It's time to define the unborn

Feb 2019
1,347
294
here and there
#51
Because the life is not viable then.

There is a well known analogy that describes the situation...
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.[4]
Thomson says that you can now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: this is due to limits on the right to life, which does not include the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right. "f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due."[5]
For the same reason, Thomson says, abortion does not violate the fetus's legitimate right to life, but merely deprives the fetus of something—the non-consensual use of the pregnant woman's body and life-support functions—to which it has no right. Thus, by choosing to terminate her pregnancy, Thomson concludes that a pregnant woman does not normally violate the fetus's right to life, but merely withdraws its use of her own body, which usually causes the fetus to die.[6]

A Defense of Abortion - Wikipedia
It is viable, just where it is at.

So that is a lie

I do have to chuckle at those who say this is settled.

It will never end.
 
Dec 2018
966
573
Unionville Indiana
#52
It is viable, just where it is at.

So that is a lie

I do have to chuckle at those who say this is settled.

It will never end.
If the anti-choicers finally get their wish, brace yourself for a police state where law enforcement agencies have a legal mandate to order medical exams on any woman who has had a suspicious miscarriage. Would that please your sense of justice?
 
Nov 2005
8,103
2,657
California
#53
It is viable, just where it is at.
So that is a lie
First off, you are making up your own definition of "viable" and using your made-up one in place of the MEDICAL DEFINITION OF FETAL VIABILITY.
I'm not the one who is lying...

Secondly, but your argument, the violinist is viable where he is at...
So the violinist should be allowed to mandate that you continue to provide him with biological services until he is better?


I do have to chuckle at those who say this is settled.
Where did I say it was settled?
Or are you just becoming more brazen in your lies?
 
Likes: catus felis
Nov 2005
8,103
2,657
California
#54
If the anti-choicers finally get their wish, brace yourself for a police state where law enforcement agencies have a legal mandate to order medical exams on any woman who has had a suspicious miscarriage. Would that please your sense of justice?
I agree. This is an obvious consequence.

Just look at what happens with rape.
What was she wearing?
Did she flirt with him?
Did she fight back hard enough?

The rape standard is simply whether or not consent to sex occurred. What a person was wearing / flirting / fighting back is irrelevant to that.
But that's how it is approached...
 
Likes: catus felis
Dec 2018
966
573
Unionville Indiana
#55
I agree. This is an obvious consequence.

Just look at what happens with rape.
What was she wearing?
Did she flirt with him?
Did she fight back hard enough?

The rape standard is simply whether or not consent to sex occurred. What a person was wearing / flirting / fighting back is irrelevant to that.
But that's how it is approached...
And, in addition to a precipitous spike in the number of premeditated murder cases against women and their doctors, expect contraband status on emergency contraceptives like RU-486, Plan B One Step, Ella, etc. all of which are now legal.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2013
2,410
1,022
NM
#56
What does the infant being "viable" outside the womb have to do with their personhood?

The courts never answered that question, did they.

Why not? Why do they seem to be scared to answer such a question?

And as medicine advances, the age of viability may increase. So what?
An infant is someone who has been born. We're talking about a fetus. Under UK & British colonial common law (in what became the US), & then in the US, only a person who is born has any rights. A fetus is not born. Roe v. Wade does limit elective abortion to before the time when the fetus is viable, however. A nod to the interests of the state in preserving the life of a potential citizen.

The US Supreme Court certainly did answer the question: Their answer is Roe v. Wade.

as medicine advances, the age of viability may increase - Sure, better medical technology & knowledge will mean that more aggressive measures can be taken to preserve the life of the fetus. The ultimate would be the ability to transplant a fetus to another uterus - whether artificial, donor, or even trans species - instead of abortion. It depends on how much time & effort & resources we're willing to expend on the project. Given the number of children piling up waiting for adoption in the US, there doesn't seem to be much interest in the subject, though.
 
Jul 2008
18,437
12,164
Virginia Beach, VA
#57
I like the heart beat bill. Life is identified medically as stopping when there is no heart beat, so why not defined it as when the heart beat begins?
Wrong again.
Life is identified medically when the brain stops functioning. A heart can be kept beating when there is no life and a heart can stop beating and someone be resuscitated.
 
Likes: catus felis
Feb 2019
1,347
294
here and there
#58
Wrong again.
Life is identified medically when the brain stops functioning. A heart can be kept beating when there is no life and a heart can stop beating and someone be resuscitated.
Wrong.

When doctors are trying to revive a patient they don't check brain function, rather, they check for a heart beat.

If you don't have a heart beat, you don't have brain function.

And if they determine you have a heart beat, they may latter check for brain function.

The determination to withdraw life support occurs if they determine that brain function will not return, so there is not even a comparison with your example. No doctor would withdraw life support if they knew the patient would recover.
 
Feb 2019
1,347
294
here and there
#59
An infant is someone who has been born. We're talking about a fetus. Under UK & British colonial common law (in what became the US), & then in the US, only a person who is born has any rights. A fetus is not born. Roe v. Wade does limit elective abortion to before the time when the fetus is viable, however. A nod to the interests of the state in preserving the life of a potential citizen.

The US Supreme Court certainly did answer the question: Their answer is Roe v. Wade.

as medicine advances, the age of viability may increase - Sure, better medical technology & knowledge will mean that more aggressive measures can be taken to preserve the life of the fetus. The ultimate would be the ability to transplant a fetus to another uterus - whether artificial, donor, or even trans species - instead of abortion. It depends on how much time & effort & resources we're willing to expend on the project. Given the number of children piling up waiting for adoption in the US, there doesn't seem to be much interest in the subject, though.
The number of children piling up waiting for adoption is comparable to the pile up of people petitioning for citizenship from illegal immigrants.

The bottom line is, government is broken on both counts. Parents wanting new born babies are plentiful, but the state is so inefficient about matching them up and adding costs to it that the system if not working. That means you fix the system though. It has no bearing on the issue of whether the unborn are human or not.

Thanks for playing.
 
Jul 2008
18,437
12,164
Virginia Beach, VA
#60
Wrong.

When doctors are trying to revive a patient they don't check brain function, rather, they check for a heart beat.

If you don't have a heart beat, you don't have brain function.

And if they determine you have a heart beat, they may latter check for brain function.

The determination to withdraw life support occurs if they determine that brain function will not return, so there is not even a comparison with your example. No doctor would withdraw life support if they knew the patient would recover.
And you just made my point for me. Thank you.

“No Doctor would withdraw life support if they knew the patient would recover”

I’ll go a step further and say they wouldn’t do it, or suggest it, if they thought recovery was possible. That determination is made by brain function, not heartbeat.

Now let’s use this in the context of abortion. No doctor would suggest withdrawing life support (removing the fetus from the womb) if they thought recovery (fetus surviving outside the womb) was possible. Again, just as above, this determination is made by brain function, not heartbeat.
 

Similar Discussions