Say Roe v. Wade is gone and there's a non gay marriage amendment

Who says it's a seperate human being? How do you define human being? A baby is born into this world a human being. But before that? When does an embryo that starts as a single cell go from potential-of-life to living being? Science doesn't have all the answers. There's no magic that happens on day 91 (or whatever) of pregnancy.

 

I agree with you. Who's to say??? All we can do, I believe, is use the very same criteria for life that we use in other settings. Beating hearts and brain waves. That's as close to objective as we can get. The fetus has DNA separate and apart from the mother...it has its own systems...it has its own heart for circulation...and its own brain waves. Put that before a jury on a preponderance of the evidence, and it seems to me that more would say it's likely a separate human being.

And the risk of being wrong, since we don't know for certain, is that we're killing human beings at a ridiculous pace.

The Roe v. Wade standard is fine with me...well, not fine...but it's OK...as long as you make certain that the health reasons for abortions past the first trimester are legitimate.

 

This has been my argument about abortion all along. Once you have measurable brain activity and a heart beat it is a human life. Before that it is a fetus.

Unfortuantly many in the pro-life/anti-abortion crowd aren't interested in being objective and refuse to budge from their "moment of conception" arguement.

 

Fair enough...where do i sign?? But be careful what you ask for. Babies have beating hearts by the 6th week. That's well within the first trimester. That pushes back Roe v. Wade.

http://www.babycenter.com/mybabycenter/106.html

 

I think there's a very valid argument to make for heartbeat, brain activity, etc. (Does one of the two count or are you requiring both?) I think there's something to be said for independent viability too, although that's a number that depends on medical science and thus will be pushed further up with time. I think looking at the issue medically is far more helpful than the whole religious imbued-with-a-soul-at-conception dogma or the womans-right-to-do-anything-with-her-body-regardless nonsense.

 

I know but it is the most objective, reasonable compromise I think we could come up with that should passify both sides of the arguement.

I, like you, have 2 kids and there is nothing better than hearing the heartbeat for the first time or the joy of watching your children being born. I think abortion is moraly wrong but at the same time I don't like imposing my morality or beliefs on others. So I'm stuck in this situation as a pro-life, pro-choice father of 2 who thinks the above compromise is as close as we could get to a fair compromise.

Congrats again on the new son.

 

Legally though a fetus isn't considered an individual (except when it comes to certain crimes.) As far as consent goes as long as the fetus is in the womb the mother speaks for both.

 

agreed totally. i personally believe there is a spirtual part to all of this...I believe in the Creator. but I also recognize that will not be what guides policy. and frankly, i think much of the pro-life group is missing the boat by avoiding the science that actually supports their cause. it's much more persuasive than arguing the dogma you talk of. you can talk forever to a woman about what that baby is doing inside of her...but show her an ultrasound of that beating heart at 6 weeks, and it's a whole different story.

as for heart beat or brain waves...i think different jurisdictions do it differently. of course, this has traditionally been used to declare someone legally dead (as opposed to being illegally dead, which is punishable by a small fine). so the absence of either brain waves or heart beat is an indication that the person is not alive. but, if there is a heart beat or a brain wave, than that's a human being that's deserving of the same rights the rest of us are...the very least of which is life.

 

only in the first trimester, according to Roe v. Wade.

i think we tend to read a lot more into Roe v. Wade than is really there. the baby is absolutely protected, by a reading of that opinion, past the first trimester. it seems that as a reaction to the pro-lifers, the pro-choicers read far more into Roe v. Wade than is really there.

 

I really wish we could get beyond the beating heart standard. AsI said before there's an emotional attachment to the heart but when it comes to what makes us a person that is brain activity.

There's a condition, I forgot what its called, where the neural tube fails to close during development and you end up with a fetus without a brain. Their hearts might develop perfectly but I don't think any of us would consider them living humans if they don't have a brain.

As I said earlier if we can determine when does the brain develop and start functioning that would be the best dividing line for determining when human life begins.

 

hey, it's fine with me. pushing it to heartbeat would be great. at least it's logical as opposed to merely saying, "eh...3 months sounds about right." babies develop differently.

i hear ya...but to me the pro-life argument isn't about mere morality in any sense more than laws against murder are. if it's a beating heart...with its own separate systems...and its own habits forming...and it's separate and distinct DNA...then it's a separate being and is worthy of the same protections and rights i'm granted.

 

they have brains..they're just not working the way ours are yet.

of course, neither are those who are brain-dead, but they're deserving of the same rights you and I are, as well.

 

Yes and you are well within your rights to eradicate that separate entity feeding off of your body. Society even encourages you to irradicate that separate entity.

I don't know if you want to argue that a fetus is a parasite.

 

it's a separate entity, sishir..that's all refman is saying. he's responding directly to posts arguing the contrary and used an imperfect metaphor to do it.

 

It is not philosophy. I was refuting the claim that the fetus is not a part of the mother. That is just nonsensical propaganda. Clearly the fetus is both part of the mother and simultaneously a unique life.

 

I wish I could remember that syndromes name but a baby born without a brain will never develop and in every case rapidly cease all metabolic functions shortly after their separated from the womb. THis isn't about their brains not working the ways ours do. They will never work the way ours do because they don't have brains and our bodies can't function without brains.

Those who are considered categorically brain dead are considered dead with no rights.

See the Terry Schiavo case where the argument being made isn't that she's brain dead but still has rights but that she isn't yet brain dead.

 

Haha. It may be a reasonable compromise, but it would make both camps furious. Six weeks would mean that some babies would still be aborted; anmd six weeks would mean that many women would pass the mark before even knowing they were pregnant and getting the opportunity to abort.

"Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others."

 

Of course a fetus is a parasite. According to dictionary.com, a parasite is "An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. " How doesn't this apply?

There's just a negative connotation to the word, but no reason to believe its inapplicable.

 

Mr. Meowgi might be a good foil for the pro-life crowd when considering how they are viewed by the pro-choice. Consider: would you entertain the possibility of legislating abortion policy in accordance with the whacked-out philosophy of Mr. Meowgi? I sure wouldn't. The pro-choice must see pro-lifers in the same fashion: we're supposed to make public policy on this ridiculous mumbo-jumbo? I see now why that line of argumentation really isn't persuasive.