Pages

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

8 Things "After Tiller" Left Out

[Today's guest post by Maria Tsikalas is part of our paid blogging program.]

Social media is erupting this week in the latest abortion-related controversy: PBS’s decision to air “After Tiller” on Labor Day.

“After Tiller” is a documentary that examines the motivations and difficulties of four late-term abortionists—LeRoy Carhart, Warren Hern, Susan Robinson, and Shelley Sella—and some of their patients, in an attempt to contextualize late-term abortion and humanize the doctors. There is not much to add that hasn’t already been said on other pro-life websites, blogs, and Twitter (#AfterTiller), but here’s a list of simple facts that further ‘contextualize’ the procedure and those who perform it.
  1. In the film, we are told that third-trimester abortions are less than one percent of all abortions. What we are not told is that one percent = approximately 10,000 babies in the U.S. per year. 
  2. Most of the pregnant patients featured in the film were carrying babies with severe abnormalities or disabilities, but in reality, Tiller himself admitted that this situation constituted only about eight percent of his abortions. So that means every year these doctors abort about 9,200 healthy, viable, developed babies with no health complications whatsoever.1
  3. At least four women have died from legal second- and third-trimester abortions in the past two years. 
  4. Carhart has been responsible for eight medical emergencies (that we know of) since March 2012, including the death of Jennifer Morbelli last year. 
  5. Carhart has described babies in the womb dying as being "like meat in a Crock-pot." 
  6. Former Tiller employee Tina David said of Sella: "[The] baby came out, and it was moving. I don’t know if it was alive or if it was nerves, I have no clue. But Dr. Sella looked up right away at me and took a utensil and stabbed it, right here, and twisted. And then it didn’t move anymore.”

 
  7. Former Tiller employee Luhra Tivis has said that she was trained to answer the phone like a salesperson marketing a product, selling abortion to the caller. Tivis also described seeing Tiller carrying a heavy cardboard box full of dead babies into his crematorium and smelling the flesh as it burned. 
  8. Robinson was shocked when she realized a baby she'd thought to be 32 weeks from the ultrasound was actually closer to 37 weeks when he or she was aborted.
Hard to humanize all that.

[1] Please note that I am not arguing that abortion is more justifiable for babies with disabilities than without. The film features some women who had received diagnoses that their baby would die would die in utero or shortly after birth, or that their child would be in pain for his or her entire life, leading viewers to believe that such extreme circumstances constitute the majority of late-term abortions, when that is not true.

614 comments:

1 – 200 of 614   Newer›   Newest»
eroteme said...

Why does it matter, if you equate zygotes with toddlers? Isn't birth control that allegedly prevents implantation just as "barbaric?"

KM said...

Question for you: Do you think it is possible for someone to oppose late term abortion without opposing contraception?
This debate is really just about where do we draw the line. Many of us may not see contraception as a problem, while we do have a big problem with killing fully formed babies who may in some cases be viable.

eroteme said...

I was under the impression that, from the reading I've done here, that zygotes are already fully formed, rational people - only smaller.

Clinton said...

Who's equating zygotes with toddlers? There are very obvious differences between a zygote and a toddler. What pro-life people argue is that the zygote is a member of the human species and since it shares the same qualities we do that make it wrong to kill us, it makes it wrong to kill them.


What's really disingenuous is that pro-choice people keep focusing on the "zygote" when, in fact, no human zygotes are killed through abortions. Most abortions kill late embryos or early fetuses, and contraceptives that also act as early abortifacients prevent the embryo from implanting in the uterus when it is past the zygote phase of its existence.

eroteme said...

That should be irrelevant, since PL states that zygotes = fetuses = toddlers = 12 year olds = 55 year olds etc.

They are all exactly the same in regards to moral worth.

someone45 said...

Most abortions aren't on fully formed "babies". MOST abortions are on non-viable embryos/fetuses

Clinton said...

Regarding moral worth, yes. But we're not equating them, because they're not equal in terms of development.


But constantly talking about the zygote when it's not the zygote that's ever killed is disingenuous, because due to less emotional ties it's easier to justify killing the zygote in the single-celled stage than it is to kill an embryo or fetus who looks closer to "one of us" (although what an entity looks like is irrelevant to the question of can we kill it).

Clinton said...

What does viability have to do with whether or not something is "fully formed"?

eroteme said...

Why should emotional ties matter? Or even terms of development? Should the penalty for killing a 55yo be greater than for killing a newborn because one is further along?

someone45 said...

Well if something is not fully formed it is usually not going to be viable. The embryo at 8 weeks is not viable and it is not fully formed. This is when MOST abortions happen.

Regardless it is not the choice of anyone but the woman who is pregnant. It doesn't matter if you people think she is only an object meant to bring the fetus to term. The choice is hers.

lady_black said...

NO contraceptive acts as an "abortifacient" EVER. One must actually be pregnant to abort. What a novel idea, huh?

Blueberry said...

What you just said is a common pro-life argument. Neither emotional attachment nor level of development should make a difference in the moral value and rights of a human being, and it shouldn't be more permissible to kill younger humans than older ones.


That means that, although a 55 year old is not THE SAME as a newborn, since they are difference ages, they are equal in terms of moral value/human rights/personhood.


It also means that, although a newborn and a fetus are not the same, and a fetus and a zygote are not the same, they are of equal moral value. Killing one is not any more justifiable than killing another.


I don't think Clinton was actually saying that killing a zygote is more justifiable than killing a slightly older human. Rather it's easier for us to imagine that it's justifiable, and convince ourselves that it's justifiable, because there's less emotional attachment. Which is why pro-choicers often refer to aborting zygotes: the public is less likely to have a negative emotional reaction to that, than to aborting an older human with whom it is easier to form emotional attachment.

eroteme said...

Perhaps more work should be done to humanize zygotes?

Blueberry said...

Indeed it should. More work should be done to humanize all human beings who are dismissed, disposed of, ignored, discriminated against, or marginalized.


Working to end late term abortion doesn't mean you can't also be working to end early abortion, embryonic stem cell research, etc. But I doubt that we'll reach the point where there's legal protection for individuals for whom it's difficult to form emotional attachment or concern, before we've even secured protection for those who nearly everyone considers a baby.


But seriously, if you don't think that a 55 year old or 10 year old is more valuable than a newborn, why is a newborn more valuable than a fetus, or a fetus more valuable than an embryo?

Blueberry said...

As you are probably aware,
the concern over allegedly abortifacient contraception is the potential to
prevent implantation, which would still constitute the ending of
a human life, implanted or not. Presenting scientific evidence on whether or
not some contraceptives prevent implantation is definitely helpful, but, respectfully, defining
pregnancy as beginning at implantation and then stating "no contraceptive
is abortifacient because it doesn't end pregnancy" is intentionally obscuring the issue at hand.

eroteme said...

Perhaps pro-life propagandists should put photos of zygotes on their posters, and not so much of third trimester fetuses and stillbirths?

eroteme said...

Uterine ablation. Anorexics. Female athletes. A medical procedure (I forget the name, LB knows) that cuts off blood supply to the uterine blood vessels...


Any of the above could prevent a blastocyst from successfully implanting...should they be illegal? Or at least punished, if possible?

Blueberry said...

Generally when people say "fully formed" they mean that all of the "parts" are there, simply in a young state.


But really, if "fully formed" means "done developing," we generally don't reach that point until we're in our 20's. After all, that's when our brains stop developing. So if we aren't full people until we're done developing, everyone below 22-ish is sub-human.


Either way, viability isn't a good definition. Viability just means that the human being is slightly less limited than they were before in how they can obtain necessary nutrients, oxygen, etc. But many born humans have restrictions on how they can continue surviving and obtain necessary nutrients and such, but that doesn't matter one iota when it comes to their moral value. (For example some people are on respirators, and some are on feeding tubes. I'm more limited in how I can obtain necessary oxygen than someone who is acclimated to low oxygen environments, because they can climb high mountains and I have to stay below.)


Plus, if viability is the diving line where the fetus becomes a baby, and if viability is getting earlier as medical technology advances, then is the age at which humans gain human rights getting earlier as time goes on? Is it at 24 weeks in the US, but 30 weeks in 3rd world countries? If we develop artificial wombs and viability is lowered to 10 weeks, will 10 week olds who are currently non-persons become people because of the new technology? All that sounds pretty nonsensical to me.


Regarding "people think she is only an object meant to bring the fetus to term." With all due respect, that's a massive strawman.


Say a woman is isolated with her newborn baby, and the only way to keep it alive is by breastfeeding. If you think that she has an obligation to feed her child, are you reducing her to just a pair of breasts, or a milk machine, or an "object meant to give sustenance to her offspring?" If you think a man should pay child support, are you reducing him to "just a wallet"?


Of course not. The mother (and father) are valuable human beings, but they are also parents and have an obligation towards her child. And of course they don't have the right to kill their child. Recognizing that fact doesn't mean you're objectifying them.

eroteme said...

If all of the parts are there, it should be viable.


A newborn can survive independently precisely because all of it's organs are fully formed. A non-viable embryo, for example, needs to live inside a woman and rely on her organs 100% for it's survival, because it's organs are barely formed.

Blueberry said...

Intentionally taking something which has the inherent function and purpose of ending that life is different from many things you mentioned. Surgeries which have the risk of preventing implantation seem like a bit of a grey zone to me and I think it would depend on the specific nature, risks, and causes of the surgery...Perhaps women who have uterine ablation need to agree to take other precautions that prevent fertilization?


Let's look at this with a born child. Feeding your toddler unhealthy, fried food puts them at higher risk for health problems and even death, and for long term habits that contribute to heart attack, etc. Should feeding your child this way be illegal? That's debatable. Letting your toddler stay home with the stove on? Definitely illegal. Have a mental illness (like anorexia is) that causes you to expose your children to certain risks? Probably shouldn't be punished for that; you're sick.


If there were a form of birth control that allegedly carried a slight risk of causing developmental issues in the child, which would cause him/her to suddenly drop dead at 3 years old, how would you feel about that?

Blueberry said...

Since no zygotes are killed by abortion procedures whereas 10,000 or more late term abortions happen, (and there are scientific uncertainties when it comes to abortifacient contraceptives), that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.

Besides, many pictures used are from the 1st and 2nd trimester. (See: http://www.createdequal.net/resources/abortion-signs)



And, as I said, people have a harder time relating emotionally to zygotes and early embryos, so pictures likely wouldn't do much. There is a strong intellectual, rational case for the value and rights of all of these humans, but people can emotionally realize the horror of a mid or late term abortion from the pictures. And let's be honest: most people, on most issues, form their opinions largely because of their emotions. When the group I'm in uses graphic images we hope to spark thoughtful dialogue and conversations with many people, but not everyone is going to stop and talk. But they will see the images.


Anyway, you didn't answer my question. If level of development is irrelevant, why is the fetus or embryo less valuable?

eroteme said...

Mental health problems aren't an excuse to kill your kids and walk away without punishment.

Just look at Andrea Yates. Why should an anorexic or woman who has had a uterine ablation get to walk away after she has just had sex and god knows killed how many zygotes that were prevented from implanting?

If there were a form of birth control that allegedly carried a slight risk of causing developmental issues in the child, which would cause him/her to suddenly drop dead at 3 years old, how would you feel about that?


I believe that IUD's have the potential to cause birth defects.


You do bring up an interesting question, however...


There have been people who have purposely had children, because they have WANTED to pass along a gene for disability. Does that count as child abuse?



There was a deaf lesbian couple who used the sperm of a donor who carried a gene for deafness, and the child was born deaf...if it would be illegal to stab your kids eardrums out in order to make them deaf, why is it not illegal to transmit a gene for deafness?

eroteme said...

Since no zygotes are killed by abortion procedures whereas 10,000 or more late term abortions happen

So it wouldn't be morally problematic to flush 100 zygotes down the toilet?

Anyway, you didn't answer my question. If level of development is irrelevant, why is the fetus or embryo less valuable?


Brain development.

Blueberry said...

I didn't say that the mentally person "killed her kids and walked away without punishment." Exposing your children to certain risks =/= killing them outright. Exposing your children to high risk =/= exposing them to low risk. Exposing to risk =/= exposing them to something expressly designed to harm them.


Leaving your toddler home alone with the stove on, as well as teaching them unhealthy eating habits are both exposing them to risk. One should be illegal and punishable, and one probably shouldn't be. On the other hand, if someone had a mental illness that severely impaired their judgement, and left their toddler home alone with the stove on, I don't think they should be punished (depending on the severity of the risk and of their condition), since they were mentally ill.


If IUDs cause birth defects, then I would say they are highly unethical.


Having a child you know may be deaf isn't assault...Stabbing their eardrums is. Sorry but I'm failing to see how this is analogous to the situation we were discussing.


And like I said, if a contraceptive had the off chance of causing the death of a toddler, how would you feel about them?

eroteme said...

Exposing your children to certain risks =/= killing them outright.

But if you are sick, and know that you will likely miscarry, but have sex regardless, how is that not criminal negligence?

Like, if you have a booze problem, but go driving anyway, and kill someone, you are still liable for their death!

Having a child you know may be deaf isn't assault

Why not? Hitting your kid in the head, hoping that the child will develop deafness as a result...both = child abuse.

And like I said, if a contraceptive had the off chance of causing the death of a toddler, how would you feel about them?

Actually, that is analogous to my 'purposely trying to create a deaf/disabled' child scenario.

If you reproduce, knowing that there is a chance that your genes for disability will be passed on, then how is that different from reproducing, knowing that your BC will lead to disability and/or death?

Blueberry said...

What did I say that implied that I thought flushing zygotes would be okay? The issue at hand is young humans being killed by abortion...If 10,000 late term humans were being killed by dog attacks, and no zygotes were, and I focused on the late term humans, it doesn't follow that zygotes dying in other ways is okay.


The 55 year old has a brain FAR more developed than the newborn. Newborns are not self-aware, not capable of language, object permanence, or cause and effect, not capable of rational or abstract thought, etc. etc. They're too young. So, respectfully, that still doesn't show why the 55 year old and newborn are equal, but the fetus is inferior.

eroteme said...

zygote=embryo=fetus-toddler=adult

So, should flushing and freezing zygotes be a crime, just like abortion? 30 years to life for murder?

Newborns are sentient. ZEF's not so much. ZEF's may in fact never develop the capacity for sentience.

Blueberry said...

It's not negligence because there's no way in which you could better provide for the child's needs. Knowing that there was a drug you could take to make you better and save the child, and not doing so, would be negligence. Giving the child the best chance you can, even if it's a small chance, is not negligence.


With the child who is deaf, their unharmed state is being able to hear, and you are taking action which causes harm. Most deaf people would not rather be dead than deaf, so you can't argue that you harmed them by bringing them into existence. On the other and, nobody would rather be stabbed in the eardrum than have one which was intact.

Respectfully you still didn't answer the question. Is taking a pill which can cause a toddler to drop dead (or, say, suddenly be unable to metabolize food) okay? If the zygote and toddler are morally unequal, this is the most accurate analogy.

eroteme said...

It's not negligence because there's no way in which you could better provide for the child's needs.

You could choose not to have sex.

Or not to drink and drive.

Or not to do drugs while operating on a patient.

Doesn't matter if you're mentally ill, that's no defense, espcially if you KNOW that your illness will lead to harm.

Most deaf people would not rather be dead than deaf, so you can't argue that you harmed them by bringing them into existence

So it's ok to smoke and drink while pregnant, because it's better to be harmed and alive?

Respectfully you still didn't answer the question. Is taking a pill which can cause a toddler to drop dead


I believe that it is just as immoral as purposely bringing a genetically defective child into the world, because the child, once *born* will suffer.



Here's the thing though, you are arguing that embryos and fetuses are already complete and fully formed humans. So, if they are...then causing *harm* to an embryo should be just as wrong as causing harm to a born child - existence might be great, but abuse is still abuse.


If you have sex, and you create a zygote with a gene for deafness, this is no different than stabbing your kid in the eardrum. The only difference is LOCATION.

Blueberry said...

Yes, assuming the party who is doing the flushing is aware, or perhaps reasonably ought to be aware, that they're murdering. Otherwise, it would be negligent homicide or manslaughter or something.


I'm sorry but could you clarify what you mean by sentient?


If you mean conscious, older fetuses are certainly sentient.


If you mean self-aware, newborns definitely are not.


ZEF have an inherent nature for consciousness, rationality, etc. It's in their genetic makeup. True, they may not live to fully develop and express those abilities, but a newborn may not live to develop self-awareness or rational thought. I don't see that it really maters.


Why should all humans who have attained sentience be on one side of the personhood line, and be equal to each other despite their differences, and all humans who haven't yet developed sentience be on the other side? Are all the other important mental capabilities irrelevant?

eroteme said...

Otherwise, it would be negligent homicide or manslaughter or something.

What if they are aware? 30 years to life?

If you mean conscious, older fetuses are certainly sentient

The capacity of consciousness, yes.

ZEF have an inherent nature for consciousness, rationality, etc. It's in their genetic makeup

Chickens have a gene for teeth. That doesn't mean that they are inherently toothy.

I don't see that it really maters.

Because potential is not actual. And just because something is in your genes does not meant that you possess it until you actually possess it. We don't treat someone who was born without arms as if they have arms because h.sapiens are inherently armed.

and all humans who haven't yet developed sentience be on the other side


Because, we value humanity for our minds. Mindless beating heart cadavers and brainlless anencephalic babies are NOT kept on life support or feeding tubes indefinitely - no mind = no person. Just because an embryo MIGHT develop a mind does not mean that we should treat it as if it's already sentient and sapient.

Blueberry said...

Mentally ill people who don't understand the consequences of their actions or are not thinking clearly should not be prosecuted like mentally healthy people.



I think there are basically 3 scenarios we're looking at:


Creating a child where there is some possibility-large or small-or having a genetic sickness, disability, or even dying.


Creating a child who will be fine but taking a substance or exposing them to certain additional risks (which are not inherent just in their existence, like being deaf due to genetics) which might harm or kill them. Some of these risks are minimal, and some are not.


Outright harming or killing the child.


Does that sound right to you?

lady_black said...

No, in fact it would NOT "constitute the ending of a human life" unless you mean by natural causes. It's never an abortion. It's a natural occurrence that happens to most blastocysts. They fail to implant. Too bad, so sad. There's no way of knowing about it when it does happen. And even worth less fretting about.

eroteme said...

Mentally ill people who don't understand the consequences of their actions

You assume that because someone is anorexic that she won't know that her uterine lining could prevent implantation.

Anorexic doesn't = stupid, you know.

Does that sound right to you?


Yes.

Clinton said...

No, that's not true. I'm using "abortifacient" as short-hand for "any procedure that prematurely and intentionally ends the life of a human embryo/fetus after it has begun." So while my language may not have been completely specific, most people, when they use the term "abortion" have the child in mind, not the pregnancy. Otherwise childbirth would be considered an abortion since it, too, ends the pregnancy.

lady_black said...

Um. That's a load of crap, and you know it. Women who have uterine ablation don't "have to agree" to ANYTHING! It's not a "child" and it isn't being "fed." Pregnancy after this procedure is just not happening, and that's that. If a pregnancy were to occur (highly unlikely), it would be life-threatening and need to be aborted. And please... stop trotting out toddlers. this has nothing to do with toddlers.

Clinton said...

I didn't say emotional ties matter. In fact, in my comment I specifically indicated that it doesn't. The reason we feel the death of an adult more than the death of a human embryo is because of emotional ties (an adult looks more like us than a human embryo does). What I said is that "looking like us" does not ground human value.

eroteme said...

Yeah, so whether an abortion is late term or not is irrelevant. And freezing embryos where 50% die should carry the same penalty as shooting a 5 yo in the head, or perhaps a charge of mass murder since zygotes = multiple people yeah?

Clinton said...

Sorry, that's incorrect. The fetus at nine months in utero can survive outside the womb, but it is not fully formed. Being viable has nothing to do with being "fully formed." In fact, we don't even reach our intellectual maturity until well into adulthood. Human life is marked by development that begins at fertilization and doesn't end until we are adults. No one in the literature on abortion defends viability as that which grounds human value because everyone recognizes it doesn't.

Clinton said...

Additionally, it is not her choice to be able to kill her child. Our government has given her the choice but that doesn't mean she is right to make it, anymore than a husband is right to abuse his wife, even if he had the legal freedom to do so.

lady_black said...

Well, then... may I use "murder" for anything that ends the life of another person before their time? NO I MAY NOT. Why? Because that isn't the definition of "murder." Words have meaning. You may not use words to mean whatever you like, and a blastocyst that doesn't implant isn't an abortion, it's not a miscarriage, it isn't anything at all but a natural occurrence resulting in a menstrual period.

eroteme said...

Being viable has nothing to do with being "fully formed.


A newborn has all of the organs and body parts that it will ever have.



A zygote/embryo/fetus, not so much. They are incomplete and partially formed, and may NEVER be viable as autonomous individuals. A newborn has proven that it can survive as a separate individual.

eroteme said...

It is her choice, because the zef has no more right to her body than I have to yours.

lady_black said...

Andrea Yates, in all fairness, was re-tried and found not guilty by reason of insanity. Andrea Yates is tragically mentally ill and will probably never be allowed to leave the mental hospital. She is also no danger to anyone but her own children, and perhaps, herself.

lady_black said...

IUDs do not cause birth defects. They prevent birth in the first place, because they prevent fertilization.

lady_black said...

I really don't want people held responsible for the genes they pass on, so please cut that out and keep on topic.

lady_black said...

Nobody is obliged to take a drug to prevent miscarriage. Get over yourself, sweetie. Worry about your OWN life.

eroteme said...

So very sad. She was a victim of the forced birth women as easy bake ovens agenda.

lady_black said...

Also a victim of her idiot husband. HE should be the one in jail.

eroteme said...

It is on topic. And I agree with you. I am trying to get at another point, that's all :P

lady_black said...

The problem is that no "human being" or "person" has any right to the body of another, including you and I. You cannot demand that another breathe for you, and process your wastes for you. Neediness doesn't create such a right.

eroteme said...

They always talk about how the 'man' should be just as responsible for the 'situational dependency' that the ZEF is in, but it's nothing but bullshit. Women are blamed 100% for pregnancy and bad pregnancy outcomes.



For example, women are pilloried for smoking and drinking during pregnancy. However, FAS can also be transmitted through bad sperm. Yet, men are not held responsible, at all. No one pointing at the alcoholic male saying 'your behaviour could harm your baby'

Blueberry said...

If someone is aware that they are murdering, yes, they should receive a long prison sentence.

Older fetuses are presently conscious. They can even learn to recognize their mother's voice and differentiate it from the voices of other people. They react to touch, sounds, etc. It's not like the fetus is unconscious in the womb and suddenly walks up when its born. Have you ever seen a preemie in the NICU? They're obviously conscious, though not in as sophisticated a manner as older humans.



The point is, there are clearly levels of conscious (it's not just an on/off switch) as well as many significant mental capabilities besides consciousness. Why should a newborn, who lacks awareness even of her own existence, be considered morally on par with an adult capable of rational thought, if not for the fact that she is a human being? Placing all the significance on consciousness (and a very precise level of consciousness, too, since some people are more conscious than others) but none on other factors is arbitrary.


There's no consistent way to maintain human equality for humans after birth, while saying that those before birth are inferior.


Also I would argue that the embryo isn't just potentially conscientious; she's conscious by her inherent nature. Just as the newborn is rational by nature. Think about it this way. You take an incredible, once in a lifetime photograph with an old Polaroid camera. You're really excited to see it develop, but before it can, I snatch it away and rip it to pieces. Are you angry? Why? What if I say "But it was only a potential picture! Why are you so upset, it was only brown smudges. I mean, it might not have even developed the image; something might have happened to it first!" That would be absurd. Everything about the photo was captured in an instant, and inherently a part of it. Just as the characteristics of a human being are present in it's DNA from the earliest stages. The photo simply hadn't had enough time to express certain of it's own inherently possessed characteristics. But it wouldn't make any sense to claim that makes it any less valuable.

lady_black said...

LOL. Is this a trick question? Because not all zygotes should be "humanized" ;)

Blueberry said...

Natural deaths don't justify intentional ones.

lady_black said...

You cannot "humanize" what isn't human. I'll bet you couldn't tell a human embryo from a skink embryo.

Blueberry said...

I was replying to eroteme's comment in which he said he believed that might be the case.

lady_black said...

What's "intentional" about it? A non-implanting blastocyst isn't an abortion, it isn't a miscarriage, it's a natural occurrence resulting in a menstrual period. That's how it works, with or without use of contraception.

eroteme said...

If someone is aware that they are murdering, yes, they should receive a long prison sentence.

Yeah, so if a woman is anorexic and has sex regardless, or a woman with a uterine ablation has sex knowing the embryo can't implant, they should both be charged with murder yeah?

Older fetuses are presently conscious

No, they are not. They have the capacity for sentience, but they aren't actually awake. Certain areas of the brain work, but this does not mean that they are awake like you and i are. This is why babies born within the amniotic sac are completely unaware that they are being born - without air in the lungs, they are in a sedated, anaesthetized state.

Why should a newborn, who lacks awareness even of her own existence, be considered morally on par with an adult capable of rational thought, if not for the fact that she is a human being?

Because, the newborn still meets certain other criteria for personhood. And there is no reason why newborns, just like certain animals, can't be a protected class. After all, they really have no other right than the right to 1) life 2) not to be abused - the same right that we extend to many animals.

Also I would argue that the embryo isn't just potentially conscientious; she's conscious by her inherent nature


Yeah, and chickens have teeth, and should be treated as if they have teeth, because they have the genes for teeth.


Having something in your genes isn't proof of anything. Until those genes are EXPRESSED you are not in possession of a specific trait, PERiOD.

eroteme said...

Zygote vans, LB!


How about handing out huge fluffy zygote pets as awards at the country fair!

lady_black said...

Eroteme is playing with you to expose your lack of knowledge. There. I went there. Just like the question about "humanizing" zygotes. Because zygote doesn't equal person. It doesn't even equal human. It's not my debating style because too often the point gets lost. But reading your answers is entertaining in a morbidly curious sort of way.

Blueberry said...

The primary issue of contention between the pro-life and pro-choice movement is whether the unborn human is a life, or a morally relevant one. So respectfully, "worry about your own life" (implying that the ZEF is not a life to be worried about, and I'm worried rather about controlling the mother's) is question begging.

lady_black said...

Some zygotes are in fact, pets. And farm animals, wild animals, etc.

Blueberry said...

I probably couldn't tell a pig heart from a human heart, either. I probably couldn't tell any number of unknown species apart; that doesn't mean they're the same. Are you claiming that embryos are actually not human organisms (that is, living members of our species)?

lady_black said...

It's certainly not a life for YOU to be concerned with. The outcome of your neighbor's pregnancy or conception is frankly, none of your damn business. Somewhere, Ann Landers is spinning in her grave.

eroteme said...

that's cuz you're gansta

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7813226752/h07BF27EC/

eroteme said...

Is a hydatidiform mole a member of the human species?

eroteme said...

I'm a life. Can I use your body without consent to preserve my life?

Blueberry said...

No, I don't think they should be charged with murder, any more than I think people who feed their kids a ton of unhealthy food should be charged with murder, or people who leave their toddlers home should go to jail for 30 years. Good grief.


Considering that babies can respond to sound, and stimuli, and recognize their mother's voices and differentiate them from other voices...I'm going to need a source saying they're not conscious, period. Perhaps not as conscious as older humans, but that's not the same things as being wholly unaware.


"The newborn still meets certain other criteria for personhood."


Okay...like what? I mean they're conscious....Are all conscious beings people, morally on par with 55 year old humans?


"Until those genes are expressed, you are not in possession of a specific trait, period."


Following this logic with the photograph analogy, we would get "until those images are expressed the photo isn't in possession of a specific trait, period."

eroteme said...

No, I don't think they should be charged with murder, any more than I think people who feed their kids a ton of unhealthy food

Why not?

If the woman, according to you, is responsible for creating the zygote, is it also not her responsibility to make sure that she won't put it into a dangerous situation that WILL DEFINITELY kill it? I mean, you can't throw your newborn into the pool and watch it drown,can you/ same thing!

Considering that babies can respond to sound, and stimuli, and recognize
their mother's voices and differentiate them from other voices.


Babies can. Fetuses can't.

And brainless anencephalic fetuses can respond to stimuli -it doesn't mean that they are conscious, they can't be, because they have no cerebral cortex - but it's possible to respond to stimuli with a primitive nervous system - brain stem and spinal reflex.

.Are all conscious beings people, morally on par with 55 year old humans?

No, but, they can suffer, and they should be protected from suffering at least. I spoke to a neuroscientist about this, and she explained that the sapient regions of a baby's brain are already active, just that they cannot express it because they do not yet know language etc. But they are already developing an understanding of concepts from birth. They can also feel emotion, unlike a brainless embryo.

Following this logic with the photograph analogy, we would get "until
those images are expressed the photo isn't in possession of a specific
trait, period


Chickens have the genes for teeth. Should we treat chickens as if they have teeth, simply because it's in their genetics?

Blueberry said...

A newborn, and all humans for that matter, can only survive in a location where he/she is able to get necessary nutrients and such to survive. There's much variation among born humans in how they can obtain these things, and how limited/independent they are. We recognize though that level of dependence/limitation doesn't effect one's moral value.


All of the parts ARE there at 8 weeks, they're just undeveloped. They're not done developing until about 22, and the human (generally, though not always) becomes progressively less limited and dependent throughout that time.


Besides, viability would still imply that human value hinges on available technology.

Blueberry said...

"No human being or person has any right to the body of another."


Pardon me, but I think that's a huge overstatement.


Don't children have a right to receive basic care from their parents? If, for whatever reason, a woman with a newborn baby could not pass care off to someone else, wouldn't she have a moral obligation to use her body, time, and money, in order to meet her child's basic, natural needs? (Nutrition, shelter from harm, etc.) If the baby had some strange illness and the only acceptable food was her mother's breast milk, wouldn't it be negligent homicide for her mother to say "my body, my choice. No one has a right to my body," and her her child starve to death?

eroteme said...

A newborn, and all humans for that matter, can only survive in a
location where he/she is able to get necessary nutrients and such to
survive.


Yeah, so that makes your anorexic guilty of murder, doesn't it?

Denying the zygote the right to 'live' in her uterus by failing to provide the right environment necessary for it's survival!

All of the parts ARE there at 8 weeks, they're just undeveloped

Or they aren't there at all. Brainless, lungless and kidneyless fetuses can survive in utero because the woman's organs keep it alive - it literally uses her organs in lieu of it's own.

It has no right to her organs, just as I have no right to yours, even if I can't survive without use of your kidneys.

Besides, viability would still imply that human value hinges on available technology.


Nope. Even if you put an unborn human in an artificial womb, it would still be non-viable until it can prove that it can survive as an independent entity.

eroteme said...

Don't children have a right to receive basic care from their parents?


Basic care doesn't includ literal use of their parent's organs, blood or tissue. Even if the kid will die without.

Blueberry said...

"Playing with you to expose your lack of knowledge."


Yeah, no doubt it was all a clever ploy.


I had never heard that of IUDs before, although I had heard that they could up the risk of miscarriage. I wasn't blindly accepting it, hence my "if." I just didn't see it as a point worth pursing at the moment. In any event, I don't think an IUD causing birth defects is particularly unreasonable thing to consider as possibly being true (though apparently it's not). (Like I said, they can cause miscarriage.)


What do you mean by "it doesn't even equal human"? In a biological sense there's no doubt that the Z/E/F is an individual human being, a living organism and a member of our species. Any actions post-fertilization which cause the death of the Z/E/F constitute the killing of a human being. There's overwhelming scientific support for this.


https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html



http://clinicquotes.com/category/quotes/scientists-speak/



I'd be happy to provide far more sources if you're interested.

Blueberry said...

If the outcome of my neighbor's pregnancy involves the killing of a human being, then yes, it is my business.


The loss of a toddler's life, or a newborn's life, is my business. Negligent homicide where a parent refuses to meet their child's needs is my business. Why not an unborn human being?


This isn't about judging women who are post-abortive, or oppressing women, or anything like that. Women who are post-abortive deserve compassion and, if necessary, counseling to help them. Women facing unplanned pregnancies deserve practical and emotional resources, support, etc. which many pro-lifers are dedicated to providing. But empathy for the mother, or a desire for women's welfare, does not mean we can just consign the helpless child within her to death.

Blueberry said...

Taking a pill which is abortifacient is intentional. The body flushing out an embryo on it's own isn't. But as far as I know there isn't scientific consensus on whether forms of BC *are* abortifacient. (Except IUDs, where it seems pretty clear they can cause miscarriage.)

Blueberry said...

....If you were my dependent child, born or unborn, you would have some right to my body in that I would have a moral obligation to provide for basic, natural needs (food, shelter, etc.), even if doing so was tiring or painful, and would not be justified in abandoning you to die, or in killing you, even if that was the only way I could be rid of you

eroteme said...

Actually, I am interested in following things through to their logical conclusion.

If zygotes are moral beings with the exact same worth as any other human being, then what does that say about how we should treat them?

What do you mean by "it doesn't even equal human"? In a biological sense there's no doubt that the Z/E/F is an individual human being, a living
organism and a member of our species.



so is a hydatidiform mole

eroteme said...

If the outcome of my neighbor's pregnancy involves the killing of a human being, then yes, it is my business.


Should your neighbour be arrested for child abuse if she doesn't get enough folic acid in her diet?

eroteme said...

yeah, except that cannot and will never be legally enforceable

Blueberry said...

In the case of a fetus, it does. Until we develop artificial one's the mother's womb is the only way the fetus can get nutrition, shelter, etc.


Besides, if a mother could not give her born child up for adoption immediately (any number of hypothetical scenarios might make this the case), she would have to use her body to care for her child. She would feel increased stress, her muscles would be tired, her back might hurt, her blood pressure might go up, she's exposed to all kinds of gross bodily fluids, she might be feeling depressed or lonely or even have, her breasts and nipples might hurt, if she had a c-section she'll certainly be feeling pain from that, depending on the situation her job or social life might be hindered, etc. Honestly, I'm betting a lot of people find parenting a born child more difficult and emotionally/physically demanding than parenting an unborn one.


Killing the baby or committing negligent homicide would still not be justified.


Not to mention, 99% of the time the baby's existence and condition of dependence was cause by the mother and father's own actions. Even ignoring the other arguments, bodily autonomy was waived by taking action which has the natural and foreseeable effect of putting a child in a state of dependence on you.


Also, if the mother has no bodily obligations to her child, and only she has a say with regard to her body, then is it justifiable to take drugs known to cause birth defects? For example accutane?

Blueberry said...

Hydatidiform mole form when the ovum doesn't have it's DNA....so no. It's not inherently viable, rational, or anything else. It's not set on the path of development through all life stages, like a zygote is. I doubt you could even classify it as an organism at all. Clearly that's vastly different than a zygote which was conceived from two normal gametes, which even Planned Parenthood recognizes as an organism. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-info/glossary (Unlike gametes, by the way.)

eroteme said...

A partial mole is 100% human and has h.sapiens DNA.


Your stance is ableist, tbh.

eroteme said...

n the case of a fetus, it does.

Full bodily donation is NEVER basic care.

You are slipping into naturalistic fallacy territory.

she would have to use her body to care for her child.

Irrelevant. It would not be able to lay claim on her organs, blood or tissue.

Not to mention, 99% of the time the baby's existence and condition of
dependence was cause by the mother and father's own actions.


So an exception should be made for rape?

Also, if the mother has no bodily obligations to her child, and only she
has a say with regard to her body, then is it justifiable to take drugs
known to cause birth defects? For example accutane?



I would say that parents have a moral obligation not to cause harm to a fetus IF that fetus will be brought to term, because the born child will then suffer. It's a commitment thing.



Mere fertilization does not necessarily = automatic commitment. Sex itself is not a commitment to pregnancy or to parenting.

Blueberry said...

We're just going to have to disagree on the first point. Not all actions which cause, or carry the risk of potentially maybe causing, either death or injury or natural disability, are the same.

Yes, they can. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23817883

Whether they can suffer is significant, but it's not the issue at hand.


You said "Why should emotional ties matter? Or even terms of development? Should the penalty for killing a 55yo be greater than for killing a newborn because one is further along?" That strongly implies that you consider 55 year olds and newborns to be morally equal.


And you say that newborns meet the criteria for personhood.


But you also deny that fetuses are persons, which would mean being human is not enough to make one a person, or to establish moral equality with other humans.


I'm asking, what criteria for personhood do newborns meet, and what criteria do they meet which makes them equal to 55 year olds, if being human is not enough?


And if it is merely being conscious, why aren't ALL conscious being persons, morally on par with newborns, 55 year olds, etc.?


Teeth, like arms, have no relation to moral value, and there are clearly practical reasons why we don't treat them like they have teeth. They're also past the point of being able to develop teeth. Likewise arms have no relation to moral standing, or the value which we should place on another human being. Sorry but neither of those are accurate analogies.

Blueberry said...

Being human is not the same as being a human organism. That's a profound biological distinction, and it's why comments like "but I'm killing humans skin cells with human DNA when I scratch myself" are ridiculous.

Rev Donald Spitz said...

Scott Roeder did the right thing. He stopped that babykilling abortionist George
Tiller from murdering any more children. He deserves a medal for his heroic
deed.

KB said...

Blueberry, that's far to reasonable and rational a response for the lady to actually understand. She made an assertion, and because she asserted it, it's right in her mind. No matter what.

Blueberry said...

I'm pretty sure that would be virtually impossible to prove.

Blueberry said...

My point is that caring for a born child is still full bodily
donation. It not like the mother's external body parts are caring for the newborn and she leaves all her internal organs behind. And as I said, her muscles may ache, her breasts may hurt, etc. and she may be far more
emotionally and physically drained than in caring for a fetus. And it's not like there's a hierarchy of bodily autonomy, where you have more right to your blood than to your hands and breasts, or increasing autonomy over your body parts the closer they are to the center of you. The woman's body is the woman's body, but a child, born or unborn, has certain rights to it-as well as to the
father's.

I didn't say an exception
should be made for rape, I was pointing out that that's another argument, which
applies to most situations.

Bodily autonomy assumes, for the sake of arguments, that the human in the womb is a person. Otherwise it
wouldn't be worth bringing up. Saying that a woman is not justified in taking something like accutane basically means that bodily autonomy authorizes her to
kill another person, but not to harm one. Which makes no sense, IMO.

"Sex itself is not a commitment to pregnancy and parenting." It's a commitment to whatever minimum actions are necessary to fulfill the child's natural needs for things like food and shelter. If someone came across a big box labeled "baby making machine" where you could push a button in exchange for a pleasurable experience, with a 1/100 chance of making a baby, and they pushed the button, they're responsible for the baby if one comes out. Even if they
didn't want one to, and even if they don't want to care for it. That's not the ONLY way someone could be responsible for the baby, but personally causing her
existence and dependency is one reason which makes that person responsible for
the baby's welfare. (Obviously this isn't analogous to pregnancy in all ways; my point is that the fact that the person having sex didn't actually intend to
create a baby, and hoped one wouldn't result, and had sex purely for love or pleasure, doesn't change anything.)

Blueberry said...

Someone with anorexia obviously isn't stupid, but they're too ill to to stop their unhealthy eating habits even though they could kill *themselves,* I don't think they're in the right state of mind to consider the possible, unlikely effects on a not yet existing embryo. Besides, anorexia does not have the inherent purpose of starving the embryo, whereas an abortifacient arguably does. As I said before, there are subtle differences in all these situations. Parents should be charged with murder for stabbing their kid in the heart. They shouldn't be charged with murder for over feeding and teaching unhealthy habits which resulted in their 40 year old having a heart attack. They should be charged with assault if they bruise their child's legs, but not if they feed them too much and the child can't run very far. (Even though it's still wrong to not teach your child healthy habits.)

KB said...

That, is frankly, a little disgusting to say. Nobody deserves condemnation and death without fair trial. And Roeder certainly didn't afford him that.

And what did Roeder do for the pro-life movement? At best, nothing. At worst, rightfully disgusted moderate people, and since people can't seem to distinguish a radical from a moderate, thereby condemn the who pro-life movement. Tiller might have been doing a horrible, morally reprehensible thing. But he was doing a legal horrible, morally reprehensible thing. So you attack the political and legal system that lets his actions occur, not the person himself.

Blueberry said...

"That makes your anorexic guilty or murder, doesn't it?"


I addressed this above.


The fact that a slim minority of disabled embryos/fetuses are developing without certain organs is irrelevant to the discussion. All that was being discussed was the general meaning of the term "fully formed," which is probably best defined as either 8 weeks (everything is generally in place), or ~22 years (everything is done developing).


The fetus gets nutrition, oxygen, etc. from the placenta. If it hasn't developed an organ yet, that's because it doesn't need it yet, in order to function as an organism.


And biologically, the fetus is an independent entity. It's just not self-sufficient, but neither is someone who needs a feeding tube and respirator. Self-sufficiency isn't a requisite for personhood.


A born child has a right to his mother's arms, legs, breasts, muscles, bones, etc. for being carried, fed, protected, etc. The woman's organs might be more taxed by caring for the child, she might get a headache, she might have stress which is bad for your heart....And like I said, the mother's right to bodily autonomy doesn't somehow apply only to her womb, but not to all the body parts necessary to care for the newborn. Bodily autonomy applies equally to whatever body parts the mother (or father, as the case may be) is using, but a child's has a right to the parents' bodies, not totally, but insofar as they're necessary to provide food, shelter, etc. It doesn't matter whether the child is born or not.

Blueberry said...

"You attack the political and legal system that lets his actions occur, not the person himself."


Well said. Also the cultural ideas that some human beings are disposable, and that being pro-woman means supporting abortion rather than actually providing for women's needs.


But I suspect that guy was a troll anyway.

eroteme said...

My point is that caring for a born child is still full bodily
donation.


Unless it is directly hooked into your blood vessels, and you are literally breathing for it, eating for it and processing waste for it, no it isn't a full body donation.

Bodily autonomy assumes, for the sake of arguments, that the human in the womb is a person.

Bodily autonomy means that no person or thing has the right to use the body of another without explicit and ongoing consent.

Such a right does NOT exist. And if anything or anyone invades your body without consent, you are within your rights to remove it, even IF it will die upon separation from your body. It's not your fault that it can't survive without access to your circulatory system, kidneys, live and lungs.

It's a commitment to whatever minimum actions are necessary to fulfill
the child's natural needs for things like food and shelter


No, it isn't. Sex is consent to nothing more than sex. It isn't consent to what may or may not result. It's not consent to STD's, it's not consent to rape.

When you get into your car, you don't consent to get into a car accident. And if you do injure someone in an accident, you certainly are not required to repair them with a 'fully bodily donation'.

. If someone came across a big box labeled "baby making machine" where you could push a button in exchange for a pleasurable experience


I have heard this one about a dozen times. It's completely irrelevant because it sidesteps the very important issue of bodily autonomy.

eroteme said...

Someone with anorexia obviously isn't stupid, but they're too ill to to stop their unhealth

Maybe they shouldn't have sex or, if they are an alcoholic, drive, ya know?

Besides, anorexia does not have the inherent purpose of starving the embryo, whereas an abortifacient arguably does.

The point of drunk driving isn't to kill. I spose we should let DUI's walk free then?

They shouldn't be charged with murder for over feeding and teaching
unhealthy habits which resulted in their 40 year old having a heart
attack



Why not? What if they slowly poison their kid to death over 40 years, is that ok, cuz it's slooow?

eroteme said...

if zygotes = people, then they should be treated like people.


you all are making loopholes for people who commit zygote abuse, something that you wouldn't let a person get away with if they did it to a toddler

eroteme said...

Thank you for this post Rev Donald Spitz. Just the other day, SPL'ers were bragging that they've met a pro-lifer who thought murdering people was awesome.

eroteme said...

A complete hydatidiform mole most often develops when either 1 or 2 sperm cells fertilize an egg cell that contains no nucleus or DNA (an “empty” egg cell). All the genetic material comes from the father's sperm cell. Therefore, there is no fetal tissue.

Surgery can totally remove most complete moles, but as many as 1 in 5 women will have some persistent molar tissue (see below). Most often this is an invasive mole, but in rare cases it is a choriocarcinoma, a malignant (cancerous) form of GTD. In either case it will require further treatment.

A partial hydatidiform mole develops when 2 sperm fertilize a normal egg. These tumors contain some fetal tissue, but this is often mixed in with the trophoblastic tissue. It is important to know that a viable (able to live) fetus is not being formed.



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


it's an organism, it's just disabled


both still have the correct # of chromosomes


you are hating on it because it's non-viable


what if, through genetic engineering, a hydatidiform zygote could be saved?

eroteme said...

Yes, they can.

That's not the same as actually being conscious. It's sitll a reflex. Part of their brain can react, that doesn't mean they are AWAKE. It doesn't mean they are there in the womb, forming concepts.

A baby born in the aminotic sac:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/05/article-0-1A285066000005DC-569_634x431.jpg

Didn't know it had been born. Your average baby knows it has been born, because it is violently squeezed through a tiny hole, and fluid is forced out of it's lungs, and air in. This is what wakes it up. Until it takes it's first breath it is unaware of the world around it. This baby in this photo was squeezed through that tiny hole, and it is, as you can see from the pic, not aware of anything.

I'm asking, what criteria for personhood do newborns meet, and what
criteria do they meet which makes them equal to 55 year olds, if being
human is not enough?


They might not yet exhibit rationality, but the parts of their brains that give rise to it DO EXIST, and as I said, babies are already learning concepts, they just can't talk about it, because they don't know the whole language thing. Even a very young newborn will learn to cry in order to get cuddled/food. It's not all reflexive.

Sorry but neither of those are accurate analogies.


It's completely relevant, and you are attempting to move the goalposts by saying that since h. sapiens is a species that is capable of rationality, that simply being a member of that species gives moral standing. No, it doesn't.

Until the genes are expressed you can't pretend that they have been expressed.

Would you treat a woman without arms as if she had them? I mean, being a human being, she is 'inherently armed', so why not treat her as if she has arms?

Should we treat brainless anencehaplic babies as if they are rational? They don't develop brains, but, according to you, they are inherently rational because h.sapiens DNA.

eroteme said...

Nothing to do with disposability.


Albert Einstein wouldn't have a right to your body, or to my body, or to anyone's body, even if his very life depended on it.

eroteme said...

I addressed this above.

Yeah, and I rebutted it.

How about women who keep doing IVF in hopes of getting pregnant, but their bodies keep rejecting perfectly healthy embryos? Are they not mass murderers?

developing without certain organs is irrelevant to the discussion.

It's completely relevant. They are incomplete and only partially formed, and they may NEVER become viable. Pretending as if they are viable before they can demonstrate that they are is dishonest.

The fetus gets nutrition, oxygen, etc. from the placenta

It doesn't get it from the placenta. It gets it all from the woman's organs, and the woman's organs are HERS, they do not belong to the fetus.

And biologically, the fetus is an independent entity. It's just not
self-sufficient, but neither is someone who needs a feeding tube and
respirator.


If it's an independent entity it can move out and grow on it's own without the use of another body to perform all of life's functions for it.

A person who needs a feeding tube and respirator has already proven that they can survive independently. Illness happens.

A born child has a right to his mother's arms, legs, breasts, muscles, bones, etc. for being carried, fed, protected, etc


You need to give up while you're behind. Having to feed your kid out of a bottle and hold it in your arms is not the same as having it literally live inside your body


Oh, and pregnancy maims and kills. How many toddlers cause their caretakers to bleed to death? How many toddlers give their caretakers diabetes? eclampsia? prolapsed uterus?


Anyone can look after a born child. Only one person can gestate a pregnancy.

Blueberry said...

The purpose of an action is significant, but it's not the only significant factor. As I already stated. Nature of the risk, the degree of risk, intent, whether you're causing harm to someone who is otherwise okay, etc. So no, DIUs aren't okay. Do you actually think parents should be charged with murder if their 40 year old has a heart attack, because they taught him unhealthy eating habits as a child? I don't, and I think it's obvious that there's a difference. I also don't consider intentionally outright killing a zygote to be in the same category as an anorexic whose habits could possibly contribute to an embryo not implanting if one should be conceived, and I would put possibly abortifacient BC in between, though closer to the former. This conversation is going nowhere though, so, like I said before, let's just agree to disagree.

someone45 said...

Yes actually it is the woman's choice if the ZEF can use her body to come to term. Denying her that right is gestational slavery.

someone45 said...

Also a man does not have the legal freedom to beat his wife...

someone45 said...

Yes actually it is the woman's choice if the ZEF can use her body to
come to term. Denying her that right is gestational slavery.

Guest said...

"Tiller himself admitted that this situation constituted only about eight percent of his abortions."

Wow. Loose lips sink ships.

I don't feel like duking it out with the Goldfish Poop Gang today.

Blueberry said...

And if you're breastfeeding a newborn by physically placing your breast in the babies mouth, you're literally ingesting food for it. That would especially be the case if the baby had a injury or condition that that made it difficult to swallow, and the mother had to drip pumped milk into his/her stomach with a tube.


And yes, it's still full bodily donation, because you still have to use your whole body to walk around, carry the baby, etc. I could just as easily argue that pregnancy isn't "full bodily donation" because she's not using her arms and hands, or her head, to directly care for the baby.


Certain body parts are used more directly depending on whether the woman is caring for a born or unborn baby, but clearly the level of autonomy she has over those body parts doesn't vary from part to part, or organ to organ, or based on whether it's close to the inside or outside of her body.


I'm sorry, but I really don't think any of the distinctions you're making are meaningful. The mother's bodily autonomy is compromised by childcare either way, and the degree to which it's compromised may even be greater with a born child.


99% of the time bodily autonomy is phrased as "even if the fetus is a person..." or "accepting for the sake of argument that the fetus is a person..." If the fetus isn't a person the bodily autonomy discussion is pointless and unnecessary, because it's obvious that abortion is permissible.


"It's completely irrelevant because it sidesteps the very important issue of bodily autonomy."


I know, that's why I said it wasn't a perfect analogy. The point of the analogy was to illustrate that, just because you didn't mean for something to happen, doesn't absolve you from the consequences of the actions.


Regarding car accidents....If the biological purpose of driving cars was to hit people but people drove them for recreational or relational reasons as well, and if life threatening car accidents were as common as pregnancy (they're not even close) and over 6 million people a year found themselves in extreme danger of dying from them, and if they ONLY way those 6 million helpless people could be saved is if the driver who created the condition of dependency in the other person agreed to a temporary loss of certain aspects of bodily autonomy (say, a temporary kidney donation that had physical risks comparable to pregnancy, where they could have the kidney back in 9 months when the person's own kidneys healed)....I think there's a good chance we would change the law so that people were required to do so. And I'd be 100% fine with that.

eroteme said...

Nurses are caretakers, their patients don't live inside them, and if they did, i think that the nurse would feel that the patient living inside their bodies is entirely different.

eroteme said...

If the neural tube doesn't develop...

I mean, El Salvador has no problem putting women in jail for miscarriages:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24532694

eroteme said...

Do you actually think parents should be charged with murder if their 40
year old has a heart attack, because they taught him unhealthy eating
habits as a child?


He is responsible for his own life by the time he hits 40. And this is so out there that it's completely irrelevant.

I also don't consider intentionally outright killing a zygote to be in
the same category as an anorexic whose habits could possibly contribute
to an embryo not implanting if one should be conceived



1) she knows she's anorexic


2) she knows zygotes and embryos will miscarry due to her condition


3) she has sex anyway
----------


1) he knows he's a drunk


2) he knows that he will most likely kill people if he gets in a car


3) he drives regardless

Blueberry said...

No you didn't. As I said, anorexic people aren't even mentally capable of looking out for their own welfare.


People who lose embryos repeatedly in IVF aren't mass murderers any more than people who have had children die of SIDs. I already said that giving your child the best chance you can, even if it's a small chance, isn't the same as killing it, injuring it, etc.


I'm not responding to this discussion anymore. It's going round in circles.


The fetus is an independent organism, biologically. The placenta could be hooked up to another source of nutrition and oxygen, if we had the technology for it. There's no inherent dependency on the mother that is part of the fetus's identity. A fetus could survive just fine in an artificial womb, just as a preemie can survive in a NICU incubator, or someone with breathing difficulties could survive on a respirator, or someone who couldn't feed themselves can survive with a feeding tube. The only difference is that we so happen to have the technology necessary for the last three scenarios, but not yet for the first.


And no, it's not the same. There are differences, but those differences typically aren't morally relevant.


It doesn't matter that the fetus is inside the mother. Bodily autonomy is not greater for the womb than it is for breasts, arms, legs, etc. You can't claim "but the woman's whole body isn't being used", because in the same sense the whole woman's body isn't being used in caring for a born child. The mother's body is still being sapped of nutrients, energy, etc. with a born child, just in a different way. And, like I said, caring for a born child can easily be more difficult, demanding, and taxing on one's body, and even impact her health.


Most pregnancies don't severely effect the mother's health or threaten her life, but of course some do. Whether it permits abortion would depend on whether an analogous hypothetical scenario with a born child would justify abandoning or outright killing it. (To which the answer would usually be no.)


"Anyone can look after a born child. Only one person can gestate a pregnancy."


I think I mentioned before, that we have to consider the situation as if the mother could not immediately place the baby up for adoption or pass care to someone else. We're considering whether she would be justified in killing or neglecting the baby in a situation where she was the only one who could care for it.

Blueberry said...

She's mentally ill. This conversation is pointless.

eroteme said...

She's mentally ill.

Alcoholism is also a disease. Why does the anorexic get a jail out of free card for killing, but the drunk driver doesn't> Both are mentally ill, and both are well aware of what they are doing

And there are also women who don't eat because they are models, or athletes who are on a high protein diet, which can and does lead to amenorrhea.


This conversation is pointless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwYX52BP2Sk

Blueberry said...

Do you actually have a scientific sources saying that a complete mole is an organism? That it's biologically like a zygote, except with lethal abnormalities? As far as I know it is actually just a blob of cells. Human DNA, yes, and maybe the right number of chromosomes, but still not an organism.


It's removal is certainly not comparable, either biologically or ethically, to abortion.


I don't know enough about it to be sure, but maaaaybe you could claim the partial mole is a human organism, who so happens to have absolutely lethal abnormalities. Maybe.

eroteme said...

As I said, anorexic people aren't even mentally capable of looking out for their own welfare.

Yeah? I've been on 400 calories a day since this April, and this past month I am down to 200 calories a day. You think that because I'm not eating that I am too mentally ill to know that amenorrhea might result in zygotes not being able to implant if I have sex?

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Mental ill doesn't = stupid, fyi

People who lose embryos repeatedly in IVF aren't mass murderers any more than people who have had children die of SIDs

If you repeatedly implant embryos knowing that they will die because your body rejects them is kinda similar to constantly throwing your newborn in the pool to see if he/she will sink or swim.

I already said that giving your child the best chance you can, even if
it's a small chance, isn't the same as killing it, injuring it, etc.


Aw, so it's morally acceptable to put a bunch of people in harm's way, killing them, on the off chance that one might live? That is highly immoral.

The fetus is an independent organism, biologicall

If it was independent, it could grow in a petri dish. In fact, it can't even develop properly without certain hormones that ONLY come from the woman. Without folic acid it won't even develop a neural tube and in the worst scenarios, a brain.

We're considering whether she would be justified in killing or
neglecting the baby in a situation where she was the only one who could
care for it.


Irrelevant, because bodily autonomy is not affected. Adoptive parents get rid of their kids all the time,there are yahoo groups devoted to it.

Most pregnancies don't severely effect the mother's health or threaten her life, but of course some do


All pregnancies are bad for a woman's health, however. Too many pregnancies and the woman's body will eventually wear out, killing her. Having one's immune system dampened and nutrients sucked from one's body isn't exactly a state of health. And birth itself is brutal on the body.



And every pregnancy carries with it the risk of death, permanent disability and injury. We can't tell in advance which women will die. There is no way to accurate predict or prevent this outcome. In essence, by forcing all women to carry their pregnancies to term, you are denying women, as a whole, the right to life and health.

eroteme said...

It's removal is certainly not comparable, either biologically or ethically, to abortion.


Why not?


And I would say that a partial mole counts as a human organism with a lethal disability yeah.



Just because it's non-viable doesn't mean we should treat it like trash now, does it? It's just sicker, earlier. A tay sachs baby also has a lethal condition - doesn't mean we can kill it now does it?

Blueberry said...

...Not being aware of having been born doesn't equate to being aware of nothing. For birth to suddenly confer consciousness there would have to be some profound and rapid change in the brain at that point, and I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen. "Until it takes its first breath it's unaware of the world around it." You need to source that.

Okay, so newborns are persons because the parts of their brain that give rise to rationality exist.

The brain of a newborn is exactly like the brain of a fetus just before birth. The brain of a fetus just before birth is much like the brain of a fetus at 7 months, and the brain of a 7 month fetus much like the brain of a 6 month fetus. The structures you're referring to don't suddenly arise when the human is born.

Actually the cerebral hemispheres appear at 5 weeks post conception. So the structures necessary for consciousness, as well as self-awareness and rationality, are present by that point. If that's the criteria for personhood, 5 week olds are firmly established as being people.


"Functions eventually controlled by the cerebral hemispheres include thought, learning, memory, speech, vision, hearing, voluntary movement, and problem-solving." http://www.ehd.org/movies.php?mov_id=24


"Unless the genes are expressed you can't pretend that they have been expressed."


I'll go back to the photo analogy.


You're claiming that the human doesn't have value until valuable trait "X" is actually being expressed, even though "X" is a part of it's genetic makeup.


With the photo, this would be "the photo isn't valuable until valuable trait "X" (could be color, shape, hue, etc.) is actually being expressed, even though "X" is a part of it's natural makeup."


Which would mean there is no difference in value between an undeveloped picture of mud, and an undeveloped picture of the sunset, and no reason not to throw the sunset picture away. Which is clearly ridiculous.


I don't think we should treat anecephalic babies as rational in the sense that we should expect them to solve puzzles or learn to talk, but we should treat them as human beings, with compassion and respect. (Obviously the photo analogy fails here somewhat, because a photo that got messed up while developing wouldn't be something you wanted to keep. The difference is that humans are valuable by their human nature, whereas photos are only valuable insofar as we place value on them-not inherently.)


There's no logically consistent way to argue that pre-born humans are inferior to born ones without completely undermining human equality. But even if you don't buy human equality, the nature of a thing is more important than what it can do at the moment, and the nature of a fetus also establishes it as a person.

Blueberry said...

Why not? Because a complete mole is not a human organism. It's not an individual, living thing. It has no capacity to develop through any stages of life. It doesn't function as a whole. It's not a member of our species, or of any species.


And if the partial mole could be biologically classified as an organism (which is a scientific question, not one to be settled on a hunch), then no, we should treat it like trash. It should be treated like a human with a lethal abnormality.

eroteme said...

.Not being aware of having been born doesn't equate to being aware of nothing.

If it was conscious it would wake up from having it's head crushed like the babies that are NOT born within the amniotic sac.

The structures you're referring to don't suddenly arise when the human is born.

The fetus is incapable of sentience until at least 25 weeks-30 weeks, at which point the thalamacortical connections which give rise to upper brain function begin to form. However, it is still sedated and anaesthetized whilst in the womb. It doesn't sit there, thinking about life. Parts of it's brain may manage to process certain stimuli, but that does not mean that it is actively AWAKE.

Obviously the photo analogy fails here somewhat, because a photo that got messed up while developing wouldn't be something you wanted to keep.

Until the Kodak photo can function as a kodak photo you can't say you have a photo. If the chemicals don't mix properly and all you get is a black smear, you can't say that you have a photo - you just have a black smear. Treating it as if it's a photo is ludicrous.

There's no logically consistent way to argue that pre-born humans are
inferior to born ones without completely undermining human equality


People have minds. Pre-viability non-sentient embryos, zygotes and fetuses do not. A beating heart cadaver can be unplugged from the feeding tube and left to die, and no one will say it's murder, because the mind is gone. It doesn't matter if the body is still alive, no mind = no person. A non-viable prenate doesn't have a mind, and it may never develop one, and until it does, we can't be treating it as if it already has a mind.

But even if you don't buy human equality, the nature of a thing is more important than what it can do at the moment


Then why aren't anencephalic babies and braindead yet still alive bodies often unplugged from their feeding tubes and left to die, or organs harvested?

eroteme said...

It's not an individual, living thing

1) it's living, just not the way you think it should, but it's definitely alive

2) it sure is an individual, has the unique DNA and everything

It has no capacity to develop through any stages of life.

Neither does a doomed Tay Sachs baby. So it's ok to shoot a TS newborn in the head?

It should be treated like a human with a lethal abnormality.


Yes, and given every chance to develop instead of being cruelly aborted.

Blueberry said...

You cannot subsist on 400, or 200, calories a day. You're either lying, or trolling (the most probable option, I think, and all the more reason to stop discussing this particular issue with you), or in desperate need of help, in which case I sincerely urge you to care for yourself, to know that you are valuable, and to get help from a professional, and maybe contact this helpline: http://www.anad.org/eating-disorders-get-help/eating-disorders-helpline-email/


"Irrelevent, because bodily autonomy is not affected."


It is being affected. That's what we've been discussing. Bodily autonomy is affected whether the child is born or not, and being inside vs. outside isn't a morally relevant distinction.


The VAST majority of abortions are not done to protect the woman from serious health risks, or from dying.


"There is no accurate way to predict or prevent this outcome." There's no accurate way to predict whether driving your sick child to the doctor will result in a car crash that kills or maims you, but that doesn't mean you're justified in not taking them, even if it's rainy or icy or dark outside. Sorry but you can't just say "well there's an unpredictable risk" and figure that automatically negates the parent's obligations to their child.


Abortion would only be permissible if the situation would somehow justify killing or fatally neglecting the born child in a hypothetical, analogous scenario.

eroteme said...

You cannot subsist on 400, or 200, calories a day

Yes you can, with a once a week refeed. I did paleo on the 400 and was very very weak, so I had to add more carbs for energy. I went up to 600 a day for the month of July, back to 400 a day for August, and the past two weeks has been 200 a day.

You don't need 1200 calories a day to survive, and my BMR is somewhere around 800, so I can get by on half that, or less.

It is being affected. That's what we've been discussing. Bodily autonomy is affected whether the child is born or no

Nope. Your bodily autonomy/integrity is ONLY affected if someone or something else is literally occupying it.

The VAST majority of abortions are not done to protect the woman from serious health risks, or from dying.

The risks are always there, and which women will die from pregnancy cannot be predicted. If you force women to give birth, women are guaranteed to die, and you are essentially denying women the right to life.

There's no accurate way to predict whether driving your sick child to
the doctor will result in a car crash that kills or maims you


We don't FORCE people to risk life and limb. Hang-gliding is safer than pregnancy, but someone can't throw you out of a plane based on mere percentages, even if a life will be saved if you are ejected from the plane. And I doubt that you would be mollified if you were told that only 800 people die per year from hang-gliding. I don't care if it's 1 in a million, no one is forcing me to sky dive or hang glide, even to save 1 life. I could be the 1 in a million that goes splat.

Sorry but you can't just say "well there's an unpredictable risk"


Yes, we can say that, because only the person whose life and health are at stake can decide whether or not they want to risk it all.

Blueberry said...

"It doesn't sit there, thinking about life." I never said it did. Newborns can't do that, either.

Respectfully, you're not providing sources for any of your claims.

"Treating it as if its a photo is ludicrous."

Okay, so if I take your undeveloped once-in-a-lifetime, beautiful photo and rip it into pieces, you'd be okay with that? Because being upset would be ludicrous? Treating it as though it has value is ludicrous? You would only mind if I tore if up if I did so *after* it was fully developed?

"People have minds."

This is a massive, vague, over-simplification. Brain development, like development in general, is a continuum. Consciousness is a continuum. Picking a random spot and saying "there, now it's person, morally equal to all other humans" is arbitrary. The newborn isn't remotely the same, mentally, as an adult. There is NO reason why a newborn should be considered equal to an adult, save for it's nature, and being human.



All structures that are necessary for consciousness and rationality are present at 5 weeks, the nature for rationality is present from conception, and the only thing that changes is level of development.


Which you said many comments ago isn't relevant to determining how valuable someone is.


"May never develop one."


The vast majority will. All they need is nutrition, oxygen, etc. in order to keep growing, and they will naturally develop consciousness, rationality, etc. You could say "an infant may never develop rationality," so we shouldn't treat it like it already has. (After all, there could be un-diagnosed severe retardation, or they could hit their head and suffer brain damage.)


The nature of an anecephalic baby (which is a whole human organism) is rational. Their genetic code gives them an inherently rational nature, even though they're prevented from expressing it.


Someone who is braindead no longer has the ability to function as a whole living organism. (Unlike an embryo pre-brain development, who doesn't *need* a brain to function as an organism, an adult human does have that need.) They are, effectively, already dead. Furthermore they have lost all capacity to ever be consciousness, will not be conscious in the future, and are therefore not comparable to most fetuses. The best comparison to most pre-conscious fetuses would someone in a temporary coma, who will wake up in several months after their brain heals. It wouldn't be ethical to unplug or kill them.


Also being allowed to die of natural causes when there is no chance of saving you is far different than being outright killed.

expect_resistance said...

Sad that you support domestic terrorism.

Blueberry said...

...I'm not sure how you're alive, and honestly that sounds unsustainable and unhealthy to me (no offense, could be wrong), but it also sounds like it's not anorexia. Which is actually a mental illness.


"Your bodily autonomy is only affected if someone or something else is literally occupying it."


That's absurd.


Being forced to donate your kidney to a stranger (excepting the car-crashes-are-as-frequent-as-pregnancy-and-only-you-can-save-them scenario) is a violation of your bodily autonomy, even though no one is occupying it.


If someone punches you, they are violating your bodily autonomy.


If a man is raped, his bodily autonomy is being violated, even though he isn't being occupied.


Women should not be "forced to give birth" in a situation where continuing the pregnancy will actually kill them (although if the baby is viable c-section or induced labor should be used, not abortion). Same as the parent of the born child shouldn't be forced to take their deathly sick child to the hospital if, for whatever reason, it's likely to just kill them both.


If you can't require parents to take on a situation where there's ANY level of risk, then parents shouldn't have to drive their sick kids to the hospital on a rainy day. But clearly there are acceptable levels of risk, and just as clearly you can't just clear parents from caring for their children because of the possibility that a risk might arise. Most pregnancies are reasonably healthy. Until a health condition has *actually come about,* you can't determine whether it justifies ending the pregnancy.


...Also if you brought your child on a plane knowing that they might fall out, and they did, and you were the only one who could jump out of the plane to save them because only you had a parachute, I'd push you right out, whether you wanted to go or not.

Blueberry said...

It's not an organism. If you're going to say it is, you need to provide a source. Having unique DNA, and being comprised of living cells, doesn't make something an individual organism. A tumor isn't an organism. A human being of roughly equal size is an organism.

Death in Tay Sachs babies is usually by age four. Many of those babies experience years of life and love. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay%E2%80%93Sachs_disease

"So it's ok to shoot a TS newborn in the head?"
I would only be implying anything even CLOSE to this if I had accepted that moles are like zygotes, which I haven't, since they aren't.


The mole isn't an organism. The baby is. The baby is a human being who will unfortunately die sooner than others. The mole isn't alive. It's made of living cells, yes, but the mole itself isn't alive as an individual functioning entity with any capacity whatsoever.

Blueberry said...

....There's not really a point in having the same discussion in two different places. Parents' have moral and legal obligations to meet their child's basic, natural needs, which I believe includes carrying to term.

Blueberry said...

Obviously this person is a troll.

Jose Chung said...

If I were your neighbor, I can't help but wonder how you would make it
your business to ferret out my private medical decisions. Tap my phone?
Intercept any mail that appears to come from an insurance company or
medical institution? Rummage through my garbage? Unless you violate my privacy, you'll be none the wiser about anything.

Blueberry said...

I don't consider an abortion to be a private medical decision. It's ending the life of another human being.


"Unless you violate my privacy, you'll be none the wiser about anything."


You could make the same argument about a newborn baby that you hid from the world and didn't tell anyone about. I might never know they had been killed unless I peeped through the window and saw the body.


Respectfully...so what? What does that tell us about the justness of abortion?

eroteme said...

Not necessarily. There are many pro-lifers who truly believe that people who perform abortions are psycho killers.


Check his history, he sounds like a right-wing whackjob.

eroteme said...

Basic needs don't = body parts or tissue


The courts have decided in favour of parents who haven't wanted to donate their body parts/tissue to their children, even if the child will die without.

eroteme said...

http://books.google.ca/books?id=Io6zV1GAjVAC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=is+a+hydatidiform+mole+an+organism&source=bl&ots=pWyxgskDbx&sig=XJR0THeAfULsVtT_X7B2be5caNI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=M78HVIuIHImkigL3o4HICw&ved=0CCUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=is%20a%20hydatidiform%20mole%20an%20organism&f=false

The mole isn't an organism. The baby is.

A lethal disability doesn't mean that someone or something isn't an organism.

By that logic, as I stated, a doomed TS baby isn't an organism, because the disability is absolutely lethal.

It's made of living cells, yes,


That means it's alive.

Blueberry said...

Maybe I was wrong, sorry. But he is definitely not a representative of the attitudes of all, most, or even a significant minority of pro-lifers.

eroteme said...

Respectfully, you're not providing sources for any of your claims.

If fetuses are awake and conscious, then explain why being pushed through the vagina, and having your head crushed, doesn't wake those that are still in the amniotic sac?

Okay, so if I take your undeveloped once-in-a-lifetime, beautiful photo and rip it into pieces

I have no way of knowing if the photo would come out beautiful or not. It would suck that you were destroying my property, but until i can actually SEE the sunset, there is no proof that a beautiful photo is even there, or will EVER be there.

The vast majority will. All they need is nutrition, oxygen, etc. in order to keep growing, and they will naturally develop

They need a lot more than that. They literally build themselves out of the woman's body. And you seem to be arguing about percentages again..

1) not enough women die or are disabled from pregnancy, therefore it's acceptable to force all women to give birth, knowing that some will die. Too bad so sad, eh?

2) many zygotes end up being perfectly healthy, therefore we should treat ALL zygotes as if they will become healthy infants, and pretend that they are all rational, even the zygotes that are hydatidiform moles (see, there is no way of telling which zygotes have a lethal disability and which do not)

The nature of an anecephalic baby (which is a whole human organism) is rational.

Nope. Just because some h.sapiens are rational does not mean that all h.sapiens are rational.

Someone who is braindead no longer has the ability to function as a whole living organism.

Neither does an anencephalic baby, but if you're gonna treat it as a rational being due to species membership then you can do the same with the braindead corpse.

Unlike an embryo pre-brain development, who doesn't *need* a brain to function as an organism, an adult human does have that need

Of course it doesn't, because the woman's body does all the work for it.

Furthermore they have lost all capacity to ever be consciousness, will
not be conscious in the future, and are therefore not comparable to most
fetuses


So? There is no guarantee that every zygote will result in a rational human being.

The best comparison to most pre-conscious fetuses would someone in a temporary coma

Nope. Someone in a temporary coma has already achieved sentience and sapience, and the fact that they can recover and walk around and do what sapient humans do shows that they are nothing like a pre-sentient zef.

Also being allowed to die of natural causes when there is no chance of saving you is far different than being outright killed.


So it's morally acceptable to unhook a mindless body from life support?


Well hey, a non-viable ZEF is a mindless body, and the woman is life support, and she can unhook it if she chooses, because it has no right to her body.

ChristinaDunigan said...

They also failed to mention that perinatal hospice is chosen by 75% of women who are offered that option. They failed to mention how often women are pressured by their doctors to schedule a hasty abortion before they even have a chance to process the news.

expect_resistance said...

Yikes. I just checked his history and he's freaky weird and not in a good kind of way.

Blueberry said...

Your source supports my point. "There is good reason to think that a partial hydatidiform
mole is an abnormal human embryo….there is also good reason to think that a
complete hydatidiform mole is not an embryo.”



"A lethal disability doesn't mean that someone or something isn't an organism."


I never said it did. I never said nor implied that Tay Sachs babies could be aborted, and I clearly said that if partial moles were organisms, they should be treated as such, not just be treated as trash.


Being made of living cells =/= being alive, in the sense of being an individual living entity or organism. Your spleen isn't an entity or organism. Tay Sachs babies are, based on this text it looks like partial moles likely are, and complete moles definitely are not.

eroteme said...

Which is actually a mental illness.

So?That still doesn't mean that they are so far gone that they don't know what they are doing. You are assuming that if someone has an eating disorder that they lose all sense and become stupid.

Being forced to donate your kidney to a stranger (excepting the car-crashes-are-as-frequent-as-pregnancy-and-only-you-can-save-them
scenario) is a violation of your bodily autonomy, even though no one is occupying it.

If someone punches you, they are violating your bodily autonomy.

If a man is raped, his bodily autonomy is being violated, even though he isn't being occupied.


Poor choice of words on my part. Yeah, your bodily autonomy is affected if someone forcibly uses your body against your will.

And if a man is raped, his body IS being occupied against his will.

Women should not be "forced to give birth" in a situation where continuing the pregnancy will actually kill them

It can't be predicted which women will die. What if she dies of post-partum hemorrhage? Too bad so sad lady?

If it was possible to prevent every pregnancy related death (and permanent disability) women would still not die from pregnancy every year in the USA.

But clearly there are acceptable levels of risk

Sure there are, but a violation of bodily autonomy isn't one of them. The state can't even force you to donate blood to your child.

Most pregnancies are reasonably healthy.


Until she dies. A 'healthy' pregnancy can go from zero to bleeding out of every orifice overnight.



A birth can go from normal to post parum hemorrhage.


Again, some women will die from pregnancy. We don't know which women will die. By forcing all women to gestate and birth, you are denying all women the right to life.

eroteme said...

No, it doesn't support your point.

partial mole = abnormal embryo with a disability

Being made of living cells =/= being alive, in the sense of being an individual living entity or organism


A non-viable zef isn't alive in that in that sense either, since it is utterly incapable of functioning as an autonomous, fully formed individual.

noneimport said...

eroteme do not waste anymore energy. these people like Lady Black are using irrational logic. think of the logic used to diminish the value of groups of undesired people or even animals seen as pests. They separate that undesired from their understanding of good (and note their understanding of good is based upon what they see as not harmful to them as the individual alone--think Plato's Republic). This helps them to reconcile their acceptance of murder and neglect in their world and in their mind. Many Americans, post civil war, saw those that were recently freed as being harmful to their livelihood and saw them as having just course for retaliation for their enslavement. So they formed negative images of them in their minds and in the public eye in order to justify their killing of them and the brow beating of their future. During Nazi control, the same was done of the Jews. The government, in this case, pushed the agenda of a 'white' only in-group and those that didn't fit, were seen as not worthy to live. They were less then animals, not even considered alive! Many people, at that time, walked through life their with blinders on making excuses for the actions of the government so they wouldn't have to face the atrocities that took place around them. Ignorance can be bliss...for a time.This is not about 'choice' and PPP is getting that right. It is about momentary self preservation and nihilism. When we have decided as an individual or community to see a life, despite the data or species, as bad and not beneficial or adding to our individual 'happiness' then no amount of logic can unravel the ideology that has taken hold within that mind. the only way that one can help those lost within irrational thought is the examples we set by our choices in our lives. Besides if Lady Black, and others like her, want to put their hope for the future in our children, raised with our values, why should we complain. I have no problem with those who are unable to feel compassion and love, in this case for what is a scientifically proven genetic individual, not successfully breeding ....just saying. Save your energy on those that don't troll

Jose Chung said...

Practically speaking, whether or not it's legal, it is. I could hop the border to Canada, if need be. For the demographic of women who have plenty of resources, it will remain a private medical decision.

I'm still curious how much snooping you'd be willing to do find out - and rat out - someone's private medical decision. That's the sort of thing will be necessary to effect women who can easily circumvent the law. What does that say about the justness of invading someone's privacy?

Ann said...

No baby "needs" to be aborted. If a pregnant mother is facing a truly life threatening illness and the baby's death is a highly probable result the choice the choice falls under double negative.

Ann said...

Don't get that. Where is their body autonomy?

Blueberry said...

Yeah it does. I said complete moles weren't organisms, and partial moles possibly were. A Z/E/F is an organism even if it will die, just as a newborn is an organism even if he/she will die. Having a terminal illness or disability doesn't exclude one from being an organism, and there is no biological doubt whatsoever that humans are organisms even when they are in their mother's womb. Complete moles aren't organisms.

Blueberry said...

Regarding "...but that is so patently absurd."


Sorry if that was rude. I mean, I do think it's absurd, and seriously doubt that you or anyone would actually respond that way, or not be miffed at the destruction of the undeveloped Polaroid, or consider it reasonable to just assume that it can't develop valuable traits, on the extremely slim chance that that's the case.


But I shouldn't have said it rudely.

Blueberry said...

Like I said in another comment, you can't determine whether a course of action (ending the pregnancy) is justifiable until that situation arises. Just figuring that because there's a risk of health complications arising no women should be required to carry to term is like saying no women should have to take their sick children to the hospital, because they might crash on the way there. Nevermind if it's not sleeting outside now, it could start on the way there.


And yes, women sadly die sometimes due to pregnancy complications, but none of those women didn't have the option of aborting. So we can assume that would stay the same even if abortion were legal. Were it generally illegal, pregnancy could still be justifiably ended if situations arose where her life was seriously threatened, NOT because such a scenario might possibly maybe happen to come about.


And no, the state can't force you to donate blood to your child, because donating blood is not a form of meeting the child's basic, natural needs. It's a need brought about by severe illness or injury, not the natural needy state of the child. It's a medical procedure vs. the normal functioning of the body. (And no, I'm not saying that normal functioning of the body ALWAYS means that's how it should have to function, just pointing out a distinction between the situations.) Plus many people could donate to the child, not just the parent. Furthermore it's not reasonably foreseeable as the natural consequence of having sex.


Although if someone caused their child to need a transfusion, knowing they were the only ones who would be able to donate, I would consider it absolutely justified to require them to do so.

Blueberry said...

75%? Sad as perinatal hospice is, that's encouraging and good to hear. Do you happen to have a source for that?

Boommach said...

I see you very proudly label yourself “Reverend”. I presume you’re an educated man and hold some degree in theology or divinity or something. I presume you want me to at least think you are ordained by some recognized and respected Christian organization. I have a question, how did you get to where you think you are not understanding the meaning of “Thou shall not murder” . What you proclaim is evil. You are either an impostor or incredibly deluded by your pride.

Ramanusia said...

Wouldn't surgery to remove tissues such as an appendix or a tumor also constitute the ending of a human life? Do you oppose that as well?


Respectfully, rejecting the actual definition of the start of a pregnancy that's agreed upon by the entire medical community is what's actually intentionally obscuring the issue at hand.


Preventing implantation prevents pregnancy, since pregnancy REQUIRES implantation.

Ramanusia said...

Thus, intentionally giving a cancer patient chemotherapy or removing an inflamed appendix or much of medical intervention is not justified, since the intentional death of human cells is not justified by the prevention of the "natural death". This is basically your point yes?

Ramanusia said...

Taking a contraceptive is not an abortifacient, since you don't actually know what's causing the body to flush out an embryo which failed to implant, you're making a guess here. How can an IUD cause a spontaneous abortion? Do you understand the basics of how pregnancy work? It's clear your not at all clear on the pharmacology or the functioning of an IUD, but you seem lack basic comprehension here, which is why you're making up things like the definition of pregnancy rather arbitrarily and for political reasons.

Ramanusia said...

Your analogy to a born child doesn't make any sense at all.



Here is a more apt analogy, when a form of cancer treatment carries a slight risk of slight risk of causing cancer, we still use it. Why? The purpose of cancer treatment is to treat the cancer right now. The purpose of birth control is for someone who does not wish to pregnant, has no desire to gestate and will not produce a child, period. Thus, I'd be okay with it, since this imaginary child won't ever be born, no developmental issues will ensue and it will never be 3 years old.

Ramanusia said...

No baby CAN be aborted, quite literally. A baby is what we call human offspring that is BORN. Um, what double negative are you speaking of, you're not using words in accordance with their meanings here in reality, would you care to try for coherence?

Or have you pretty much just said that a pregnant woman facing a truly life threatening illness shouldn't have the choice to seek treatment, but should just die?

Ramanusia said...

What?

Ramanusia said...

It equals human, the same way your skin cells equal human. It's just not a person, it's literally exactly like any other nucleated cell in the body, brimming with the possibility of development under the right conditions into a person.

Ramanusia said...

Actually in a biological sense the ZEF is as much an "individual human" as the cells found in someone who is a mosaic, as all women are. Women's cells have two distinct DNA patterns based on Lyonization. A ZEF is no more a member of our species than a tumor is, given that it too meets your definition in a biological sense. Thus if what you say is true, then the excision of human tissue, chemo and resectioning of tumors is also the killing of a human being. There is overwhelming scientific support that proves you wrong, but your rather biased collection of out of context tidbits from your pointless links don't constitute actual science.


Here's a hint: read past the first sentence of the first paragraph of the introduction to the books whose quotes were plucked out of context to understand why science does NOT support you.


It's not necessary for you to mine the astroturf of the echo chamber, who about providing a source from the middle of all those embryo and development books that supports your theory?


Or somewhere without a political bias? Can you do that?

Ramanusia said...

So you choose to procreate with someone who is heterozygous for a severe illness, are you negligent, since you're not providing for your child's needs? You could have chosen to procreate with a homozygous dominant normal but you didn't , are you negligent? You're not giving your child the best chance you can after all.


Um, what if your child is harmed due to a genetic disease, like Alports? The action you're taking that's causing harm is gestating this child. Actually most people who have Alports are in severe pain when their disease manifests, so who are you to speak for these people suffering from disease that you know nothing about? Perhaps they would choose not to be born if their life is going to be filled with nothing but pain and agony? I would argue that forcing the birth is harming them.


Respectfully, why do you keep setting up these ridiculous hypothetical that don't seem to show much understanding of how medicine works?


If you take a pill that is designed to prevent a toddler from existing, then why would it's effect on this future non-existent toddler matter at all? It's a ridiculous question.

Ramanusia said...

Actually the primary issue of contention between the anti-choice and the pro-choice (which is very much pro-life) movements is the idea of who should make these rather complex decisions. One side insists that priests and politicians should make a one size fits all rule, no matter what the consequences based on bad science or no science. The other side thinks it's best that the patient and her doctor make these decisions, because, like all medical decisions, they're based on the unique presentation of the patient, with her history and her medical conditions taking priority over politics and freshly minted religious rhetoric conspicuously absent from the actual religious texts and history of the religion as a whole.

You're setting up a convenient and incorrect dichotomy, it's morally repugnant for non-medical professionals to make medical decisions for patients they know nothing about. As a society we've agreed that trained and licensed doctors get to advise on medical matters and we jail those who don't have these qualifications, thus one cannot be morally relevant and acting immorally by pretending to have expertise in an area where one does not hold the requisite training.

ZEF is not a life to be worried about, and it is immoral to violate the bodily autonomy of a mother simply because one has delusions about which cells matter and which don't.

When one says "worry about your own life" it's simply saying you don't get to violate other people's autonomy, all you have a say in is your own. And ZEF don't have autonomy, in fact most children don't, their parents get to decide for them. Thus you have no leg to stand on.

Ramanusia said...

Then, by all means, intervene when your neighbor, whom you have forced to gestate, delivers against her will and is trying to kill the newborn by the methods used by women to get rid of unwanted pregnancies after the fact. None of us will do anything but applaud you.



The loss of a sperm/ova/zygotes/embryos or fetuses are not your business. Choosing not to gestate or not conceive is not "negligent homicide', or does it have anything to do with a parent refusing to meet the needs of their children, since pregnancy doesn't involve actual children, merely potential ones.


You're actually judging women who are post-abortive, and you are actually oppressing women by negating their basic human rights the moment a sperm and egg meet within her body. The people threatening, harassing and abusing women walking into clinics are not displaying compassion, nor are they counseling them as they hurl nasty words at them.


Women facing unplanned pregnancies do indeed deserve all that you've said, but in order to get there, they have to pass you and your friends terrorizing them. Anti-choicers are not providing any of these supports, they lie to them, and call them names and say horrible things to them, the many videos out there show what you're actually all about.


True empathy for the mother, and a true desire for the welfare of women means that you don't pretend that the fetus within her that might never achieve a viable birth is a "child". Childhood begins at birth, changing definitions to suit your politics and to excuse your venom and your violence doesn't really make your actions or your politics morally or ethically justifiable. The helpless women you torment don't deserve your brand of extremely damaging counseling.
On the worst day of these women's lives, when they're the most frightened and the most vulnerable you're there screaming in her face, spittle flying, that she's a murderer. This is why we can't just excuse your dishonest excuses for your unjustifiable actions.

Ramanusia said...

Well, it doesn't matter what you consider to be a private medical decision, since you don't get to determine these things. It's not actually ending the life of another human being, it's ending the life of a mass of cells that might someday be a human being.


You cannot make the same arguments about a physiologically separate individual as you would about one that is literally dependent on the body of a woman to carry out its bodily processes. Your applications of argument are truly just wrong.


Respectfully, if we do not consider your appendectomy to be a private medical decision, since it's ending the life of a "human being" (per your own definition that human cells are human beings), may we intervene and prevent you from receiving surgery. After all the living human cells you wish to murder must be protected from your selfish actions based convenience, right? And after all, according to you, we each get to decide what's a human being and what's a child and what constitutes private medical decisions. What happens when we do as you do, and make those decisions that affect your health, your life and your body?

Ramanusia said...

You'd be pretty wrong about that, actually. Do you bother to do educate yourself on these positions you keep taking or do you just make it up as you go along?

Ramanusia said...

So if your child is in need of a heart transplant and you're a match, that child would have the right to your heart? You admit to having a moral and legal obligation to provide for this rather basic and natural need?

Ramanusia said...

Um, like the "logic" you're using to diminish the value of women, who apparently are seen as pests to you if they do not follow your rulings on their private medical decisions?

Is this how you reconcile murder and neglect of women like Savita Halappanavar?

eroteme said...

She also gets to decide what is an acceptable level of risk for strangers.

I have decided that your diseased appendix should remain where it is, because your chances of death and disability are within acceptable levels for ME.

noneimport said...

"UM" how can you be so obtuse? first, your response to the pest term used lends one to think that you have a deficit in your comprehension skills. Second, when you use the tragedy of one to excuse the termination of another, well... how can one respond? what logic pool do you work from? tell me? I really want to know. Besides my audience was to those that share my understanding of the world. so of course you cannot follow what was written. If you explain your world, perhaps I can explain it in your terms so you can at least understand who and to what I was speaking.

lady_black said...

IUDs are not abortifacient. They are contraceptive.

lady_black said...

No, the outcome of your neighbor's pregnancy is NOT your business. Not under ANY circumstances.

lady_black said...

WRONG, Blueberry. All viviparous vertebrates go through these stages. So NO, they are NOT all human. And you can't produce a single source that says so.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/embryo/embryoflash.html

Go ahead and see for yourself.

Plum Dumpling said...

Flagged and downvoted for egregious abuse of pro choice men and women. I am so tired of this hoary old lie.

Plum Dumpling said...

Liar.

lady_black said...

No it is NOT a huge overstatement. I don't want to go into hypothetical situations about breast milk, other than to say that no, an infant isn't entitled to the milk of it's mother. Some women cannot do that. Just for a few examples, Christina Applegate and Angelina Jolie. If there was some "strange illness" such a baby would be SOL, sorry to say. And no child is entitled to the BODY of it's parent, male or female. Support, feeding, etc. is not a bodily donation. Babies are dependent upon adults in general, but a fetus is dependent upon the body of a specific woman. Guess what? She doesn't have to fork over her body for the benefit of ANYONE.

Plum Dumpling said...

I am pro life. I am pro birth for any woman who wants to give birth. I am pro abortion for any woman who wants an abortion. i trust women to run their own sexual/family lives without coercion.

lady_black said...

Yes I am claiming that all embryos are not human. Anyone with minimal scientific knowledge knows this. ALL viviparous vertebrates carry embryos.

Plum Dumpling said...

No thank you.
I will have sex.
I will contracept.
If I become pregnant, I will give birth or abort as I see fit.
Not as YOU see fit.

lady_black said...

Nope.

lady_black said...

Pregnancy DOES begin at implantation. Without implantation, the result is a menstrual period. Now this is well-known science. We don't have some red light that flashes at fertilization. Frankly, if something does prevent implantation, then mission accomplished! You will not get pregnant. WHO CARES why not? Who cares why you didn't get pregnant if you were using nothing? Or using NFP? You're obscuring the issue at hand. That is that 50-75% of fertilizations ultimately fail. And you can't blame it on a pill or a device. It just doesn't happen. Too bad, so sad. Get over it. Furthermore it happens MORE when you don't use birth control.

lady_black said...

I meant, that not all zygotes, embryos and fetuses are human, period. Pretty many species go through those stages.

lady_black said...

No child is entitled to any part of it's parent's body. Not even so much as a unit of blood. Born OR unborn. Bodily donation isn't done without consent, PERIOD.

lady_black said...

What "you consider" to be a private medical decision is irrelevant. Abortion is and will remain a private medical decision.

Ramanusia said...

Who, other than yourself is being obtuse here? Your misuse of language and your apparent inability to use language with an sort of accuracy leas one to conclude that it is you that has comprehension issues.


Second, are you seriously trying to argue that the "tragedy" of a woman's death due to severe infection from the breached amniotic sac of a 17 week pregnancy that HAD NO CHANCE OF A LIVE BIRTH, somehow relates to what you're saying? Yes, any sane, sentient, logical human being with any sort of value for human life would indeed say that terminating an fetus THAT HAD NO CHANCE AT LIFE to save the mother who had every chance at not acquiring a fatal infection, and becoming pregnant once again with a much wanted child is exactly what should be done, medically. ethically, morally, legally etc.
Yes, how can one respond? Apparently in your case, it's let the woman die after all, it's better that she die rather than abort an pregnancy that has already been lost. How can one respond to this idiocy? This lack of human decency, this monstrousness? What are you? Callous and inhuman or just not bright enough to figure out what you're advocating, let the mother die so that you can "save" a SEVENTEEN week old fetus whose membranes had already ruptured. Are you a monster or an idiot? Which is it? I would truly like to know.


What "logic" pool do you work from? How have you managed to remain this ignorant, did you have to try really hard to unlearn simple thinking or were your forced to poke things into your frontal lobe? I'd truly like to know how one manages to be this ignorant and yet still manage to type.


Oh, you wished to speak to your echo chamber to your equally deluded and intellectually and ethically challenged devotees, not to anyone who might have enough intellect and reasoning power, or education to challenge you on your lack of understanding?


No, I cannot follow your lack of logic or your word salad, and I cannot match the willful ignorance you and your fellow ignoramuses muster to maintain the cognitive dissonance you must to hold your pro-death views while also pretending to value life. I am not brain damaged. I am of sound mental health, thus it is difficullt for me to follow the "logic" of your shared thought disorder.


I doubt you can "explain" in terms that I would understand, that level of higher functioning seems lost to you.


Please correct your ignorance, AND find yourself a qualified medical professional and deal with the your axis 1 disorders, take your folly a deux friends with you.

eroteme said...

Remember the asshat on The Atlantic who said,with a straight face, that women can 'feel' when implantation happens, and therefore, they can get immediate abortions!


*facepalm*

eroteme said...

What?

eroteme said...

It is impossible to predict which women will die from pregnancy.



If you deny women the right to a safe, legal abortion, you deny women the right to life, as a group.

Ramanusia said...

Yes. Funny how they're all screeching about the sanctity of life and the selfishness of those who seek the convenience of continuing to live without disease or disorder due to pregnancy for the sake of the life of a future person, but they make no attempt to practice what they preach. After all, given the organ and tissue shortage, should these life obsessed folks be flocking to donate their livers, skin, blood and spare kidneys to those actual persons who so desperately need them to live? A lot of them are children! Why it's like they don't care about real live children, or sacrificing their convenience or their health or risking their lives for the LIFE of those who may die without their tissues.

Forcing a woman to loan her tissues and her organs to an embryo is fine, but when it comes to themselves. they will find a way to justify their "moral" abortion and keep their blood and other necessary tissues to themselves.

eroteme said...

Yeah it does. I said complete moles weren't organisms, and partial moles possibly were

They are BOTH hydatidiform moles, they are both human, and they are both alive. It backs up my point completely. Stop trying to argue by misquotation.

Having a terminal illness or disability doesn't exclude one from being an organism

Exactly. So it would be immoral to abort a partial mole would it not? Or how about a parasitic twin? The parasitic twin is 100% a human life, and as it can't consent to abortion, or to being removed form the healthy twin, then I guess everything possible should be done to protect it yeah? Parental obligations and all that.

http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f149/432516d1361960756-parasitic-twins-parasitic-20twin-2001.jpg

eroteme said...

I'd be pissed off at the loss of potential. Just as I'd be sad if the lottery ticket I bought didn't result in millions.

Ramanusia said...

True, but what determines humanity is the number of chromosomes in our DNA. Thus all these people crying about the imaginary baybees should by definition also be crying about the skin cells and the tumor cells and pretty much every human cell that has a nucleus, since they're all, by their insistence "human beings". So when they skin knee or have an appendix or a tumor removed or take chemo, they're choosing to murder that which they consider to be cell persons on par with themselves.

eroteme said...

Like I said in another comment, you can't determine whether a course of
action (ending the pregnancy) is justifiable until that situation arises


So women should just die? 800 of them a year? I guess death doesn't matter if only a *few* unlucky souls get whacked, eh?

but none of those women didn't have the option of aborting

Can't abort when you bleed out after birth, can you? I mean, by then it's already too late, isn't it?

But hey, it's just a woman, her life doesn't count for anything, does it? But if even one valuable prenate dies it's the end of the world!

And no, the state can't force you to donate blood to your child, because
donating blood is not a form of meeting the child's basic, natural
needs.


So you'd throw a parent off a plane to save a child, but you wouldn't force them to give blood, because

You'd force women to risk death and disability, because

So basically, you are arguing that pregnancy, and forced pregnancy, and unpredictable death from pregnancy are totes ok because NATURE.

Plus many people could donate to the child, not just the parent.

You keep talking about the all important notion of parental responsibility yet you would expect someone else to risk their health to save YOUR child? That blood, or organs, or tissue, could save the life of another - another person who doesn't have parents who can donate. How selfish!

Although if someone caused their child to need a transfusion, knowing
they were the only ones who would be able to donate, I would consider it
absolutely justified to require them to do so



So having sex, with the possibility of conception (again, miscarriage happens about 70% of the time) = doing harm to your child.



Bravo.

eroteme said...

There are two species of deer that have the same # of chromosomes as humans. I haul that one out when ignoramuses start lecturing about 46 chromosomes.

Ramanusia said...

How interesting. I'm afraid it was a rather well known and well qualified science prof (I forget if it was biochem or genetics) who made the 46 chromosome = human link in my head. Most likely he was one of the primate guys who didn't work with obscure Asian deer. Chromosome number is handy to differentiate between mouse, rat, various monkey species (the ones most research is done on.)

eroteme said...

You are still correct, however.


Every somatic cell in your body has:


Human DNA
46 chromosomes


With SMNT that cell can be turned into an embryo..and potentially become a precious babyee


So, if every conceptus has to be given a chance to implant on the uterine wall, what's wrong with giving every somatic cell a little xtra help as well?

Jennifer Starr said...

Do you go around peeping through your neighbors' windows?

lady_black said...

If you mean the man's bodily autonomy, it's in the same place mine is. Neither one of us is EVER obligated to bodily donation for the benefit of another. EVER! Now please note that I used the word "obligated," because it doesn't imply that any given person would not donate body tissues for the benefit of another, whether a child or a stranger. Simply that consent is required for such a donation. A woman that isn't consenting to pregnancy should never be forced to remain pregnant.

lady_black said...

That's too damn bad. The fetus is NOT entitled to the body of it's mother. There is no "parenting" involved with a fetus. If I don't want it, or can't carry it, it gets the keys to the street.

lady_black said...

By definition, no fetus is an individual.

lady_black said...

No, it doesn't "fall under double negative." That doesn't even make any sense. And neither do you. What PART of there isn't going to be any "babies" after a uterine ablation is confusing to you? This is not a procedure that leaves a woman capable of carrying a pregnancy afterward, which is why it's a treatment of last resort for endometriosis, done with the understanding that carrying a pregnancy to term will no longer be possible. That doesn't mean the woman's ovaries have stopped functioning, though. Conception can still take place. There just will never be gestation.

Plum Dumpling said...

Liar liar pants on fire.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 614   Newer› Newest»