Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
your kidding, right? how is science unclear on this? I learned in 4th grade about conception and fetuses, etc.

The only thing science has not yet told us definitively is when a fetus is viable, which at least to some is a highly relevant point between conception and delivery.

The debate on balancing lives is a question of whether there should be a balancing of interests or not. Anti-abortion says not, except (perhaps) in the limited circumstances where either the fetus or the mother will die (hi, greedy!).

When I see folks in priest outfits holding up bottled fetuses, I do not see them carrying scientific evidence of life. I see them carrying an emotional appeal to a moral determination.

I'm not kidding. Viability is meaningless to me because it moves with science. A 7 month fetus "born" 50 years ago that was considered not viable, could be viable today after 4 months.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Sure you can, and we do. "You've been drafted, but you're from a rich important family so we'll put you in the National Guard and hey, you don't even need to show up for duty."

Or sign up for ROTC, but then don't show up.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not kidding. Viability is meaningless to me because it moves with science. A 7 month fetus "born" 50 years ago that was considered not viable, could be viable today after 4 months.

Then what is relevant to you? How does science determine that a human embryo, which, if placed in the right conditions, will result in a live birth, is not human throughout its entire existence?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Um, if it's human from the moment of conception, it's pretty hard to argue that it's not alive from that same moment.

Well then, I think you've settled the question for everyone. Now it's just a matter of balancing between 2 lives, rather than between a life and a non-life or maybe-life

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not kidding. Viability is meaningless to me because it moves with science. A 7 month fetus "born" 50 years ago that was considered not viable, could be viable today after 4 months.

Why is a date that moves with science meaningless?

(Boy, this is a familiar discussion - Oh, wait! I see, this is the same analysis that Atticus had a few posts ago - you are both succombing to the safety of easy answers and shying away from the hard questions).

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Then what is relevant to you? How does science determine that a human embryo, which, if placed in the right conditions, will result in a live birth, is not human throughout its entire existence?

See my response to Sidd. Why is a live birth and right conditions important?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
See my response to Sidd. Why is a live birth and right conditions important?

To distinguish it from the cells in the hair I'm pulling out right now.

I still don't understand how it's a "scientific" question as to what a human fetus is. It has the DNA of a human. It will develop into a full-blown human. But it does not have certain characteristics, yet, that we would call human (e.g., sentience). Each of those things can be measured/confirmed by science. But what does that tell us that we don't know?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Why is a date that moves with science meaningless?

Because the implicit argument being made is that the "life" is has either not developed enough to be human or is not yet worth protecting simply because it cannot live on its own outside the womb.

As science improves, we see that the same "life" at the same stage of development can survive and is now worth protecting. It's at the same fucking stage of development but in one era its is permitted to be "killed."

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
We're still waiting on your definition, of course.

I never claimed to have a definition.

But to address the differences in your feelings about an early pregnancy miscarriage vs. a late pregnancy premature birth, I think the time and the tangible aspects of the pregnancy are the reason it seems different if you loose a baby early on than if you lose the baby later on in the pregnancy. If someone miscarries after only a few weeks of being pregnant, the pregnancy hasn't yet shown and the child is still rather intangible to you. You have this image of who the child is in your mind, but not much else. And when the miscarriage occurs early on, you didn't have much time to develop feelings for this child. I think that even seeing an ultrasound of the baby can have a tremendous psychological impact on parents simpley because it is something tangible that they can see. Same is true when the pregnancy starts to show.

However, I don't think that the point at which a parent develops strong feelings for an unborn child is relevant to what point a fetus' rights vest.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Now it's just a matter of balancing between 2 lives, rather than between a life and a non-life or maybe-life

Sure. I also make that balance when I decide to buy a steak for dinner. Or eat a peach.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Why is a date that moves with science meaningless?

Because ultimately Club's got to justify a party position that an embryo has protectable, overriding interests at the moment of fertilization, so he wants to take viability off the table by any means necessary?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
To distinguish it from the cells in the hair I'm pulling out right now.

I still don't understand how it's a "scientific" question as to what a human fetus is. It has the DNA of a human. It will develop into a full-blown human. But it does not have certain characteristics, yet, that we would call human (e.g., sentience). Each of those things can be measured/confirmed by science. But what does that tell us that we don't know?

I don't get your first point, but it's probably not important.

If I said that I thought science would tell us whether it's human, I misspoke. I've been pitching that at some point science will be able to tell us definitively when life begins, because many pro-choicers do not believe, as you correctly do, that life begins at conception.

All of that said, I still think it is a difficult issue, but it's one that I think should be done honestly in that I think the left should realize that we are balancing the rights of 2 lives, not 1.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
However, I don't think that the point at which a parent develops strong feelings for an unborn child is relevant to what point a fetus' rights vest.

That's because you're pretending this decision will be made in law schools or on lawyer boards. In reality, the decision will be made under the same conditions that permit rational people to say it's immoral to shoot a healthy dog, but okay to slaughter a healthy cow. And the decision will be no more or less legitimate.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Because ultimately Club's got to justify a party position that an embryo has protectable, overriding interests at the moment of fertilization, so he wants to take viability off the table by any means necessary?

Aren't you just as uncomfortable as he is with unclear lines?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Because ultimately Club's got to justify a party position that an embryo has protectable, overriding interests at the moment of fertilization, so he wants to take viability off the table by any means necessary?

Fuck off. I haven't even been able to form my own position on the issue, why the fuck would I be trying to justify someone elses?