Politics

[CJW]

That goes back to the question of when the fetus is considered “a baby”? Above, I linked several cases of non-viable fetuses where the pregnant women would be forced by the State to deliver the “baby” so parents could bury it. Is that also justice for all involved?

So answer your own question. When is it considered a baby or a life?

I made a very logical post addressing this topic to include the religion aspect but you as yet haven't acknowledged it. I would like to know what you think of my points if you would oblige me.

 

[CJW]

Interesting that whenever abortion laws are discussed they are conflated with laws against murder, rape, kidnapping Et. al. by anti-abortion folks.

Um, yeah?!?!?!

 

[WAB]

The problem the pro-abortion crowd has is there is no definition for when life begins, other than at conception, that isn't arbitrary. Life is a continuum from conception up through dotage. "Arbitrary" and "just" are antonyms, as a matter of prose and as a matter of law.

It is true that a newly conceived cell is not the same as a blastula or gastrula, which is not same as a neonate, which is not the same as a toddler, which is not the same as a teen...and on and on.

The Latin word "foetus" simply means "offspring." Which apparently begs the question "offspring of what?".

I suspect if one were to smash the egg of a raptor, one could expect at the least a hefty fine, if not prison. We recognize the life and worth of a raptor prior to its hatching, yet we quibble over when the life of a human begins. This is inconsistent, which makes it not rational.

Agreed, and it’s a total smokescreen to say don’t force your religion on others. Take religion out of it and boil it down to the constitution and science. If the baby is alive it is unconstitutional to kill it. I don’t see how you can read the constitution any other way.

 

[VertigoBE]

I do not agree with or believe in IVF or surrogacy but would consider any embryo resulting from that practice to be a human life worthy of protecting although the practice should be ended post haste. In an ideal world

That is a bridge too far for me. I know multiple (now very happy) parents that only managed to conceive through the wonders of medical advancement, such as IVF. This is bringing life where otherwise there would never have been any. It is inconceivable to me why anyone would object to these practices.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

I have several friends that are parents today because of IVF. What logical reason would you have to stop the practice?

I should’ve added that I know a couple (known her for 25 years or so and her husband for around 4 years) that were having trouble having their first child and used IVF and they have a beautiful family. I’m a father as well so I’m not unsympathetic to those who are struggling or would be interested in IVF.

The answer is two fold:

1- The children who are waiting or hoping to be adopted along with the amount of children who could be saved by ending abortion and put up for adoption need to be of utmost priority.

2- Oftentimes the family dynamic is not ideal. I.E. homosexual and/or unmarried couples seeking this procedure. Or single women.

Again, forest for the trees.

@VertigoBE

 

[Tanks]

So answer your own question. When is it considered a baby or a life?

I made a very logical post addressing this topic to include the religion aspect but you as yet haven't acknowledged it. I would like to know what you think of my points if you would oblige me.

My view is that if it can survive outside the womb on its own (or after spending some time in a preemie unit) than it is viable. Studies put it at about 20+ (50% chance to survive) weeks. However, if the baby has no chance of survival at all then it is fine to medically terminate it at any time e.g. no skull development etc..

That being said, it is up to the mother. If she wants to give birth to a dead baby or one without kidneys that would die within minutes, then she can do whatever she wants.

 

[Datchew]

Interesting that whenever abortion laws are discussed they are conflated with laws against murder, rape, kidnapping Et. al. by anti-abortion folks.

Completely different for most rational people that are using logic instead of religion to define the crime.

You're dancing hard on this one.

Several people countered your statements and extrapolated them to their logical conclusion. Pretty effectively I thought. If a principle works at all, it works in all situations with very few exceptions.

You seem to be of the mind that only laws you agree with are ok and others are enforcing morality against others' will but it doesn't work when the shoe is on the other foot. That's the only conflating I have seen.

Most rational people? Broooooooooo

I'm not going into a history lesson on how western civilization was founded on a blend of Jerusalem (Judeo-Christian) and Athens (Greek philosophy) because I don't think you'd care. But you should probably realize before saying stuff like that that laws are founded on morals which are founded in theology. (Also... so is our republic.) And some pretty heavyweight minds for the past 2500 years would not agree with you.

 

[CJW]

It is inconceivable to me why anyone would object to these practices.

Polygenic screening of embryos is here, but is it ethical?

The first child born using the technique arrived last year. But can it really help reduce diseases in a new generation, or is it ‘techno-eugenics’?

www.theguardian.com

This is just one of the first links I saw when I searched but gets the point across of one particular reason why some are not sold on IVF. Like I said earlier. We're playing God now.

 

[Hunt anything]

@Tanks , don’t confuse religion with morality. I know a few people that are against abortion and to my knowledge they haven’t set foot inside a church in many years and have no religious bone in their body. Plus I know some fairly religious people that are okay with some abortions. I would say my feelings are more moral than religious and I think of myself as a faithful Christian.

 

[Tanks]

...

The answer is two fold:

1- The children who are waiting or hoping to be adopted along with the amount of children who could be saved by ending abortion and put up for adoption need to be of utmost priority.

2- Oftentimes the family dynamic is not ideal. I.E. non-heterosexual non-married couples seeking this procedure.

...

Well, the first argument is the same argument PETA uses to call for the bans on breeding animals. Also, forcing women to give birth (which in itself a health risk) and then asking them to put it up for adoption is a bridge too far in my view. One more thing, are you also going to provide funding for these single moms to raise their kids, if they decide to keep it (provide day care, lodging, food etc. while mom learns a skill to survive).

In regard to the second point, with divorce rates at 50% I would not call being married a stable environment.

Lastly, I assume you would also be against non-heterosexual, non-married couples adopting?

 

[CJW]

My view is that if it can survive outside the womb on its own (or after spending some time in a preemie unit) than it is viable. Studies put it at about 20+ (50% chance to survive) weeks. However, if the baby has no chance of survival at all then it is fine to medically terminate it at any time e.g. no skull development etc..

That being said, it is up to the mother. If she wants to give birth to a dead baby or one without kidneys that would die within minutes, then she can do whatever she wants.

So before the we 20 weeks it's ok to abort a healthy baby? Just trying to be clear.

 

[VertigoBE]

Polygenic screening of embryos is here, but is it ethical?

The first child born using the technique arrived last year. But can it really help reduce diseases in a new generation, or is it ‘techno-eugenics’?

www.theguardian.com

This is just one of the first links I saw when I searched but gets the point across of one particular reason why some are not sold on IVF. Like I said earlier. We're playing God now.

With all respect, but we have been playing god since we smashed two rocks together and made a fire. So this argument is moot.

Using a technique to screen for diseases is not something I would be in disagreement with. After all, due to our worldly luxuries, our evolution has all but stopped. Using such techniques “to breed out” certain diseases seems like a good use of our knowledge.

I shortly dated a girl who had turned blind due to a degenerative eye disease. She cannot have children for fear of passing these traits on. Such a screening would be a Godsend for her. Yes I used that word very deliberately.

Deciding upon the child’s hair colour, athletic ability, IQ or even its sex, are not defensible however.

 

[CJW]

Well, the first argument is the same argument PETA uses to call for the bans on breeding animals. Also, forcing women to give birth (which in itself a health risk) and then asking them to put it up for adoption is a bridge too far in my view. One more thing, are you also going to provide funding for these single moms to raise their kids, if they decide to keep it (provide day care, lodging, food etc. while mom learns a skill to survive).

In regard to the second point, with divorce rates at 50% I would not call being married a stable environment.

Lastly, I assume you would also be against non-heterosexual, non-married couples adopting?

Asking them to put it up for adoption is a bridge too far but abortion isn't?????

We should definitely encourage women to keep babies, fathers to stick around and both of them to grow up and take responsibility. Maybe if we had kept doing that long ago we would be better off today.

Ben Shapiro highlighted a story of such a situation. They kept the kid. The dad joined the military in order to provide and the mom got her GED so she had more options. They both went from kids to adults. Win, win.

 

[CJW]

With all respect, but we have been playing god since we smashed two rocks together and made a fire. So this argument is moot.

Using a technique to screen for diseases is not something I would be in disagreement with. After all, due to our worldly luxuries, our evolution has all but stopped. Using such techniques “to breed out” certain diseases seems like a good use of our knowledge.

I shortly dated a girl who had turned blind due to a degenerative eye disease. She cannot have children for fear of passing these traits on. Such a screening would be a Godsend for her. Yes I used that word very deliberately.

Deciding upon the child’s hair colour, athletic ability, IQ or even its sex, are not defensible however.

Making sparks and genetically modifying and selecting kids is apples to oranges.

I understand the desire to wish better for a person such as her, but hardships and playing the cards you're dealt with support from others is in my view part of what makes us special as a species. It's one of those things where you don't want to look at a person with a disability or disease as a reason to value your own life and situation more, and I assume they don't want to be looked at that way either. But I can't help but think it's a valuable asset for humanity in its own way.

Do you think that it won't get to the point of choosing an embryo for such things as hair color and IQ? That's one of the reasons it is a controversial topic. Perhaps you found a conceivable reason to object to the practice?

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

Well, the first argument is the same argument PETA uses to call for the bans on breeding animals. Also, forcing women to give birth (which in itself a health risk) and then asking them to put it up for adoption is a bridge too far in my view. One more thing, are you also going to provide funding for these single moms to raise their kids, if they decide to keep it (provide day care, lodging, food etc. while mom learns a skill to survive).

In regard to the second point, with divorce rates at 50% I would not call being married a stable environment.

Lastly, I assume you would also be against non-heterosexual, non-married couples adopting?

People are just a touch more important than an animal don’t you think? Actually pregnancy and delivery are the safest they’ve ever been (obviously) and they should’ve thought about the consequences of their actions or if it wasn’t their choice then I hate to say it but life is tough sometimes. Again, going to the doctor regularly throughout a pregnancy and c sections by and large mitigate any major risks in the vast majority of cases. That doesn’t give anyone the right to harm the innocent. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Again, forest for the trees.

They can always put it up for adoption. Other than that there are resources available. I’m not saying it wouldn’t be tough for some but you can’t just kill a kid because they’re inconvenient. People make it despite poor circumstances all the time.

That’s very true. That’s a whole other topic but a heterosexual married couple is the ideal scenario for raising children regardless of divorce rates. Period.

That is correct, I do object to those demographic groups being able to adopt.

 

[freefall]

So back to MY question, if it's OK to terminate a life because of Down Syndrome at 20 weeks, why not Downer Syndrome at 24 years?
Somebody (probably the parent, if not them the rest of us) is going to have to pay the freight on this individual for the rest of their life, how can you say one is worth less than the other?

 

[Altitude sickness]

Abortion is a third rail issue. Discussing it here will not change anyone’s mind. But it is nice to see people on opposite ends of the discussion being respectful and reasonable.

 

[Tanks]

With all respect, but we have been playing god since we smashed two rocks together and made a fire. So this argument is moot.

Using a technique to screen for diseases is not something I would be in disagreement with. After all, due to our worldly luxuries, our evolution has all but stopped. Using such techniques “to breed out” certain diseases seems like a good use of our knowledge.

I shortly dated a girl who had turned blind due to a degenerative eye disease. She cannot have children for fear of passing these traits on. Such a screening would be a Godsend for her. Yes I used that word very deliberately.

...

My daughter is a carrier for Tay-Sachs disease. She had her husband tested before they got married as it is a fatal disease where babies last maybe a few years in the most common form. He tested negative.

She wanted kids of her own and if he also was a carrier then she would have moved on regardless of how much she loved him. Luckily, he did not, and my grandkids do not have the gene.

That was also the reason I ended up getting a divorce after 9 years of marriage with my last wife. She wanted kids and we got tested. We both were carriers (1 in 729, for both to have it ). She has two beautiful girls with the current husband.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Well, when laws are passed to enforce one's beliefs on others that goes beyond disagreement.

Overall, I am a laissez-faire guy. I don't want government intervention on firearms, economy and yes, even in medical choices of one's own care. People have personal responsibility and have to live with the consequences of their own choices and actions.

It is funny how those on the right supposedly abhor government intervention on people's lives but be the first ones to pass laws for social engineering when it suits their own viewpoints/beliefs. The hypocrisy is amazing. BTW, it goes double for those on the left, but at least they are honest about having the government be a factor in one's life from the cradle to grave.

And yet I'm sure you agree with murder being a crime. Where does that belief come from?

 

[Tanks]

...

Do you think that it won't get to the point of choosing an embryo for such things as hair color and IQ? That's one of the reasons it is a controversial topic. Perhaps you found a conceivable reason to object to the practice?

Heck, we pick significant others based on looks, IQ etc., so embryos are not a bridge too far.