Total Posts:91|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How soon after fertilization does the human f

TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 12:50:47 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 12:43:33 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am just curious. I keep finding conflicting opinions.

Can you finish your question?
ILoveSitarMusic
Posts: 225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 12:53:13 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 12:50:47 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:43:33 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am just curious. I keep finding conflicting opinions.

Can you finish your question?

How soon after ferttilisation does the human fetus have brainwaves?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 12:58:44 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 12:43:33 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am just curious. I keep finding conflicting opinions.

Hum. Well if you mean electrical impulses, begin of the second trimester. It should be noted that the fetus does NOT even have a cerbal cortex until the END of the second trimester.

"Brain waves" as "thoughts" would be well into the third trimester.

So... DOes that help?
ILoveSitarMusic
Posts: 225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 1:06:07 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 12:58:44 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:43:33 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am just curious. I keep finding conflicting opinions.

Hum. Well if you mean electrical impulses, begin of the second trimester. It should be noted that the fetus does NOT even have a cerbal cortex until the END of the second trimester.

"Brain waves" as "thoughts" would be well into the third trimester.

So... DOes that help?

Is it okay to abort it before brainwaves?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 1:07:45 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 1:06:07 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:58:44 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:43:33 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am just curious. I keep finding conflicting opinions.

Hum. Well if you mean electrical impulses, begin of the second trimester. It should be noted that the fetus does NOT even have a cerbal cortex until the END of the second trimester.

"Brain waves" as "thoughts" would be well into the third trimester.

So... DOes that help?

Is it okay to abort it before brainwaves?

Before, after. Yes.
ILoveSitarMusic
Posts: 225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 1:32:03 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 1:07:45 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:06:07 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:58:44 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:43:33 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am just curious. I keep finding conflicting opinions.

Hum. Well if you mean electrical impulses, begin of the second trimester. It should be noted that the fetus does NOT even have a cerbal cortex until the END of the second trimester.

"Brain waves" as "thoughts" would be well into the third trimester.

So... DOes that help?

Is it okay to abort it before brainwaves?

Before, after. Yes.

Thank you. I think I am prochoice, then.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 1:54:31 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 1:32:03 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:07:45 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:06:07 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:58:44 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:43:33 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am just curious. I keep finding conflicting opinions.

Hum. Well if you mean electrical impulses, begin of the second trimester. It should be noted that the fetus does NOT even have a cerbal cortex until the END of the second trimester.

"Brain waves" as "thoughts" would be well into the third trimester.

So... DOes that help?

Is it okay to abort it before brainwaves?

Before, after. Yes.

Thank you. I think I am prochoice, then.

Well, I am glad I could help, and I am glad that you are pro-choice. However... You should think about this issue aside from some bit of medical fact. The choice is really quite apart from any marker in development of the fetus. It is about the rights of the woman. The right to control her own body.
ILoveSitarMusic
Posts: 225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 2:00:12 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 1:54:31 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:32:03 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:07:45 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:06:07 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:58:44 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:43:33 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am just curious. I keep finding conflicting opinions.

Hum. Well if you mean electrical impulses, begin of the second trimester. It should be noted that the fetus does NOT even have a cerbal cortex until the END of the second trimester.

"Brain waves" as "thoughts" would be well into the third trimester.

So... DOes that help?

Is it okay to abort it before brainwaves?

Before, after. Yes.

Thank you. I think I am prochoice, then.

Well, I am glad I could help, and I am glad that you are pro-choice. However... You should think about this issue aside from some bit of medical fact. The choice is really quite apart from any marker in development of the fetus. It is about the rights of the woman. The right to control her own body.
Thank you. I have struggled with this issue because consent has been an issue in my life. I am so afraid of being wrong.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 2:01:49 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 2:00:12 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:54:31 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:32:03 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:07:45 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:06:07 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:58:44 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:43:33 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am just curious. I keep finding conflicting opinions.

Hum. Well if you mean electrical impulses, begin of the second trimester. It should be noted that the fetus does NOT even have a cerbal cortex until the END of the second trimester.

"Brain waves" as "thoughts" would be well into the third trimester.

So... DOes that help?

Is it okay to abort it before brainwaves?

Before, after. Yes.

Thank you. I think I am prochoice, then.

Well, I am glad I could help, and I am glad that you are pro-choice. However... You should think about this issue aside from some bit of medical fact. The choice is really quite apart from any marker in development of the fetus. It is about the rights of the woman. The right to control her own body.
Thank you. I have struggled with this issue because consent has been an issue in my life. I am so afraid of being wrong.

Well... This is the science forum, but I would be happy to discuss any issues you have with consent you may have. This issue, abortion, has been with me and my family my entire life..
ILoveSitarMusic
Posts: 225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 2:10:25 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 2:01:49 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 2:00:12 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:54:31 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:32:03 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:07:45 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:06:07 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:58:44 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:43:33 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am just curious. I keep finding conflicting opinions.

Hum. Well if you mean electrical impulses, begin of the second trimester. It should be noted that the fetus does NOT even have a cerbal cortex until the END of the second trimester.

"Brain waves" as "thoughts" would be well into the third trimester.

So... DOes that help?

Is it okay to abort it before brainwaves?

Before, after. Yes.

Thank you. I think I am prochoice, then.

Well, I am glad I could help, and I am glad that you are pro-choice. However... You should think about this issue aside from some bit of medical fact. The choice is really quite apart from any marker in development of the fetus. It is about the rights of the woman. The right to control her own body.
Thank you. I have struggled with this issue because consent has been an issue in my life. I am so afraid of being wrong.

Well... This is the science forum, but I would be happy to discuss any issues you have with consent you may have. This issue, abortion, has been with me and my family my entire life..
One thing I would like to discuss is how the fertilization versus birth debate presents a false dichotomy. There are so many views as to when life begins.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 2:16:21 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 2:10:25 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 2:01:49 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 2:00:12 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:54:31 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:32:03 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:07:45 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:06:07 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:58:44 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:43:33 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am just curious. I keep finding conflicting opinions.

Hum. Well if you mean electrical impulses, begin of the second trimester. It should be noted that the fetus does NOT even have a cerbal cortex until the END of the second trimester.

"Brain waves" as "thoughts" would be well into the third trimester.

So... DOes that help?

Is it okay to abort it before brainwaves?

Before, after. Yes.

Thank you. I think I am prochoice, then.

Well, I am glad I could help, and I am glad that you are pro-choice. However... You should think about this issue aside from some bit of medical fact. The choice is really quite apart from any marker in development of the fetus. It is about the rights of the woman. The right to control her own body.
Thank you. I have struggled with this issue because consent has been an issue in my life. I am so afraid of being wrong.

Well... This is the science forum, but I would be happy to discuss any issues you have with consent you may have. This issue, abortion, has been with me and my family my entire life..
One thing I would like to discuss is how the fertilization versus birth debate presents a false dichotomy. There are so many views as to when life begins.

I would say again, when live begins is not terribly critical to this debate. There are many reasons to care about that question, but when you examine closely, "life" is not the critical issue.
ILoveSitarMusic
Posts: 225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 2:22:28 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 2:16:21 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 2:10:25 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 2:01:49 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 2:00:12 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:54:31 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:32:03 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:07:45 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:06:07 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:58:44 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:43:33 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am just curious. I keep finding conflicting opinions.

Hum. Well if you mean electrical impulses, begin of the second trimester. It should be noted that the fetus does NOT even have a cerbal cortex until the END of the second trimester.

"Brain waves" as "thoughts" would be well into the third trimester.

So... DOes that help?

Is it okay to abort it before brainwaves?

Before, after. Yes.

Thank you. I think I am prochoice, then.

Well, I am glad I could help, and I am glad that you are pro-choice. However... You should think about this issue aside from some bit of medical fact. The choice is really quite apart from any marker in development of the fetus. It is about the rights of the woman. The right to control her own body.
Thank you. I have struggled with this issue because consent has been an issue in my life. I am so afraid of being wrong.

Well... This is the science forum, but I would be happy to discuss any issues you have with consent you may have. This issue, abortion, has been with me and my family my entire life..
One thing I would like to discuss is how the fertilization versus birth debate presents a false dichotomy. There are so many views as to when life begins.

I would say again, when live begins is not terribly critical to this debate. There are many reasons to care about that question, but when you examine closely, "life" is not the critical issue.
Fair enough. It is important to me, because I want the correct viw on abortion.
TREssspa
Posts: 567
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 10:13:48 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 1:54:31 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:32:03 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:07:45 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:06:07 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:58:44 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:43:33 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am just curious. I keep finding conflicting opinions.

Hum. Well if you mean electrical impulses, begin of the second trimester. It should be noted that the fetus does NOT even have a cerbal cortex until the END of the second trimester.

"Brain waves" as "thoughts" would be well into the third trimester.

So... DOes that help?

Is it okay to abort it before brainwaves?

Before, after. Yes.

Thank you. I think I am prochoice, then.

Well, I am glad I could help, and I am glad that you are pro-choice. However... You should think about this issue aside from some bit of medical fact. The choice is really quite apart from any marker in development of the fetus. It is about the rights of the woman. The right to control her own body.

Control her body, Not that of a baby!
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 12:50:44 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 1:54:31 AM, TBR wrote:
Well, I am glad I could help, and I am glad that you are pro-choice. However... You should think about this issue aside from some bit of medical fact. The choice is really quite apart from any marker in development of the fetus. It is about the rights of the woman. The right to control her own body.

The problem with that argument is that it is not just about the rights of a woman to control her body. At some point that fetus becomes a human. At the point which the fetus becomes a human you have two rights in opposition: a right to control your body (which strictly speaking really isn't a right, it is derived from rights) versus a right to life. So which do we choose? Legally and historically the right to life (or even the chance right to life or safety might be infringed upon) trumps other rights such as privacy and free speech so it would seem obvious once we establish a fetus is human that abortion should be illegal.

So when does a fetus become a human? That isn't an easy question. It takes someone unreasonable and blinded by ideology to state that a fetus is a human from the moment of conception or that a fetus doesn't become human until birth. Using brainwaves is one way to look at it, heartbeat might be another. I don't know of a good criteria myself other than physical location is a very silly criteria to use.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 1:57:23 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 12:50:44 PM, Floid wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:54:31 AM, TBR wrote:
Well, I am glad I could help, and I am glad that you are pro-choice. However... You should think about this issue aside from some bit of medical fact. The choice is really quite apart from any marker in development of the fetus. It is about the rights of the woman. The right to control her own body.

The problem with that argument is that it is not just about the rights of a woman to control her body. At some point that fetus becomes a human. At the point which the fetus becomes a human you have two rights in opposition: a right to control your body (which strictly speaking really isn't a right, it is derived from rights) versus a right to life. So which do we choose? Legally and historically the right to life (or even the chance right to life or safety might be infringed upon) trumps other rights such as privacy and free speech so it would seem obvious once we establish a fetus is human that abortion should be illegal.

So when does a fetus become a human? That isn't an easy question. It takes someone unreasonable and blinded by ideology to state that a fetus is a human from the moment of conception or that a fetus doesn't become human until birth. Using brainwaves is one way to look at it, heartbeat might be another. I don't know of a good criteria myself other than physical location is a very silly criteria to use.

There are plenty of examples where when rights conflict, someone may kill. This is no different. Some simply want to put one right over the other.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 1:58:12 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 10:13:48 AM, TREssspa wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:54:31 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:32:03 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:07:45 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:06:07 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:58:44 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:43:33 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am just curious. I keep finding conflicting opinions.

Hum. Well if you mean electrical impulses, begin of the second trimester. It should be noted that the fetus does NOT even have a cerbal cortex until the END of the second trimester.

"Brain waves" as "thoughts" would be well into the third trimester.

So... DOes that help?

Is it okay to abort it before brainwaves?

Before, after. Yes.

Thank you. I think I am prochoice, then.

Well, I am glad I could help, and I am glad that you are pro-choice. However... You should think about this issue aside from some bit of medical fact. The choice is really quite apart from any marker in development of the fetus. It is about the rights of the woman. The right to control her own body.

Control her body, Not that of a baby!

If anything infringes on the right to control your body, you have a right to act.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 3:24:50 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 1:57:23 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:50:44 PM, Floid wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:54:31 AM, TBR wrote:
Well, I am glad I could help, and I am glad that you are pro-choice. However... You should think about this issue aside from some bit of medical fact. The choice is really quite apart from any marker in development of the fetus. It is about the rights of the woman. The right to control her own body.

The problem with that argument is that it is not just about the rights of a woman to control her body. At some point that fetus becomes a human. At the point which the fetus becomes a human you have two rights in opposition: a right to control your body (which strictly speaking really isn't a right, it is derived from rights) versus a right to life. So which do we choose? Legally and historically the right to life (or even the chance right to life or safety might be infringed upon) trumps other rights such as privacy and free speech so it would seem obvious once we establish a fetus is human that abortion should be illegal.

So when does a fetus become a human? That isn't an easy question. It takes someone unreasonable and blinded by ideology to state that a fetus is a human from the moment of conception or that a fetus doesn't become human until birth. Using brainwaves is one way to look at it, heartbeat might be another. I don't know of a good criteria myself other than physical location is a very silly criteria to use.

There are plenty of examples where when rights conflict, someone may kill. This is no different. Some simply want to put one right over the other.

Not sure if there was supposed to be an argument there, if so I missed it.

If you wish to have a moral or legal system then when two rights come into conflict you have to put one right over the other. There are no examples that I can think of that when in opposition the right to life comes does not trump other rights. I also can't think of a logical argument that would even begin to make a case for putting other rights over the right to life.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 3:31:47 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 1:58:12 PM, TBR wrote:
If anything infringes on the right to control your body, you have a right to act.

Unless your action infringes on the rights of others much like you have a right to say anything you want (freedom of speech) unless that speech infringes on someone else's intellectual property, aims to produce imminent lawless action, etc.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 3:39:45 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 3:24:50 PM, Floid wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:57:23 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:50:44 PM, Floid wrote:
At 3/2/2016 1:54:31 AM, TBR wrote:
Well, I am glad I could help, and I am glad that you are pro-choice. However... You should think about this issue aside from some bit of medical fact. The choice is really quite apart from any marker in development of the fetus. It is about the rights of the woman. The right to control her own body.

The problem with that argument is that it is not just about the rights of a woman to control her body. At some point that fetus becomes a human. At the point which the fetus becomes a human you have two rights in opposition: a right to control your body (which strictly speaking really isn't a right, it is derived from rights) versus a right to life. So which do we choose? Legally and historically the right to life (or even the chance right to life or safety might be infringed upon) trumps other rights such as privacy and free speech so it would seem obvious once we establish a fetus is human that abortion should be illegal.

So when does a fetus become a human? That isn't an easy question. It takes someone unreasonable and blinded by ideology to state that a fetus is a human from the moment of conception or that a fetus doesn't become human until birth. Using brainwaves is one way to look at it, heartbeat might be another. I don't know of a good criteria myself other than physical location is a very silly criteria to use.

There are plenty of examples where when rights conflict, someone may kill. This is no different. Some simply want to put one right over the other.

Not sure if there was supposed to be an argument there, if so I missed it.

If you wish to have a moral or legal system then when two rights come into conflict you have to put one right over the other. There are no examples that I can think of that when in opposition the right to life comes does not trump other rights. I also can't think of a logical argument that would even begin to make a case for putting other rights over the right to life.

Can you kill an intruder who may potentially be a threat?
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 4:00:20 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 3:39:45 PM, TBR wrote:
Can you kill an intruder who may potentially be a threat?

Sure, when one person poses an imminent threat to another's right to life, that person (or a third party) has legal and moral preference to neutralize that threat include through lethal means. This is why well reasoned abortion laws make exception when the life of the mother is in imminent danger.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 4:16:40 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 4:00:20 PM, Floid wrote:
At 3/2/2016 3:39:45 PM, TBR wrote:
Can you kill an intruder who may potentially be a threat?

Sure, when one person poses an imminent threat to another's right to life, that person (or a third party) has legal and moral preference to neutralize that threat include through lethal means. This is why well reasoned abortion laws make exception when the life of the mother is in imminent danger.

The threshold for killing an attacker is "Reasonable fear of dander or being killed, injured or touched unlawful". A woman does not need to have perfect knowledge that she will die in childbirth to satisfy the threshold.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 4:50:39 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 4:16:40 PM, TBR wrote:
The threshold for killing an attacker is "Reasonable fear of dander or being killed, injured or touched unlawful". A woman does not need to have perfect knowledge that she will die in childbirth to satisfy the threshold.

Your definition is missing a key piece: legally the threat has to be immediate or imminent. That would also seem to be an important aspect morally.

So, in a normal pregnancy, is there a reasonable fear of death on the part of the mother? In the United States, maternal mortality is about 0.015%. Not really a strong case for reasonable fear. So of course we don't have perfect medical knowledge but you can't really argue with statistical fact. Given the extremely low rate of maternal morality, normal pregnancies are not a threat to the mother's life.

When is a pregnancy a threat to the mother's life? When abnormalities which are known to increase maternal mortality are detected. In that case, there is a reasonable argument that there is a reasonable fear of an imminent threat.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 5:16:21 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 4:50:39 PM, Floid wrote:
At 3/2/2016 4:16:40 PM, TBR wrote:
The threshold for killing an attacker is "Reasonable fear of dander or being killed, injured or touched unlawful". A woman does not need to have perfect knowledge that she will die in childbirth to satisfy the threshold.

Your definition is missing a key piece: legally the threat has to be immediate or imminent. That would also seem to be an important aspect morally.

No. Look it up. That is the definition in most states.


So, in a normal pregnancy, is there a reasonable fear of death on the part of the mother? In the United States, maternal mortality is about 0.015%. Not really a strong case for reasonable fear. So of course we don't have perfect medical knowledge but you can't really argue with statistical fact. Given the extremely low rate of maternal morality, normal pregnancies are not a threat to the mother's life.

Harm. All pregnancy's have harm. Abortion is safer than childbirth. So....


When is a pregnancy a threat to the mother's life? When abnormalities which are known to increase maternal mortality are detected. In that case, there is a reasonable argument that there is a reasonable fear of an imminent threat.

At all points. You are not in the position to FORCE a woman to carry because YOU think the risk is "low". That is not the reasonable or legal threshold.

In summary. A woman has the same right to protect her body with any means necessary - same if she was being raped or mugged.
Stronn
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 5:30:30 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 5:16:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 4:50:39 PM, Floid wrote:
At 3/2/2016 4:16:40 PM, TBR wrote:
The threshold for killing an attacker is "Reasonable fear of dander or being killed, injured or touched unlawful". A woman does not need to have perfect knowledge that she will die in childbirth to satisfy the threshold.

Your definition is missing a key piece: legally the threat has to be immediate or imminent. That would also seem to be an important aspect morally.

No. Look it up. That is the definition in most states.


From http://criminal.findlaw.com...: "As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. " I doubt you will find a specific state statute that does not say "imminent" or "immediate" or some synonym.

That said, I would not frame the abortion issue as terms of self-defense anyway.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 5:45:20 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 5:30:30 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/2/2016 5:16:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 4:50:39 PM, Floid wrote:
At 3/2/2016 4:16:40 PM, TBR wrote:
The threshold for killing an attacker is "Reasonable fear of dander or being killed, injured or touched unlawful". A woman does not need to have perfect knowledge that she will die in childbirth to satisfy the threshold.

Your definition is missing a key piece: legally the threat has to be immediate or imminent. That would also seem to be an important aspect morally.

No. Look it up. That is the definition in most states.


From http://criminal.findlaw.com...: "As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. " I doubt you will find a specific state statute that does not say "imminent" or "immediate" or some synonym.

That said, I would not frame the abortion issue as terms of self-defense anyway.

http://www.shouselaw.com...
Self-defense as a Legal Defense Under California Criminal Law

The legal defense of self-defense in California law means that you can't be found guilty of a violent crime that you committed in order to protect yourself, as long as your conduct was reasonable under the circumstances. 1

For purposes of the self-defense legal defense, "reasonable under the circumstances" means that you need to have:

Reasonably believed that you were in imminent danger of being killed, injured, or touched unlawfully,

Reasonably believed that you needed to use force to prevent that from happening, and
Used no more force than was necessary to prevent that from happening.2

Moreover, thanks to California's so-called "stand your ground laws," you are under no obligation to "retreat" " that is, to run away or try to escape " before you use self-defense to protect yourself. 3

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

From your link
"Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor didn"t actually mean the perceived victim any harm. What matters in these situations is whether a "reasonable man" in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm. The concept of the "reasonable man" is a legal conceit that is subject to differing interpretations in practice, but it is the legal system"s best tool to determine whether a person"s perception of imminent danger justified the use of protective force. - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com...

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

As for how YOU term it, that is not an issue. We are discussing the rights (very real) that a woman (or anyone) has to protect their body - even when that includes killing.

To bring this back around. When "life" starts is not as important to this debate as some would like to make it.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 5:46:00 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 5:16:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 4:50:39 PM, Floid wrote:
At 3/2/2016 4:16:40 PM, TBR wrote:
The threshold for killing an attacker is "Reasonable fear of dander or being killed, injured or touched unlawful". A woman does not need to have perfect knowledge that she will die in childbirth to satisfy the threshold.

Your definition is missing a key piece: legally the threat has to be immediate or imminent. That would also seem to be an important aspect morally.

No. Look it up. That is the definition in most states.

The problem is I already know the answer and you are too ignorant to defend your own assertions. But here you go:

NY Law (Article 35 - NY Penal Law):
He or she reasonably believes such to be necessary for self-defense or to defend a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical for

California Law (3470. Right to Self-Defense or Defense of Another (Non-Homicide))
The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] <insert name of third party>) was in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury

So, in a normal pregnancy, is there a reasonable fear of death on the part of the mother? In the United States, maternal mortality is about 0.015%. Not really a strong case for reasonable fear. So of course we don't have perfect medical knowledge but you can't really argue with statistical fact. Given the extremely low rate of maternal morality, normal pregnancies are not a threat to the mother's life.

Harm. All pregnancy's have harm. Abortion is safer than childbirth. So....

Ahh, the old moving target. There are a bunch of problems with that statement:

1. Now we would have to evaluate the right to life on one side and a right to happiness (or some other wording) on the other side. Go back to the original point that the right to life trumps other rights which you seem to have conceded with the moving target.

2. Abortions have harm also. It causes direct stress on the body, increases chance of future pregnancy complications, has a high chance of leading to infection, and seems to increase the chance of certain types of cancers. Abortions also have an associated mortality rate that is significantly insignificant as those from live births. This would seem to render your moving target mute.

When is a pregnancy a threat to the mother's life? When abnormalities which are known to increase maternal mortality are detected. In that case, there is a reasonable argument that there is a reasonable fear of an imminent threat.

At all points. You are not in the position to FORCE a woman to carry because YOU think the risk is "low". That is not the reasonable or legal threshold.

I don't think the risk is low. Statistics demonstrates the risk is low. In fact, the risk of death from a normal pregnancy is about the same as the risk of death from a colonoscopy (0.03%). Is there a reasonable fear of death from colonoscopies?

In summary. A woman has the same right to protect her body with any means necessary - same if she was being raped or mugged.

In summary - the right to life trumps either the irrational fear of death from a normal pregnancy (which is really just a strawman on your part and not a rational argument used by anyone for unlimited pro-choice) or less rights (privacy, harm). So while there may be a arguments to be had about when a fetus establishes right to life, it appears you wish to ignore the hard questions and rational discourse while chant "protect her body" ad nauseum.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 5:51:01 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 5:46:00 PM, Floid wrote:
At 3/2/2016 5:16:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/2/2016 4:50:39 PM, Floid wrote:
At 3/2/2016 4:16:40 PM, TBR wrote:
The threshold for killing an attacker is "Reasonable fear of dander or being killed, injured or touched unlawful". A woman does not need to have perfect knowledge that she will die in childbirth to satisfy the threshold.

Your definition is missing a key piece: legally the threat has to be immediate or imminent. That would also seem to be an important aspect morally.

No. Look it up. That is the definition in most states.

The problem is I already know the answer and you are too ignorant to defend your own assertions. But here you go:

NY Law (Article 35 - NY Penal Law):
He or she reasonably believes such to be necessary for self-defense or to defend a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical for

California Law (3470. Right to Self-Defense or Defense of Another (Non-Homicide))
The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] <insert name of third party>) was in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury

See above.


So, in a normal pregnancy, is there a reasonable fear of death on the part of the mother? In the United States, maternal mortality is about 0.015%. Not really a strong case for reasonable fear. So of course we don't have perfect medical knowledge but you can't really argue with statistical fact. Given the extremely low rate of maternal morality, normal pregnancies are not a threat to the mother's life.

Harm. All pregnancy's have harm. Abortion is safer than childbirth. So....

Ahh, the old moving target. There are a bunch of problems with that statement:

What moving target? No need to be an a$$ about this. All pregnancy DO cause harm. Are you ignoring this?

1. Now we would have to evaluate the right to life on one side and a right to happiness (or some other wording) on the other side. Go back to the original point that the right to life trumps other rights which you seem to have conceded with the moving target.

No. Not about happiness. About right to protect your own body. No movement of any type.


2. Abortions have harm also. It causes direct stress on the body, increases chance of future pregnancy complications, has a high chance of leading to infection, and seems to increase the chance of certain types of cancers. Abortions also have an associated mortality rate that is significantly insignificant as those from live births. This would seem to render your moving target mute.

OK. You are just a typical pro-lifer. Got it.


When is a pregnancy a threat to the mother's life? When abnormalities which are known to increase maternal mortality are detected. In that case, there is a reasonable argument that there is a reasonable fear of an imminent threat.

At all points. You are not in the position to FORCE a woman to carry because YOU think the risk is "low". That is not the reasonable or legal threshold.

I don't think the risk is low. Statistics demonstrates the risk is low. In fact, the risk of death from a normal pregnancy is about the same as the risk of death from a colonoscopy (0.03%). Is there a reasonable fear of death from colonoscopies?

Abortion is safer than birth. You denying this, or just deflecting with colonoscopy?



In summary. A woman has the same right to protect her body with any means necessary - same if she was being raped or mugged.

In summary - the right to life trumps either the irrational fear of death from a normal pregnancy (which is really just a strawman on your part and not a rational argument used by anyone for unlimited pro-choice) or less rights (privacy, harm). So while there may be a arguments to be had about when a fetus establishes right to life, it appears you wish to ignore the hard questions and rational discourse while chant "protect her body" ad nauseum.

You SAY "this right trumps that right", but have no basis for this. There is no where else where we hold this to be true. The right of life of an attacker is NOT greater than the potential for harm to the attacked.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 6:10:46 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 5:51:01 PM, TBR wrote:
So, in a normal pregnancy, is there a reasonable fear of death on the part of the mother? In the United States, maternal mortality is about 0.015%. Not really a strong case for reasonable fear. So of course we don't have perfect medical knowledge but you can't really argue with statistical fact. Given the extremely low rate of maternal morality, normal pregnancies are not a threat to the mother's life.

Harm. All pregnancy's have harm. Abortion is safer than childbirth. So....

Ahh, the old moving target. There are a bunch of problems with that statement:


What moving target? No need to be an a$$ about this. All pregnancy DO cause harm. Are you ignoring this?

1. Abortions cause harm too so it is a mute point.

2. Right to life outweighs "right to not be harmed"

1. Now we would have to evaluate the right to life on one side and a right to happiness (or some other wording) on the other side. Go back to the original point that the right to life trumps other rights which you seem to have conceded with the moving target.

No. Not about happiness. About right to protect your own body. No movement of any type.

1. There is no "right to protect your own body". It would be easier if we kept the discussion framed in actual rights instead of the ever changing rights you keep inventing. At least call it "right to self defense", which is straining the definition of that term but has already been shown not to apply because it requires a reasonable expectation and imminent.

2. If there were a "right to protect your own body" it would still be trumped by the right to life, especially when protecting your own body in this case is from temporary discomfort, inconvenience, and a brief period of pain.

2. Abortions have harm also. It causes direct stress on the body, increases chance of future pregnancy complications, has a high chance of leading to infection, and seems to increase the chance of certain types of cancers. Abortions also have an associated mortality rate that is significantly insignificant as those from live births. This would seem to render your moving target mute.

OK. You are just a typical pro-lifer. Got it.

You don't have a good answer to this. Got it.

When is a pregnancy a threat to the mother's life? When abnormalities which are known to increase maternal mortality are detected. In that case, there is a reasonable argument that there is a reasonable fear of an imminent threat.

At all points. You are not in the position to FORCE a woman to carry because YOU think the risk is "low". That is not the reasonable or legal threshold.

I don't think the risk is low. Statistics demonstrates the risk is low. In fact, the risk of death from a normal pregnancy is about the same as the risk of death from a colonoscopy (0.03%). Is there a reasonable fear of death from colonoscopies?

Abortion is safer than birth. You denying this, or just deflecting with colonoscopy?

Abortion has a slightly lower mortality rate than abortion. I haven't bothered looking at complication rates but I would guess they are slight lower as well. What I am saying and you seem unable to refute is that there is not a reasonable fear of imminent threat from pregnancy and if you did have a reasonable fear of imminent threat from pregnancy this would also apply to abortion since the statistics are very similar.

In summary. A woman has the same right to protect her body with any means necessary - same if she was being raped or mugged.

In summary - the right to life trumps either the irrational fear of death from a normal pregnancy (which is really just a strawman on your part and not a rational argument used by anyone for unlimited pro-choice) or less rights (privacy, harm). So while there may be a arguments to be had about when a fetus establishes right to life, it appears you wish to ignore the hard questions and rational discourse while chant "protect her body" ad nauseum.

You SAY "this right trumps that right", but have no basis for this. There is no where else where we hold this to be true. The right of life of an attacker is NOT greater than the potential for harm to the attacked.

I have provided a basis all the way through and you have never bothered refuting it. There is established legal and moral precedent for the the right to life taking preference over other rights when they come into conflict with each other. You have a right to privacy unless that privacy is threatening someone's life (i.e. a police officer can enter your home if there is a reasonable expectation someone's life is in danger). You have a right to free speech unless that your speech is causing an imminent threat to public or a person's safety (i.e. yelling fire in a theater or inciting a riot).

You really don't even have a "right to your own body" (see drug laws) but if you did that right would also take a backseat to the right to life.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 6:15:57 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 6:10:46 PM, Floid wrote:
At 3/2/2016 5:51:01 PM, TBR wrote:
So, in a normal pregnancy, is there a reasonable fear of death on the part of the mother? In the United States, maternal mortality is about 0.015%. Not really a strong case for reasonable fear. So of course we don't have perfect medical knowledge but you can't really argue with statistical fact. Given the extremely low rate of maternal morality, normal pregnancies are not a threat to the mother's life.

Harm. All pregnancy's have harm. Abortion is safer than childbirth. So....

Ahh, the old moving target. There are a bunch of problems with that statement:


What moving target? No need to be an a$$ about this. All pregnancy DO cause harm. Are you ignoring this?

1. Abortions cause harm too so it is a mute point.

2. Right to life outweighs "right to not be harmed"


Just bare assertions. You simple WANT the right to outweigh another. No other example of this is found in morals or law.

1. Now we would have to evaluate the right to life on one side and a right to happiness (or some other wording) on the other side. Go back to the original point that the right to life trumps other rights which you seem to have conceded with the moving target.

No. Not about happiness. About right to protect your own body. No movement of any type.

1. There is no "right to protect your own body". It would be easier if we kept the discussion framed in actual rights instead of the ever changing rights you keep inventing. At least call it "right to self defense", which is straining the definition of that term but has already been shown not to apply because it requires a reasonable expectation and imminent.


Get bent. If you want to have a discussion, I will. I have changed nothing, moved nothing. Comment with a rational post, and I will reply in kind.

2. If there were a "right to protect your own body" it would still be trumped by the right to life, especially when protecting your own body in this case is from temporary discomfort, inconvenience, and a brief period of pain.

2. Abortions have harm also. It causes direct stress on the body, increases chance of future pregnancy complications, has a high chance of leading to infection, and seems to increase the chance of certain types of cancers. Abortions also have an associated mortality rate that is significantly insignificant as those from live births. This would seem to render your moving target mute.

OK. You are just a typical pro-lifer. Got it.

You don't have a good answer to this. Got it.

See above, but point is, you seem to be buying into some typical BAD medical information.


When is a pregnancy a threat to the mother's life? When abnormalities which are known to increase maternal mortality are detected. In that case, there is a reasonable argument that there is a reasonable fear of an imminent threat.

At all points. You are not in the position to FORCE a woman to carry because YOU think the risk is "low". That is not the reasonable or legal threshold.

I don't think the risk is low. Statistics demonstrates the risk is low. In fact, the risk of death from a normal pregnancy is about the same as the risk of death from a colonoscopy (0.03%). Is there a reasonable fear of death from colonoscopies?

Abortion is safer than birth. You denying this, or just deflecting with colonoscopy?

Abortion has a slightly lower mortality rate than abortion. I haven't bothered looking at complication rates but I would guess they are slight lower as well. What I am saying and you seem unable to refute is that there is not a reasonable fear of imminent threat from pregnancy and if you did have a reasonable fear of imminent threat from pregnancy this would also apply to abortion since the statistics are very similar.

In summary. A woman has the same right to protect her body with any means necessary - same if she was being raped or mugged.

In summary - the right to life trumps either the irrational fear of death from a normal pregnancy (which is really just a strawman on your part and not a rational argument used by anyone for unlimited pro-choice) or less rights (privacy, harm). So while there may be a arguments to be had about when a fetus establishes right to life, it appears you wish to ignore the hard questions and rational discourse while chant "protect her body" ad nauseum.

You SAY "this right trumps that right", but have no basis for this. There is no where else where we hold this to be true. The right of life of an attacker is NOT greater than the potential for harm to the attacked.

I have provided a basis all the way through and you have never bothered refuting it. There is established legal and moral precedent for the the right to life taking preference over other rights when they come into conflict with each other. You have a right to privacy unless that privacy is threatening someone's life (i.e. a police officer can enter your home if there is a reasonable expectation someone's life is in danger). You have a right to free speech unless that your speech is causing an imminent threat to public or a person's safety (i.e. yelling fire in a theater or inciting a riot).

You really don't even have a "right to your own body" (see drug laws) but if you did that right would also take a backseat to the right to life.