of South Carolina has explicitly stated that the mother is not civily or criminally liable for damages caused to a child by negligence while it was in utero.

I don't know the law very well, but I have researched this.

Actually, I do understand how lawsuits work, from the pov of litigation attorneys.

What I don't understand is your apparent inability to make a distinction between criminal law and civil law. Your sources and I are both saying that the state should not have the right to use criminal statutes to control the decisions of pregnant women. I am personally adding the further argument that this would not affect the rights of a born child to pursue a private suit under civil statutes. One does not depend on the other.

Civil suits are settled by the state as well, it takes state action to find the mother liable, and it will take legislation to override the current precedent. That's what I was referring to.

However, the principle effect is the same, if civil courts hold mothers liable for damages to the fetus and as a result the child, then there is a state recognition of some violated right, and I cannot think of a right that was violated.

Then you see why I disagree with the idea of using preventative punitive measures to control the decisions women make.

Certainly, but saying that the state must recognize a woman's ability to control her body, while in the next statement saying that it can choose which actions are wrong or right is baffling.

I said the government should not have a right to stop a woman from making decisions about how to run her own pregnancy. The government has nothing to do with a born child's decision to blame her for her decisions after the fact.

But the government is the only entity that can confirm that blame.

And upholding civil suits against certain action is a state declaration that the behavior was wrong. You cannot say that the woman has ultimate jurisdiction over her body, and then say that the government can deem certain behaviors wrong. That is contradictory.

It's an analogy. I know it's not perfect, but it describes (broadly) the way the laws about liability for in utero harm treat the human body -- as a piece of functional property that is controlled during its development by one party but ends up in the control of a different party who had nothing to do with its development.

If the person who obtained the faulty house was the metaphysical collection of that houses thoughts and experiences, the analogy might fly, but as it is, a non-existent child has no entitlement to be given a perfect body.

Please see my remarks at the beginning of this post. If there is no harm, then why should anyone complain about negligence? In the absence of harm, how can you prove negligence? Laws that would allow the state to punish negligence in advance of any harm being shown would criminalize a whole set of decisions and take away the woman's control of her own pregnancy -- which you agree she has and should have. Now you might be able to argue that the state should be allowed to punish negligence after the fact, whether the child wants to or not, but I don't see how you can reconcile preventative punishments with a belief in the right of the woman to control her pregnancy.

I know an alcoholic individual who was pulled over for drunk driving with his 5 year old kid in the back seat. The child was completely unharmed, but he was most certainly negligent. One can show negligence without harm.

With that said, however, the establishment of civil tort is no different from the creation of criminal law. Each establish a fetus's claim on a mothers behavior.

Certainly, but saying that the state must recognize a woman's ability to control her body, while in the next statement saying that it can choose which actions are wrong or right is baffling.

Not right or wrong. It's not about right or wrong. It's about unreasonably harmful and not harmful. And the state doesn't decide. In civil suits jury decide it. All the state would have to do is not give pregnant women special protection or remove it where it exists.

Keep in mind that the law you found, by the way, doesn't state that in utero harm isn't actionable, but only that women can't be held accountable for in utero harm. Civil suits already assess in utero harm and fault. It simply can't find the mother accountable in the places you listed. Again, in civil suits it's not about right or wrong, it's about fault.

With that said, however, the establishment of civil tort is no different from the creation of criminal law. Each establish a fetus's claim on a mothers behavior.
Not the fetus's. The child's. The fetus has no claim unless a child results.

People who try to argue this always go to the "separate genetic code" thing, as if that is an absolute indicator of a separate organism.

Tell me, are you familiar with chimeras?

Tell me, does a chimera share either of its genetic code with the mother?
A chimera's genetic code(s) is still unique from the mother's.

Tell me, does a chimera share either of its genetic code with the mother?
A chimera's genetic code(s) is still unique from the mother's.

Still doesn't make it a part of the definition. Even your own definition doesn't account for such a thing. In fact, I don't seem to remember it mentioning distinct DNA at all.

Meanwhile, when do twins become two seperate organisms. I guess never since they don't have unique DNA from one another and ACCORDING TO YOU that's a requirement to be an organism.

And does the the chimera have two distinct genetic codes. We're not talking about the chimera being a part of the mother. We're talking about according to your claims about genetics a chimera is not just one organism, but two. The fact that it doesn't share DNA with the mother simply highlights that fact in your little scenario. Now, why do we consider it one organism and not two organisms? Anyone? Because once an organism qualifies as an organism, we see it acting as a single entity whether or not it has more than one genetic pattern. That's why genetic pattern is not a part of the definition.

It's a human because it has human DNA.

Humans are organisms.


That's why it's appropriate to use the regular definition, not one made up for this argument. The regular definition does not include unique DNA because it's not necessary. Scientists know how to tell when something is a part of one organism or another individual organism. DNA is not how they do it.


You contend that a scientist will tell us that a fetus or an embryo is not an individual organism; that the mother and developing child are one organism?


Thank you. Now we know why your definition is flawed. The proper definition has no such flaw. Let's use that.


What is this "proper definition" that you are referring to?


The egg most certainly does develope.

Really.
Please describe the stages of development then.


Really? So we have to force a chimera to happen? Oh, right. Mutations like a chimera while uncommon are a part of normal biology. I believe what you intend to say is in common humans. Chimeras are naturally occurring. They are normal. There is a reason they occur. If you are just going to go by what is most common then we could argue that gays are not normal. In normal human biology, chimeras are naturally occurring.


Naturally occuring.
See, there's your confusion.
Abnormal biology is not limited to either unaturally nor naturally occuring issues.
Normal is term that is used in biology and a chimera is most definitely not normal. You may wish to review the term.

Define abnormal.

ab·nor·mal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-nôrml)
adj.
Not typical, usual, or regular; not normal; deviant.



Your claim also would make twins one organism.

Tell me Jocabia, do twins have the same exact genetic code?

Still doesn't make it a part of the definition. Even your own definition doesn't account for such a thing. In fact, I don't seem to remember it mentioning distinct DNA at all.

Meanwhile, when do twins become two seperate organisms. I guess never since they don't have unique DNA from one another and ACCORDING TO YOU that's a requirement to be an organism.



No, because as you point out yourself, I never included it it any definition of an organism.
I used DNA as a method of distinquishing one human from a another human.
DNA is well established as a criteria to distinquish between human organisms.

Tell me, does a chimera share either of its genetic code with the mother?
A chimera's genetic code(s) is still unique from the mother's.

....which is irrelevant when someone is trying to use, "its own genetic code" as a sign of life.


It's a human because it has human DNA.

No, it is human because it has human DNA. Being a human requires more than just DNA.

You contend that a scientist will tell us that a fetus or an embryo is not an individual organism; that the mother and developing child are one organism?

The first portion is true, up until a point. The second is not.

Tell me Jocabia, do twins have the same exact genetic code?

They do if they are formed by the same zygote and neither chimeras with another embryo.

Epigenetic changes will be different, as will mutations, but the underlying code will be the same.

....which is irrelevant when someone is trying to use, "its own genetic code" as a sign of life.


But not irrelevant to distinquishing one human from another, which is what someone was doing.

But not irrelevant to distinquishing one human from another, which is what someone was doing.

You were trying to use that, and that alone, as evidence that no only is it a separate entity, but that it is a separate human organism. "Different DNA" is not enough to prove that something is a separate human organism or, indeed, even that it is is a separate entity (as demonstrated by chimeras).

You were trying to use that, and that alone, as evidence that no only is it a separate entity, but that it is a separate human organism. "Different DNA" is not enough to prove that something is a separate human organism or, indeed, even that it is is a separate entity (as demonstrated by chimeras).

Separate entity, yes.
Separate human, yes.

And it works with chimeras too, the chimera does not share any DNA in common with the mother.

Separate entity, yes.
Separate human, yes.

And it works with chimeras too, the chimera does not share any DNA in common with the mother.

Were that enough to show it's seperate and human, it wouldn't make it an organism anyways.

Separate entity, yes.
Separate human, yes.

And it works with chimeras too, the chimera does not share any DNA in common with the mother.
...or with itself.

Were that enough to show it's seperate and human,

That's enough.

...or with itself.


LOL

It typically has 2 sets of DNA unique to itself, so it's DNa is common to one or the other.

Not the fetus's. The child's. The fetus has no claim unless a child results.

The fetus has no claim regardless. Even you claim that it is the child whose rights are violated, and my claim is that the establishment of rights provides no right that is violated in this situation.

That's enough.

Not really...You realize that generally, when people die, cells remain alive for hours or even days afterwards. Course, they've distinct human DNA, so I guess the person didn't actually die? It's nothing more than a loose colony, maybe less. Literally "a clump of cells". Without a nervous system they're not functioning as one organism.

LOL

It typically has 2 sets of DNA unique to itself, so it's DNa is common to one or the other.

Well, it's distinct human DNA, and supposedly that's enough.

Not really...You realize that generally, when people die, cells remain alive for hours or even days afterwards. Course, they've distinct human DNA, so I guess the person didn't actually die? It's nothing more than a loose colony, maybe less. Literally "a clump of cells". Without a nervous system they're not functioning as one organism.

Allow me to restate for you then.
The DNA is a reliable test to determine if something is human or not and to distinquish between one human and another. (it has no value in determining if we have a "person" as recognised by law though)

Therefore, we are able to state with confidence that the life growing in the womb is human and we can distinguish that human life from other human lives, including the mother. (identical twins are much more difficult to distinquish between each other, although it is possible in theory, regardless, both twins can be distinquished from the mother, and that is the point that bears on our discussion)

This is true even in the case of a chimera, although if we are unaware, then the results, while they would easily demonstrate human life distinct from the mother, might confuse us until we test for chimerism and recognise what we are dealing with.

DNA testing cannot tell us if something has died.

Dead or dying tissue is not a colony. The cells are dying, they are not gaining any benefit from their association. Nor can they survive if separated, as should be obvious by the fact that they are dying.

Allow me to restate for you then.
The DNA is a reliable test to determine if something is human or not and to distinquish between one human and another. (it has no value in determining if we have a "person" as recognised by law though)

It's a lay test. In biology, we do not use DNA to seperate humans. We seperate the organisms and if it's human, it's a human organism. DNA is an unrealiable test for the reasons mentioned. Twins are one human. Chimeras are two, if you use DNA as the test. However, twins are two humans and chimeras are one when you simply look for the deliniators according to the definition of organism. One way of doing things ALWAYS works and one doesn't. It's not a magic trick. It's science.

DNA has no value in disquinshing human organisms or persons. It has no value because the test is flawed.

Therefore, we are able to state with confidence that the life growing in the womb is human and we can distinguish that human life from other human lives, including the mother. (identical twins are much more difficult to distinquish between each other, although it is possible in theory, regardless, both twins can be distinquished from the mother, and that is the point that bears on our discussion)

We can state it's human and when it becomes an organism, it is a human organism. However, it must meet the standards for orgainisms, first. It has nothing to do with DNA. If it's a human organism at conception, when is the other organism created in the case of twins? Again, DNA has nothing to do with when something becomes an organism no matter how much you'd like it to. And the fact that a conceptus has unique DNA means NOTHING in terms of qualifying it as a seperate organism. We're able to point out the flaws in your way of defining an organism, because *gasp* it's flawed.

This is true even in the case of a chimera, although if we are unaware, then the results, while they would easily demonstrate human life distinct from the mother, might confuse us until we test for chimerism and recognise what we are dealing with.

Or we could rely on organism tests and then chimerism would have no effect on our definition organism. It's amusing that you want to break the definition and discount the fact that the exceptions prove it's broken.

DNA testing cannot tell us if something has died.

The organism test can.

Dead or dying tissue is not a colony. The cells are dying, they are not gaining any benefit from their association. Nor can they survive if separated, as should be obvious by the fact that they are dying.

Ah, so gaining benefit is a part of the definition now. Can you please show me where that appears in the biology tests? You just made that one up too.

They couldn't survive if they were seperated? You mean like I couldn't? You mean like a fetus couldn't? Again, you're just making things up.

Humans are organisms.

The fact that it is human doesn't make it A human. My heart is human. It is not an organism. Your statement has no value. When it becomes A human requires it to pass the organism tests first. If humans are organisms, they must first be organism and then determined to be human. You want to skip the organism test.


You contend that a scientist will tell us that a fetus or an embryo is not an individual organism; that the mother and developing child are one organism?

Yes. I don't have to contend. Many of the scientists on here have straight up said it. When the brainstem engages at about 8 or 10 weeks (depending whether you measure from last period or the release of the egg) then it meets the requirements. Prior to that it does not respond as an organism and behaves much more like an organ of the mother, controlled by her hormones in almost exactly the same way her heart is


What is this "proper definition" that you are referring to?

Yes, let's play dumb. That's very useful. Are you not aware of how biology defines organisms? There are a series of requirements. If it meets them it is an organism. If not, it's not. It's really fairly simple. You tried to use a simplistic definition of a website and then had to add all kinds of flawed things to it because it didn't actually work.


Really.
Please describe the stages of development then.

Pardon? Are you claiming that an egg just pops out of nowhere? There just empty space, and then, viola, an egg. Ridiculous.

Look up the term "germ cell" and "oogonia". I guess they must not exist simply because you don't know about them.


Naturally occuring.
See, there's your confusion.
Abnormal biology is not limited to either unaturally nor naturally occuring issues.
Normal is term that is used in biology and a chimera is most definitely not normal. You may wish to review the term.
It's normal biology, my friend. Chimeras are SUPPOSED to occur. It's not caused by a virus or some other outside interference. It's a normal, natural occurence in development that may have some benefit.

Ha, why don't you fill me in? What qualifies as normal in biology? I'd love for you to educate me.


No, because as you point out yourself, I never included it it any definition of an organism.
I used DNA as a method of distinquishing one human from a another human.
DNA is well established as a criteria to distinquish between human organisms.

You didn't include DNA in the definition of organism? Yes, you absolutely did. You used it as the way to tell when a seperate organism is created from the mother. Are you denying you did so? DNA is not a requirement for determining if something is one organism or two or seven. It has nothing to do with it. If one simply determines the number of organisms present, it can and should be done absent of dna.

In biology, we do not use DNA to seperate humans.
...
DNA has no value in disquinshing human organisms or persons. It has no value because the test is flawed.


Wow, there are so many labs you need to tell, you better start tonight and tell them all to stop performing DNA tests.


Ah, so gaining benefit is a part of the definition now. Can you please show me where that appears in the biology tests? You just made that one up too.

They couldn't survive if they were seperated? You mean like I couldn't? You mean like a fetus couldn't? Again, you're just making things up.

Are you even aware of what you're responding to now? Or are you just in that much of a hurry that you don't even read what you're responding now in your mad rush score points in your imaginary debate contest you are constantly competeing in.
Nevermind, that answer is clear every time you post.

Colonial groups share resources for mutual benefit; they generally improve defences, gain the ability to attack larger prey, and enhance food-gathering ability.

A colony of single-celled organisms is a colonial organism. It's likely that early colonial organisms were the first evolutionary step from single celled life to multicellular species. Some colonial organisms closely resemble multicellular organisms; you can tell the difference by separating single cells from the rest of the organism. If the cells always die, the source was a multicellular organism

I'm pretty sure I didn't make it up on my own, unless I also made up the ISCID and made up all these people too:

Society Fellows

Fellows of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) have distinguished themselves for their work in complex systems. In addition to fostering the society's intellectual life and guiding its various programs, fellows serve as the editorial advisory board that peer-reviews the society's journal, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID).

Fellows

Michael J. Behe Biochemistry
Lehigh University

John Bloom Physics and Philosophy of Science
Biola University

Walter Bradley Mechanical Engineering
Texas A&M University

Neil Broom Biophysics
University of Auckland

J. Budziszewski Philosophy and Political Theory
University of Texas, Austin

John Angus Campbell Communications
University of Memphis

Russell W. Carlson Molecular Biology
University of Georgia, Athens

David K. Y. Chiu Biocomputing
University of Guelph

Robin Collins Cosmology and Philosophy of Physics
Messiah College

William Lane Craig Philosophy
Talbot School, Biola

Bernard d'Abrera Lepidoptera
British Museum (Natural History)

Kenneth de Jong Linguistics
Indiana University, Bloomington

William A. Dembski Mathematics

Mark R. Discher Ethics
University of St. Thomas

Daniel Dix Mathematics
University of South Carolina

Darrel Falk Genetics
Point Loma Nazarene University

Fred Field Linguistics
California State University

Guillermo Gonzalez Astronomy
Iowa State University

Bruce L. Gordon Philosophy of Physics
Baylor University

Roland Hirsch Structural Biology
U.S. Department of Energy

David Humphreys Chemistry
McMaster University

Cornelius Hunter Biophysics
Seagull Technology

Muzaffar Iqbal Science and Religion
Center for Islam and Science

Quinn Tyler Jackson Language & Software Systems


Conrad Johanson Clinical Neurosciences & Physiology
Brown Medical School

Robert Kaita Plasma Physics
Princeton University

James Keener Mathematics and Bioengineering
University of Utah

Robert C. Koons Philosophy
University of Texas, Austin

Younghun Kwon Physics
Hanyang University

Christopher Michael Langan Logic, Cosmology, and Reality Theory
Mega Foundation and Research Group

Robert Larmer Philosophy
University of New Brunswick

Matti Leisola Bioprocess Engineering
Helsinki University of Technology

Stan Lennard Medicine
University of Washington

John Lennox Mathematics
University of Oxford

Gina Lynne LoSasso Cognitive Neuroscience and Clinical Neuropsychology
Mega Foundation and Research Group

Jed Macosko Chemistry
La Sierra University

Bonnie Mallard Immunology
University of Guelph

Forrest M. Mims III Atmospheric Science

Scott Minnich Microbiology
University of Idaho

Paul Nelson Philosophy of Biology
Discovery Institute

Filip Palda Economics
l'École Nationale d'Administration Publique, Montreal

Edward T. Peltzer Ocean Chemist

Alvin Plantinga Philosophy
University of Notre Dame

Martin Poenie Molecular Cell andDevelopmental Biology
University of Texas, Austin

Carlos E. Puente Hydrology and Theoretical Dynamics
University of California, Davis

Del Ratzsch Philosophy of Science
Calvin College

Jay Wesley Richards Philosophical Theology
Discovery Institute

Terry Rickard Electrical Engineering
Orincon Corporation

John Roche History of Science
University of Oxford

Andrew Ruys Bioceramic Engineering
University of Sydney

Henry F. Schaefer Quantum Chemistry
University of Georgia, Athens

Jeffrey M. Schwartz, M.D. Psychiatry/ Neuroscience
UCLA Department of Psychiatry

Philip Skell Chemistry
Penn State University

Frederick Skiff Physics
University of Iowa

Karl D. Stephan Electrical Engineering
Southwest Texas State University

Richard Sternberg Systematics
NCBI-GenBank (NIH)

Frank Tipler Mathematical Physics
Tulane University

Jonathan Wells Developmental Biology
Discovery Institute

Peter Zoeller-Greer Mathematics, Physics and Information Science
State University of Applied Sciences, Frankfurt on the Main



Maybe I'm just that creative?

Yes, let's play dumb. That's very useful. Are you not aware of how biology defines organisms? There are a series of requirements. If it meets them it is an organism. If not, it's not. It's really fairly simple. You tried to use a simplistic definition of a website and then had to add all kinds of flawed things to it because it didn't actually work.


I'm aware of how biology attempts to define organisms and life.
I'm aware that there is no perfect definition, just like everyone that has studied biology is aware.

I find it amusing that in one sentence you claim it is simple and then in the very next sentence you accuse me making it simplistic.



Pardon? Are you claiming that an egg just pops out of nowhere? There just empty space, and then, viola, an egg. Ridiculous.

Look up the term "germ cell" and "oogonia". I guess they must not exist simply because you don't know about them.


They were part of my 2nd year Cell Biology final exam, so, I'm familiar, thanks.

Once again, an egg is not developing, it is waiting to either combine with the sperm, else it is being flushed out of the body.

It's normal biology, my friend. Chimeras are SUPPOSED to occur.

SUPPOSED to? That's an interesting phrase that has no business being in a biology discussion.
What's the penalty if we don't meet our chimera quota?


It's not caused by a virus or some other outside interference. It's a normal, natural occurence in development that may have some benefit.

Ha, why don't you fill me in? What qualifies as normal in biology? I'd love for you to educate me.


All natural occurences are not all normal.
I've already posted a definition of normal that covers off several usages, including biology.


You didn't include DNA in the definition of organism? Yes, you absolutely did.

I guess you were wrong earlier then when you told me it wasn't in my definition?
Or maybe you were right then and wrong now?

Wow, there are so many labs you need to tell, you better start tonight and tell them all to stop performing DNA tests.

I didn't say DNA tests don't matter. I said they don't do it to tell the difference between organisms like you claim. I'll try again, you listed an extensive source on colonies, so we know you know what a real source looks like. Would you care to list a source like that that says that one of the requirements for seperating organisms is unique DNA. As far as I know, and I do know, DNA tests are generally simply used for analyzing traits and whatnot. But then when someone doesn't know that identical twins have identical DNA, I should really give a little leeway.


Are you even aware of what you're responding to now? Or are you just in that much of a hurry that you don't even read what you're responding now in your mad rush score points in your imaginary debate contest you are constantly competeing in.
Nevermind, that answer is clear every time you post.

Oh, hey, ad hominems. Yay, perhaps I'm performing, or perhaps I'm staying on point while you try to change the subject. I think the people who are paying attention can tell the difference. But hey, keep insulting me. It gained you a ton of respect earlier. I noticed everyone was defending you, oh, wait... they were saying that they were tired of your crap.

Now back on the subject did you forget that he said it was 'more like' a colony but was denying that they qualify for organisms at all? How does it help you to talk about how they aren't actually a colony? We know they aren't. They aren't even organisms. Your entire claim is flawed.

Colonial groups share resources for mutual benefit; they generally improve defences, gain the ability to attack larger prey, and enhance food-gathering ability.

A colony of single-celled organisms is a colonial organism. It's likely that early colonial organisms were the first evolutionary step from single celled life to multicellular species. Some colonial organisms closely resemble multicellular organisms; you can tell the difference by separating single cells from the rest of the organism. If the cells always die, the source was a multicellular organism

I'm pretty sure I didn't make it up on my own, unless I also made up the ISCID and made up all these people too:

Society Fellows

Fellows of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) have distinguished themselves for their work in complex systems. In addition to fostering the society's intellectual life and guiding its various programs, fellows serve as the editorial advisory board that peer-reviews the society's journal, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID).

Fellows

Michael J. Behe Biochemistry
Lehigh University

John Bloom Physics and Philosophy of Science
Biola University

Walter Bradley Mechanical Engineering
Texas A&M University

Neil Broom Biophysics
University of Auckland

J. Budziszewski Philosophy and Political Theory
University of Texas, Austin

John Angus Campbell Communications
University of Memphis

Russell W. Carlson Molecular Biology
University of Georgia, Athens

David K. Y. Chiu Biocomputing
University of Guelph

Robin Collins Cosmology and Philosophy of Physics
Messiah College

William Lane Craig Philosophy
Talbot School, Biola

Bernard d'Abrera Lepidoptera
British Museum (Natural History)

Kenneth de Jong Linguistics
Indiana University, Bloomington

William A. Dembski Mathematics

Mark R. Discher Ethics
University of St. Thomas

Daniel Dix Mathematics
University of South Carolina

Darrel Falk Genetics
Point Loma Nazarene University

Fred Field Linguistics
California State University

Guillermo Gonzalez Astronomy
Iowa State University

Bruce L. Gordon Philosophy of Physics
Baylor University

Roland Hirsch Structural Biology
U.S. Department of Energy

David Humphreys Chemistry
McMaster University

Cornelius Hunter Biophysics
Seagull Technology

Muzaffar Iqbal Science and Religion
Center for Islam and Science

Quinn Tyler Jackson Language & Software Systems


Conrad Johanson Clinical Neurosciences & Physiology
Brown Medical School

Robert Kaita Plasma Physics
Princeton University

James Keener Mathematics and Bioengineering
University of Utah

Robert C. Koons Philosophy
University of Texas, Austin

Younghun Kwon Physics
Hanyang University

Christopher Michael Langan Logic, Cosmology, and Reality Theory
Mega Foundation and Research Group

Robert Larmer Philosophy
University of New Brunswick

Matti Leisola Bioprocess Engineering
Helsinki University of Technology

Stan Lennard Medicine
University of Washington

John Lennox Mathematics
University of Oxford

Gina Lynne LoSasso Cognitive Neuroscience and Clinical Neuropsychology
Mega Foundation and Research Group

Jed Macosko Chemistry
La Sierra University

Bonnie Mallard Immunology
University of Guelph

Forrest M. Mims III Atmospheric Science

Scott Minnich Microbiology
University of Idaho

Paul Nelson Philosophy of Biology
Discovery Institute

Filip Palda Economics
l'École Nationale d'Administration Publique, Montreal

Edward T. Peltzer Ocean Chemist

Alvin Plantinga Philosophy
University of Notre Dame

Martin Poenie Molecular Cell andDevelopmental Biology
University of Texas, Austin

Carlos E. Puente Hydrology and Theoretical Dynamics
University of California, Davis

Del Ratzsch Philosophy of Science
Calvin College

Jay Wesley Richards Philosophical Theology
Discovery Institute

Terry Rickard Electrical Engineering
Orincon Corporation

John Roche History of Science
University of Oxford

Andrew Ruys Bioceramic Engineering
University of Sydney

Henry F. Schaefer Quantum Chemistry
University of Georgia, Athens

Jeffrey M. Schwartz, M.D. Psychiatry/ Neuroscience
UCLA Department of Psychiatry

Philip Skell Chemistry
Penn State University

Frederick Skiff Physics
University of Iowa

Karl D. Stephan Electrical Engineering
Southwest Texas State University

Richard Sternberg Systematics
NCBI-GenBank (NIH)

Frank Tipler Mathematical Physics
Tulane University

Jonathan Wells Developmental Biology
Discovery Institute

Peter Zoeller-Greer Mathematics, Physics and Information Science
State University of Applied Sciences, Frankfurt on the Main



Maybe I'm just that creative?
I understand what a colony is. The point is that your definition would make them living organisms as much an embryo is. If we're going to use actually biological definitions, how about we do that and stop making them up? I notice that you use a lengthy biological definition when you actually have an argument and you use a sketchy flawed definition from a website to support your defintion of a living organsim. Now why is that? Could it be that you can't actually support your claims about an embryo being a living organism with you know the same level of support as this?

I didn't say DNA tests don't matter.

we do not use DNA to seperate humans.
DNA is an unrealiable test
DNA has no value in disquinshing human organisms or persons.


I guess you're right, the word "matter" never came up.


But then when someone doesn't know that identical twins have identical DNA, I should really give a little leeway.

Identical twins begin with the same genotype. Epigentic changes begin and their DNA does not remain identical.

There's a study you can read if you really don't know, you can ignore it if you're just feigning ignorance to continue your attempt to pass yourself off as the only person that knows anything here.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
PNAS | July 26, 2005 | vol. 102 | no. 30 | 10604-10609

Here's a news article discussing attempts to make practical use out of the fact that identical twins do not have identical DNA.


Posted 9/1/2004 9:36 PM
Twin suspects spark unique DNA test
By Richard Willing, USA TODAY
A private lab in Dallas is set to try something never before attempted by scientists who investigate crimes: separate the DNA of identical twins to try to show which member of the pair committed a crime.
Unlike other people, twins begin life with the same genetic profile because they are formed when a single fertilized egg divides. But tiny mutations are known to occur in DNA, the cellular acid that carries the genetic code, as cells divide during an embryo's growth.

The lab, Orchid Cellmark, hopes to identify those differences to distinguish between the DNA of a pair of twins from Grand Rapids, Mich. The DNA of both men matches a semen sample from a November 1999 rape that was committed by one man.

The experiment is being watched closely by authorities across the nation. They say that in several cases, genetic evidence left at crime scenes — typically blood or semen — has linked identical twins to crimes that only one could have committed. The DNA testing used by law enforcement authorities and the FBI's national DNA database of convicted felons does not detect differences between identical twins.

Police in Virginia, Massachusetts and Texas have had a half-dozen such cases during the past two years, authorities say. Police in the United Kingdom have had several more.

Searching for tiny mutations in DNA is "a lot like looking for a needle in a haystack," says Robert Giles, Orchid Cellmark's director of U.S. operations. But "it also holds the possibility of doing something very useful."



Oh, hey, ad hominems.

If you troll for them, they will come.


Now back on the subject did you forget that he said it was 'more like' a colony

You need to pay attention to what people actually say if you're going to reference them later on.

It's nothing more than a loose colony, maybe less.

He did use the word "more", but not not "like".
It might interest you to know that he was referring to a dead body, it's rather pertinent to why I corrected his usage of colony and why I was assuring him that it is not a colony. (nor is it like a colony)

I'm aware of how biology attempts to define organisms and life.
I'm aware that there is no perfect definition, just like everyone that has studied biology is aware.

I find it amusing that in one sentence you claim it is simple and then in the very next sentence you accuse me making it simplistic.

Okay, since just reading it is difficult, I'll explain. A simple definition makies it difficult to identifiy something and a complete definition makes it simple to identify something. I'm sorry that you find that too difficult to folow. In the future, I will write my post assuming that you don't knwo the difference between a methodology that makes things simple and a simple methodology. I'm sorry for expecting more of you.

Meanwhile, you try to use a definition that no one in biology uses. Even the definition you posted doesn't use it. Keep avoiding it and perhaps no one will notice. In the magic world of SE, do they use DNA as the definition of an organism and twins are one human organism? Or perhaps in your magical world you don't have to actually use evidence. Instead, just keep making up definitions. That works beter.


They were part of my 2nd year Cell Biology final exam, so, I'm familiar, thanks.

Really? You claim to be a biologist yet you don't know that identical twins are *gasp* identical in DNA. I think it's quite amusing that you claim to know but you require me to define it because it doesn't exist. Let's review -

[QUOTE=Jocabia]The egg most certainly does develope.
Really.
Please describe the stages of development then.
Now, a reasonable person would think this means you're claiming the egg doesn't develop. What do you read this to mean?

Please describe the stages of development then.
Once again, an egg is not developing, it is waiting to either combine with the perm, else it is being flushed out of the body.

Eggs don't develop? I guess I mad up the terms I listed. Given that they were part of your 2nd year biology exam, that seems unlikely, but hey, let's pretend that the real world doesn't exist.


SUPPOSED to? That's an interesting phrase that has no business being in a biology discussion.
What's the penalty if we don't meet our chimera quota?

Supposed to simply means that they are a part of what one would expect in the normal biology of a human, as much so as a lesbian or a person with down's syndrome. Now if you'd like ot explain how these things are unexpected, please do. So far all anyone has seen is some lame complaints that I treat, oh, I don't know, normal biolog like *gasp* normal biology.


All natural occurences are not all normal.
I've already posted a definition of normal that covers off several usages, including biology.

No, but all things that one expects to naturally occur in a species without external interference is normal. In this case, it's normal. However, please reference how I'm supposed to look at normal. Is being gay abnormal? It's unusual. It's a low percentage outcome. Is that abnormal? please. You're so experienced here, I would love ot have you explain.


I guess you were wrong earlier then when you told me it wasn't in my definition?
Or maybe you were right then and wrong now?
Since following along is too much, I'll clarify. Your definition missed it. Then you added it. Are you claiming that you said DNA doesn't matter in the definition of an organism, which would be lying, or are you claiming that the 'definition' you posted as proper had DNA to begin with, which would be also lying. Or perhaps, you were just full of it when you tried to pretend that DNA is how biologists figure out what is an organism and what isn't.

I guess you're right, the word "matter" never came up.

Exactly. I said it's not useful in a specific instance. The issue we're discussing. You keep mentioning criminal justice. Want proof, let's look at the evidence you added

Identical twins begin with the same genotype. Epigentic changes begin and their DNA does not remain identical.

No, their DNA is identical. The manifestation of their DNA is not identical. I'm glad that a biologist is so versed in DNA. It would be expecting too much for one to know the difference between epigenetics and DNA. See DNA is what we look at in DNA tests and epigentics is what we see in the actual person, the phenotype. I'm sorry, but that's sort of basic to the understanding of DNA. Identical twins have identical DNA. IDENTICAL.

There's a study you can read if you really don't know, you can ignore it if you're just feigning ignorance to continue your attempt to pass yourself off as the only person that knows anything here.

You mean the study about how DNA manifests itself? Gosh, I wish I would have mentioned epigentics earlier. Oh, wait.... I did. Glad that it wasn't important earlier and it's important now. When does epigenitics manifest, incidentally? Not at conception as you've been arguing. I'll ask again when does the send human organism appear in a twin if DNA is the definition, my friend? I'll wait.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
PNAS | July 26, 2005 | vol. 102 | no. 30 | 10604-10609

Here's a news article discussing attempts to make practical use out of the fact that identical twins do not have identical DNA.


Posted 9/1/2004 9:36 PM
Twin suspects spark unique DNA test
By Richard Willing, USA TODAY
A private lab in Dallas is set to try something never before attempted by scientists who investigate crimes: separate the DNA of identical twins to try to show which member of the pair committed a crime.
Unlike other people, twins begin life with the same genetic profile because they are formed when a single fertilized egg divides. But tiny mutations are known to occur in DNA, the cellular acid that carries the genetic code, as cells divide during an embryo's growth.

The lab, Orchid Cellmark, hopes to identify those differences to distinguish between the DNA of a pair of twins from Grand Rapids, Mich. The DNA of both men matches a semen sample from a November 1999 rape that was committed by one man.

The experiment is being watched closely by authorities across the nation. They say that in several cases, genetic evidence left at crime scenes — typically blood or semen — has linked identical twins to crimes that only one could have committed. The DNA testing used by law enforcement authorities and the FBI's national DNA database of convicted felons does not detect differences between identical twins.

Police in Virginia, Massachusetts and Texas have had a half-dozen such cases during the past two years, authorities say. Police in the United Kingdom have had several more.

Searching for tiny mutations in DNA is "a lot like looking for a needle in a haystack," says Robert Giles, Orchid Cellmark's director of U.S. operations. But "it also holds the possibility of doing something very useful."

Golly, I sure wish that I wouldn't have already said that. it would be far more compelling. It's gotta suck that I'm always a few steps ahead of you. Perhaps next you'll explain to me how an egg develops.



If you troll for them, they will come.[/QUOTE]

I've noticed. More ad hominems? I'm shocked.


You need to pay attention to what people actually say if you're going to reference them later on.[/QUOTE]

I did reference him properly. You didn't. I think it's amusing that you continually correct me when I'm right and you're wrong. He was clear. He was talking about how ridiculous your definitions of organisms are. He said a groups of cells in a dead person would be a human organism in your definition, but according to biology they would be dead and if nothing else they would better (more) qualify as a colony. Again, let's follow along.

He did use the word "more", but not not "like".
It might interest you to know that he was referring to a dead body, it's rather pertinent to why I corrected his usage of colony and why I was assuring him that it is not a colony. (nor is it like a colony)
He was saying it's nothing and that your definition is flawed and pointing out the flaw. I assure you that he realizes it's not an organism or group of organism. The only one who is confused is you. He was stating that we can't use your definitions. Magically, to prove him wrong, you used a paper that *shock* doesn't use your definition. Hardly compelling. But, hey, not all people think, so you might actually be convincing some of them.

Supposed to simply means that they are a part of what one would expect in the normal biology of a human, as much so as a lesbian or a person with down's syndrome. Now if you'd like ot explain how these things are unexpected, please do.

1. I'm not going to take your gay bait, biologically normal humans can engage in whatever sexual behaviour they choose to, including homosexuality.

2. How many chromosones does a NORMAL human have, was it 46 or 47? I seem to have trouble recalling how many to expect, can you help me Jocabia?



No, but all things that one expects to naturally occur in a species without external interference is normal.

No, those would simply be naturally occuring, not normal. Just because normal and natural begin with the same letter they really aren't the same word.
Trisomy and a host of other disorders occur naturally, but are not normal.

You keep mentioning criminal justice.

Actually, I haven't mentioned criminal justice, but it's obvious even to you that is a real world application of real world lab tests that use DNA to distinquish between real world persons.

To head off your next diatribe, I don't for a moment deny that I meant criminal justice, but I never mentioned it.


No, their DNA is identical. The manifestation of their DNA is not identical. I'm glad that a biologist is so versed in DNA. It would be expecting too much for one to know the difference between epigenetics and DNA. See DNA is what we look at in DNA tests and epigentics is what we see in the actual person, the phenotype. I'm sorry, but that's sort of basic to the understanding of DNA. Identical twins have identical DNA. IDENTICAL.


OK, I can't fault you entirely here, I wasn't as clear as I could have been.
I'm not sure now whether it's your understanding of the issue or if it's a difference in perspective.

Epigenetics is not simply a phenotype difference, although that is the difference most easily observed. There are physical changes to the DNA that impact which genes will be expressed, methylation is typically the difference.
It is a physical, inheritable and testable DIFFERENCE in DNA, even in identical twins.
But, this is usually not a change in the base pair sequences (although mutations can alter base pairs and result in further non-identical DNA that we expect to be identical). If you are trying to state that identical twins have identical base pair sequences, then yes, normally, you would be correct.

If you are saying that there is no physical, testable difference in twin DNA, then you are inaccurate.