United States Presidential Election 2008 - Official Discussion Thread

Originally posted by sithsaber408
1.) What? What are you talking about? Why would the mother and child die together? That was a strange response. That's not the reason most abortions are had

Because you said they'd do nothing. I assume you meant, again, that there is a list of things that they do, like eating for example, in order to survive. Still pretty stupid thing to say.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
2.) So that begs the question then: If you'd support protecting a fetus at a gestational age that it can survive outside the mother (say 24 weeks), then what's the difference between that fetus then and 2 weeks earlier? It needs the mothers support, but is it somehow more or less of a human being because it needs that support?

That it can't survive outside the mother. And I am not saying that either is or is not a human being, I'm just opposed to the parasitical nature of the fetus.

I'm using medical terms for discussion of a medical procedure.

I could do nothing and 50% of fertilized zygotes would fail to implant, or spontaneously abort. As they do. A condom stops a natural process. So does medicine for sick and or dying actual people. And?

The woman could be hit by a bus. The child could be Hitler reincarnated. The potentiality argument is spurious; you projecting a possible future doesn't override the definite future upon separation of a previable entity from a woman, imminent death.

A sperm and an egg are potentially a human being too; the easiest critique of the potentiality argument being the arbitrary delineation of when "potential" becomes relevant.

If I lyse a zygote before the male and female pronuclei fuse am "I taking a human life?"

PGD of embryos prior to implantation in IVF will ultimately result in the destruction of some of the embryos identified as carrying the disease gene, are these also "people."

During IVF multiple embryos are implanted due to the rarity of success; combined with the above the IVF process is obviously evil.

A fetus identified with anencephaly generally dies at term, it lacks a forebrain, but aborting it would obviously be "wrong."

A full complement of purified human genomic DNA can become a zygote if I microinject it into a skin cell and provide electrical stimulis. So what?

------

Based on personal knowledge of embryology, fetal development, neurophysiology, as well as personal moral and ethical philosophy, I subjectively don't believe the embryo, morula, blastocyst, fetus etc is deserving of the same rights as an actual human being, and at the stages where abortion is most commonly performed neural development has not reached sapience nor have pain sensory systems developed.

A previable fetus is by definition, not viable ex utero. I haven't said anything about what I think should happen if a fetus is "born alive" with regard to the legislation mentioned above. I haven't read said legislation ergo I'm not going to give a personal opinion of it.

If a fetus can be shown to be viable ex utero and/or has developed sapience and/or pain sensory systems then an abortion isn't necessary. An oxytocin induced delivery would suffice.

First, I commend you for making a more detailed and rational post than many pro-choice people. Kudos.

Second, I guess we just fundamentally disagree. I know that many times zygotes don't implant or spontaneously abort, and also that a baby born with anencephaly isn't going to live. Lots of things happen in pregnancy. Kids born full term are sometimes wrapped in the umbilical cord and suffer brain damage due to oxygen loss.

But just because such things do sometimes happen naturally, why should we go even further and allow abortions if we aren't talking about those circumstances and are talking about a normal regular healthy pregnancy that would go to term? We don't know what will happen if the zygote is allowed to grow. Just because a few don't make it doesn't mean that we shouldn't even give others the chance!

It's like killing a 2 year old being okay because he might grow up to be a murderer.

Just because pregnancy doesn't always go right is not a valid reason (to me) to prevent it from taking it's natural course.

The condom argument is not the same: sperm and egg have not fuzed to create a new life. (or potential life, if you prefer)

Two things that you said also caught my interest:

1.) "you projecting a possible future doesn't override the definite future upon separation of a previable entity from a woman, imminent death."

That makes me think: YOU projecting a possible future is no better. (i.e, there might be complications, or the baby may be stillborn) So because the baby will die if separated from the mother too early it's not a life worth protecting?

2.) Follows up from that and also to Bardock because he said the same about it being able to survive outside the mother...

What happens then as babies become more and more viable sooner? What happens when that 24 weeker is making it at 23 weeks? 22 weeks? Are they any "more human" or "worth more" because they are out of the womb now?

Are the women who aborted at 22 weeks in the past now guilty of murder if it's shown that a 22 weeker can live, grow, and be healthy outside the mother?

What is the difference, besides size and age?

That's why it's hard for the medical community to put an exact age on life beginning, because the bar keeps getting set back. And you look at something that's impossible now, say a 17 weeker making it, but you know that in the future things may develop to where they do.

And as you keep pushing the bar back, you keep admitting that what you were doing before was wrong, because you terminated lives that given proper care and a chance, can grow to be children, then teens, then adults with hopes, dreams, love, etc...

I wasn't projecting a possible future, I was indicating that the potentiality argument is flawed. I'm not invoking a potentiality argument.

An 8 year old can't smoke, drink, gamble or vote, purely because he will be able to when he turns 18 or 21 depending upon jurisdiction. There is no legal precedent for "future rights" as far as I'm aware. Further, current rights of a woman's autonomy over her body receive primacy over "future rights."

I have no vested interest in whether a woman decides she doesn't want to provide an environment for gestation; it isn't my body nor my brood. Ergo in the event the option is to be allowed or denied, I will allow the option, the personal decision of any woman who decides to undergo the option is none of my business.

I'm a physicalist, pragmatist and largely utilitarian in ethical views. I don't believe in the "mind" or the "soul."

Tangible, measurable signs of meaningful neural connectivity and activity; ex utero independent viability; are determinants of when a fetus should be granted the rights of a neonate.

The limbic system, REM cycles and neurotransmitter imbalance leading to infatuation and social attachment have no impact of that.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot

I'm a physicalist, pragmatist and largely utilitarian in ethical views. I don't believe in the "mind" or the "soul."

Tangible, measurable signs of meaningful neural connectivity and activity; ex utero independent viability; are determinants of when a fetus should be granted the rights of a neonate.

1.) That explains alot. How can you not believe in the mind, when clearly you posess a very sharp one?

2.) Again, how do you define signs of meaningful neural connectivity?

My son would hear me sing over the womb at 19 weeks and kick when I'd do it. He's responding to the sound. Would you not consider that meaningful neural connectivity? Even though his gestational age still had him dependent upon his mother?

And lastly, what about that earlier question that I posed, which you dodged?

"What happens then as babies become more and more viable sooner? What happens when that 24 weeker is making it at 23 weeks? 22 weeks? Are they any "more human" or "worth more" because they are out of the womb now?

Are the women who aborted at 22 weeks in the past now guilty of murder if it's shown that a 22 weeker can live, grow, and be healthy outside the mother?

What is the difference, besides size and age?

That's why it's hard for the medical community to put an exact age on life beginning, because the bar keeps getting set back. And you look at something that's impossible now, say a 17 weeker making it, but you know that in the future things may develop to where they do.

And as you keep pushing the bar back, you keep admitting that what you were doing before was wrong, because you terminated lives that given proper care and a chance, can grow to be children, then teens, then adults with hopes, dreams, love, etc..."

All that is ascribed to "mind" is actually attributable to brain.

From a physicalistic view among other things, thalamocortical connectivity. Or as noted by inimalist in another thread geniculocortical connectivity. Or from a utilitarian view, prior to the development of nociceptive perception.

I didn't dodge your question. You quoted my answer.
Murder is a legal term involving premeditated malice.
Technological advance doesn't change physiology. An advanced external incubator doesn't make a fetus independently viable. The things I listed are predications for "personhood" under the philosophies I accede to. A women has no obligation to wave her rights to autonomy over her body for the entity prior to these criteria being met.

Anecdotes and hippy nouns are irrelevant. Your reasonings seem to all be based in potentiality, and I have no interest in intangibles when assigning the individual rights.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
She's only running for Vice President though. The Democrats would be dumb to pounce on that. The Republicans could easily argue and I think they will that their candidates are in the right order: They've got the long term washington guy at the top of the ticket, and the newcomer as the Vice President. The Democrats have it backwards they'll prolly say. And that could totally work.

I also think, the Republicans being the master politicians they are measured twice with this decision. It could actually be their intention to kind of back off the experience attacks on Obama and just spin their ticket as the REAL reform ticket with two people with actual reform credentials on it and Obama's as actually "more of the same" since Palin has such a fresh record of going against her party and cleaning up corruption etc and John McCain has gone against his party as well

Commentator: What do you say about your running mate having no experience?
McCain: Are you talking to me or Joe Biden?

Palin's daughter is 5 months pregnant out of wedlock...

This being released apparently to dispel the (bizarre) rumor in the left blogosphere that Palin's baby is actually her daughters and that she faked her pregnancy. 😖

Originally posted by sithsaber408
However, move that baby inside the womb and make her/him 3 months younger and all bets are off!

It's all such crap. Obama and every other politician should go ahead and vote for those bills because the truth is that those bills mean little in the end: Roe v Wade will get overturned.

It was a bunk decision in the first place. How some retarded judges were able to decide that the "right to privacy" part of the constitution somehow takes precedence over the "right of ALL people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is ludicrous.

It's not even constitutional to say that people should be able to end the lives of other people for no good reason other than inconvenience. Especially when there are plenty of people that would adopt them.

(Rape/incest happens less than 1% of the time so throw that nonsense argument right out the front door)

Abortion to save the life of the mother I can understand and support.

Having abortions federally funded by my tax dollars (another position Obama supports) is something I cannot.

And there we have it. Your argument was never about these actual bills, it was simply about abortion. Exactly why Obama voted against those bills, they weren't actually for what they said.

Yes, every politician should vote for these bills, and just ignore all problems that they'd produce and ignore their true meaning. Why even read the bill, right? Should just vote based on the heading.

Roe v Wade will never ever get overturned. It would be a disaster if it did. Abortions wouldn't cease, they'd just be done illegally or on foreign soil, and instead of the money going to the economy, they'd go to criminals or foreign lands, and the precedure would become less safe. And we'd see our already overcrowded prison's explode even more. But you'd at least have your moral victory, right? And all at the low low price of adding more misery to the world.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Palin's daughter is 5 months pregnant out of wedlock...

This being released apparently to dispel the (bizarre) rumor in the left blogosphere that Palin's baby is actually her daughters and that she faked her pregnancy. 😖

Yeah, I saw that. While it's not good, at least her and the father are getting married. (as if they had any choice! ROFL!)

I don't think it'll have much effect on things.

But that was a pretty cruel rumor on the liberal blogs: that the DS son Trig wasn't even hers but a fabricated story. ❌

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
All that is ascribed to "mind" is actually attributable to brain.

From a physicalistic view among other things, thalamocortical connectivity. Or as noted by inimalist in another thread geniculocortical connectivity. Or from a utilitarian view, prior to the development of nociceptive perception.

I didn't dodge your question. You quoted my answer.
Murder is a legal term involving premeditated malice.
Technological advance doesn't change physiology. An advanced external incubator doesn't make a fetus independently viable. The things I listed are predications for "personhood" under the philosophies I accede to. A women has no obligation to wave her rights to autonomy over her body for the entity prior to these criteria being met.

Anecdotes and hippy nouns are irrelevant. Your reasonings seem to all be based in potentiality, and I have no interest in intangibles when assigning the individual rights.

So if the baby is born early and needs an incubator, then it's not viable and should be allowed to be aborted?

That means that you'd allow abortions for some babies up to 32 weeks gestation. (not all babies in incubators are micro-preemies, you know. Some are even only 3-4 weeks early)

You don't want to argue potentiallity but the fact remains: when you support the babies life in an incubator, it grows and develops, and then in time takes on all the "attributes" that you say are necessary for him/her to be protected.

If you don't support the babies life in an incubator, you are taking that chance away.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, it sounds like any premature infant who needs an incubator is not deserving of human rights protection because they aren't independently viable.

(and I use the word infant because even in an incuabtor, once a fetus is born it's now an infant, I don't care how small.)

Originally posted by BackFire
Yes, every politician should vote for these bills, and just ignore all problems that they'd produce and ignore their true meaning. Why even read the bill, right? Should just vote based on the heading

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Palin's daughter is 5 months pregnant out of wedlock...

This being released apparently to dispel the (bizarre) rumor in the left blogosphere that Palin's baby is actually her daughters and that she faked her pregnancy. 😖

Hey, it's all about "family values".

Originally posted by sithsaber408
So if the baby is born early and needs an incubator, then it's not viable and should be allowed to be aborted?

That means that you'd allow abortions for some babies up to 32 weeks gestation. (not all babies in incubators are micro-preemies, you know. Some are even only 3-4 weeks early)

You don't want to argue potentiallity but the fact remains: when you support the babies life in an incubator, it grows and develops, and then in time takes on all the "attributes" that you say are necessary for him/her to be protected.

If you don't support the babies life in an incubator, you are taking that chance away.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, it sounds like any premature infant who needs an incubator is not deserving of human rights protection because they aren't independently viable.

(and I use the word infant because even in an incuabtor, once a fetus is born it's now an infant, I don't care how small.)

I don't intend to invoke potentiality because it's a flawed argument. Notwithstanding you previously were saying all things should be allowed to occur naturally.

"Personhood" and the assignment of rights are not and should not be determined by the rate of technological advancement. And what I'd use to ascribe "personhood" to a fetus, irregardless of post-partum viability, is rooted in neurophysiology and has already been mentioned. The exact delineation is not yet determined but I'm sufficiently satisfied that at the stages abortion is most commonly performed these developmental stages have yet to be reached; and that if these stages have been reached then the procedure is legally only performed in the event of danger to the life of the mother. Any "misunderstanding" on your part is probably due to your own agenda.

Is it possible to abort a zygote/embryo/foetus, and it kept in a lab or transferred to a different mother, and it survive?

At up to early blastocyst stage if one could identify it on the uterine fundus it could probably be vitrified and stored.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
At up to early blastocyst stage if one could identify it on the uterine fundus it could probably be vitrified and stored.

by today's technology, would this be exceedingly difficult/expensive?

Because if it's possible to keep these alive, doesn't the whole killing babies argument collapse?

Originally posted by inimalist
by today's technology, would this be exceedingly difficult/expensive?

If blastocyst identification, viable removal and temporary survival is achievable though I don't see why the process couldn't be performed ex utero. Of course I'm not sure what one would do exactly with a stockpile of blastocysts in suspended animation.

To get back to politics, I'm seeing a somewhat alarming, though not surprising, tactic from the McCain camp since the choice of Palin. They are playing the 'gender card' whenever someone points out her lack of experience.

Just now on Larry King James Carville argued that being mayor of a small town isn't enough to give valid executive experience, to which the congresswoman whom supports McCain, who was Carville's opponent, said 'I find that offensive and I know a lot of other women do, she's a competent woman and women in this country are tired of being treated as if they're second class blah blah blah". I saw the exact same argument made against Carville on Friday when he made a similar argument about Palin on TV. It seems their new talking points is to pretend that criticizing Palin on anything is grounds for insinuating that the person is attacking her based on her gender.

Don't worry, on CNN about an hour ago, Campell Brown asked McCain's spoke person (Tucker something) a flat out question of 'give me one example of what Palin has done that qualifies as an executive decision which would translate to her being able to take charge should McCain not be able to'. Dude skirted the question every which way possible and then implied that Palin being a woman was the issue people had.