Author Topic: wtg pp  (Read 2955 times)

Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
wtg pp
« Reply #75 on: June 02, 2004, 07:27:32 PM »
Truce...

Been a long time since I got that D- in algebra.

The 0 in front of the .24 threw me.



Regards, Shuckins/Leggern

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
wtg pp
« Reply #76 on: June 02, 2004, 08:02:48 PM »
reguardless......if this get's overturned mothers can still have their baby's yanked from them and their skulls crushed before they get their first breath reguardless of weither thier life is in danger or their baby's are deformed.  


Just cause it rarely happens doesnt make it right

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
wtg pp
« Reply #77 on: June 02, 2004, 09:15:17 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
reguardless......if this get's overturned mothers can still have their baby's yanked from them and their skulls crushed before they get their first breath reguardless of weither thier life is in danger or their baby's are deformed.  


Just cause it rarely happens doesnt make it right


When you get a womb of your own, you can do whatever you think is right. Promise.
sand

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
wtg pp
« Reply #78 on: June 02, 2004, 09:18:19 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman
When you get a womb of your own, you can do whatever you think is right. Promise.


so If me and my wife or G/F consent to sex to create a child and 3 months into she changes her mind I have no right to stop her from killing my child?  She certainly has the right to child support from me if she gets pregnant with out my wishes

Seriously you libs are goin for a stretch here.  PBA is disgusting.  If the numbers for it are so low why do you care if it's banned?

Offline flyingaround

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
wtg pp
« Reply #79 on: June 02, 2004, 09:21:02 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
I will respectfully disagree with you.  Indeed, I will posit that what you suggest is: (1) completely arbitrary; (2) unmeasurable, with any degree of certainty; and (3) bizarre and more than a little bit scary.  

As to (1), what is so significant about viaiblity?  As to (2), how do you determine in any given case, whether a child is viable at the point its (un)mother wants to abort it?  As to (3), how can the threshold of life be such that it is constantly changing, depending upon the state of technology?!  Surely, a child/mass of tissue is either a life or it is not and, just as surely, that determination does not depend on the state of anything other than the child/mass of tissue.


Where have you been.  Ok, I'll give this another try. (with much thanks to cut/paste)  

Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 case legalizing abortion, made fetal viability an important legal concept. The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot put the interests of a fetus ahead of the interests of the pregnant woman until the fetus is "viable."

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued in a 1983 decision that Roe was on a "collision course with itself." She said that improvements in technology would continually push the point of fetal viability closer to the beginning of the pregnancy, allowing states greater opportunity to regulate the right to an abortion.

Despite important Supreme Court decisions since 1973 modifying the doctrine of Roe, the court's thinking about fetal viability has remained fairly constant. The only significant revision came in the Casey decision (1992), which made viability even more important. The court said that state laws could require a woman and her doctor to perform tests to prove that a fetus is not viable before she obtains an abortion.

As to (1), what is so significant about viaiblity?
Uhhh...hmmmmmmm.....  This is (has been) a MAIN issue re. abortions.

As to (2), how do you determine in any given case, whether a child is viable at the point its (un)mother wants to abort it
Read the def. I gave of viable.  I had THOUGHT it pretty sefl explanitory.  A fetus being able to survive out of the womb IS viable.  Do let me know what part of the definition is holding you back.

As to (3), how can the threshold of life be such that it is constantly changing, depending upon the state of technology?!  Surely, a child/mass of tissue is either a life or it is not and, just as surely, that determination does not depend on the state of anything other than the child/mass of tissue
Lost me here.  We're not talking threshold of life, we are talking about fetal viablilty.  And the determination of a fetus being viable IS based on medical technology.  That is why in the U.S. some states consider 20 weeks viable.  While a 3rd world country would consider, (guess) say 28 weeks viable.  All based on their level of medical technology.  It's not cut and dry, because what can be achieved in the medically advanced countries, is not even remotly possible elsewhere.

ROFL what's so significant about viability. (sigh)

-WMLute III/JG26 9th ST WidowMakers
WMLute

III/JG26 9th ST WidowMakers

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
wtg pp
« Reply #80 on: June 02, 2004, 09:27:18 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
so If me and my wife or G/F consent to sex to create a child and 3 months into she changes her mind I have no right to stop her from killing my child?  She certainly has the right to child support from me if she gets pregnant with out my wishes

Seriously you libs are goin for a stretch here.  PBA is disgusting.  If the numbers for it are so low why do you care if it's banned?


Actually, it sucks that your girlfriend can do what she pleases. Something to consider when you're out shopping for mates.


As for the PBA, it's not a pro-life or pro-choice issue at all. It's a privacy issue. It's also a medical issue. The government has no business stepping in and saying which procedures are legal and which are not. These decisions are best left to the doctors and their patients.
sand

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
wtg pp
« Reply #81 on: June 02, 2004, 09:29:10 PM »
so if my son is a retard and I do not feel like raising him that way you are saying the GOVT has no right to tell me I cant have him put to sleep or somthing?

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
wtg pp
« Reply #82 on: June 02, 2004, 09:32:16 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
so if my son is a retard and I do not feel like raising him that way you are saying the GOVT has no right to tell me I cant have him put to sleep or somthing?


I'm pretty sure that you can't put your child down (even if they are developmentally disabled).


Yeah... I know... the thought of retroactive abortion is sometimes attractive. :D
sand

Offline LoneStarBuckeye

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 336
      • http://None
wtg pp
« Reply #83 on: June 02, 2004, 10:49:57 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by flyingaround
Where have you been.  Ok, I'll give this another try. (with much thanks to cut/paste)  

Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 case legalizing abortion, made fetal viability an important legal concept. The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot put the interests of a fetus ahead of the interests of the pregnant woman until the fetus is "viable."

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued in a 1983 decision that Roe was on a "collision course with itself." She said that improvements in technology would continually push the point of fetal viability closer to the beginning of the pregnancy, allowing states greater opportunity to regulate the right to an abortion.

Despite important Supreme Court decisions since 1973 modifying the doctrine of Roe, the court's thinking about fetal viability has remained fairly constant. The only significant revision came in the Casey decision (1992), which made viability even more important. The court said that state laws could require a woman and her doctor to perform tests to prove that a fetus is not viable before she obtains an abortion.

As to (1), what is so significant about viaiblity?
Uhhh...hmmmmmmm.....  This is (has been) a MAIN issue re. abortions.

As to (2), how do you determine in any given case, whether a child is viable at the point its (un)mother wants to abort it
Read the def. I gave of viable.  I had THOUGHT it pretty sefl explanitory.  A fetus being able to survive out of the womb IS viable.  Do let me know what part of the definition is holding you back.

As to (3), how can the threshold of life be such that it is constantly changing, depending upon the state of technology?!  Surely, a child/mass of tissue is either a life or it is not and, just as surely, that determination does not depend on the state of anything other than the child/mass of tissue
Lost me here.  We're not talking threshold of life, we are talking about fetal viablilty.  And the determination of a fetus being viable IS based on medical technology.  That is why in the U.S. some states consider 20 weeks viable.  While a 3rd world country would consider, (guess) say 28 weeks viable.  All based on their level of medical technology.  It's not cut and dry, because what can be achieved in the medically advanced countries, is not even remotly possible elsewhere.

ROFL what's so significant about viability. (sigh)

-WMLute III/JG26 9th ST WidowMakers
(Just so you know, your condescension is misplaced.  [I edited out what I wrote in a moment of weakness--I'm sorry for having written it.])

The fact that some have made "viability" the main issue with respect to abortion is of little moment.  What 5 of 9 that wear black robes and sit in Washington, D.C. think is important means even less.  If you are looking to the Supreme Court for truth, then you surely will never find it.  If you want to discuss the current state of the law, that won't be a particularly interesting conversation, as the answer is readily apparent.  But if you want to discuss right and wrong, my question remains: why is viability the sine qua non of life?  (Hint: "Because S. D. O'C said so" is not the correct answer.)

Far from rebutting my point about the practical problems with using viability as the threshold for permitting abortion, your circular reasoning only reinforces the ponit I was making: If one cannot test viability until the child is outside the womb and given a chance to survive on its own, it's not much good as a test of whether or not an abortion should be permitted, is it?  

Your response to my third point illustrates that you don't get it.  If you think that whether or not an unborn child/fetus is "alive" depends on the current state of medical technology, where one happens to be located in the world, or what year it is, you've gone over the edge, as far as I'm concerned.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2004, 12:07:13 AM by LoneStarBuckeye »

storch

  • Guest
wtg pp
« Reply #84 on: June 02, 2004, 10:54:46 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman
I'm pretty sure that you can't put your child down (even if they are developmentally disabled).


Yeah... I know... the thought of retroactive abortion is sometimes attractive. :D


let's ask your mom if she agrees.  If she aquiesced to having the proceedure performed then I would be forced [shudder] to try to save you because even your life is precious to God, no matter how much that concept eludes me it's an absolute truth. :)

storch

  • Guest
wtg pp
« Reply #85 on: June 02, 2004, 11:07:36 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Just so you know, your condescension is misplaced, as I likely have forgotten more about constitutional jurisprudence than you will ever know.

The fact that some have made "viability" the main issue with respect to abortion is of little moment.  What 5 of 9 that wear black robes and sit in Washington, D.C. think is important means even less.  If you are looking to the Supreme Court for truth, then you surely will never find it.  If you want to discuss the current state of the law, that won't be a particularly interesting conversation, as the answer is readily apparent.  But if you want to discuss right and wrong, my question remains: why is viability the sine qua non of life?  (Hint: "Because S. D. O'C said so" is not the correct answer.)

Far from rebutting my point about the practical problems with using viability as the threshold for permitting abortion, your circular reasoning only reinforces the ponit I was making: If one cannot test viability until the child is outside the womb and given a chance to survive on its own, it's not much good as a test of whether or not an abortion should be permitted, is it?  

Your response to my third point illustrates that you don't get it.  If you think that whether or not an unborn child/fetus is "alive" depends on the current state of medical technology, where one happens to be located in the world, or what year it is, you've gone over the edge, as far as I'm concerned.


 If someone kills an expectant mom and the unborn child dies it's a double homicide.  This is now also the law.  This new law's potential impact on Roe v Wade is evident to me.

Offline LoneStarBuckeye

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 336
      • http://None
wtg pp
« Reply #86 on: June 02, 2004, 11:59:17 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by storch
If someone kills an expectant mom and the unborn child dies it's a double homicide.  This is now also the law.  This new law's potential impact on Roe v Wade is evident to me.
Sadly, that law will have no (direct) impact on Roe v. Wade.  Roe may have an adverse impact upon it, though I doubt it, but water won't run uphill (but I do expect its constitutionality will be challenged as soon as somone is prosecuted under it).  Your law is encouraging, however, precisely because its inconsistency with the (a)moral underpinnings of Roe is stark and unequivocal.  To quote one of my favorite posters:  "Ascent through dissent."

Offline LoneStarBuckeye

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 336
      • http://None
wtg pp
« Reply #87 on: June 03, 2004, 12:43:31 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman
As for the PBA, it's not a pro-life or pro-choice issue at all. It's a privacy issue. It's also a medical issue. The government has no business stepping in and saying which procedures are legal and which are not. These decisions are best left to the doctors and their patients.
I'm sorry, but that is just wrong.  IF the unborn child/fetus is alive, that trumps everything.  IF not, then there is no issue.  Thus, it's a life/no-life issue, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with privacy.  That was one of the Court's biggest all-time stretches, and I've got to give the lawyer who thought of that one an A for concocting it and an A+ for selling it.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
wtg pp
« Reply #88 on: June 03, 2004, 12:59:37 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Thus, it's a life/no-life issue, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with privacy.


You do realize that Ashcroft subpoenaed medical records?


Medical records are included in the Privacy Act of 1974.


The courts made the right call.


Oh... and in case you hadn't noticed, abortion is LEGAL in this country.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2004, 01:09:21 AM by Sandman »
sand

Offline flyingaround

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
wtg pp
« Reply #89 on: June 03, 2004, 01:05:34 AM »
Just so you know, your condescension is misplaced, as I likely have forgotten more about constitutional jurisprudence than you will ever know.
Interesting how your so superior to all.  Obviously (per. you) your vastly above the members of the U.S. Supreme Court (what do they know right?) , and myself, in regard to intellectual thought as to be liken unto a God.
Seriously...  try a Philosophy 101 course.  MOST of what we are delving into here is covered first couple weeks.  You, being so tremendously smart, (although you seem to be a tad. forgetfull) will have no problem with the course, and MIGHT be better equipped for this discussion.  
I'll go slow this time... k?  Wouldn't want you to forget any more constitutional jurisprudence.



The fact that some have made "viability" the main issue with respect to abortion is of little moment. Some?  OMG this is one of the hotest debated arguments, and viability is one of the (if not the) MAIN issues in the abortion debate.  Essentially your saying that the vast multitude of better minds on this planet (dunno which one your on), who have hotly debated this issue counts as SOME in your book.  Amazing!  Please do just a LITTLE bit of research on this topic.  It has been covered in countless books, articles, and journals by many far greater men and women than you or I.  Oh wait. I'm so calloused, what was I thinking.  That would cause you to lose some more jurisprudence.  You can just Google it.

What 5 of 9 that wear black robes and sit in Washington, D.C. think is important means even less.
Incredible.  I refer you back to my what planet ref.   Good to know your so above the law as to consider the Supreme Court trivial.

my question remains: why is viability the sine qua non of life?
ok..i'll take this one.  (not that i havn't covered it, quite well i might add, already twice)
Is a fetus a human until it can exist seprate from the woman.  Or better even (must respect your superior knowledge and understanding here) take the fetus out of it.  If I bake a cake, and instead of letting it cook for an hour, I pull it out at 20 min. Is it a cake?  Viability is reached when a "thing" becomes that which it will be.  Until it reaches that point, it isn't.   Until it cooks for an hour, it's just a bunch of batter, not a cake.  Until a fetus can exist outside the womb, it has not become a human.  That is the argument of viablity re. abortion.  If it is not a human, it is not murder.

If one cannot test viability until the child is outside the womb and given a chance to survive on its own, it's not much good as a test of whether or not an abortion should be permitted, is it?
This was a joke right?  Seriously, it's not even well thought out.  We know when a fetus is viable, because that comes up fairly often.  Pre-mature births are not uncommon, nor are accidents etc. that cause labor, or emergency deliveries rare.  Due to advances in medical technology (please see prev. post.  mr. forgotten more than) we can push the point of fetal viability closer to the beginning of the pregnancy.  So we have a pretty good idea at which stage of fetal development we are able to keep it alive outside of the womb.

If you think that whether or not an unborn child/fetus is "alive" depends on the current state of medical technology, where one happens to be located in the world, or what year it is, you've gone over the edge, as far as I'm concerned.
Alive and viable are not synonyms.  (already coverd this, but maybe if it's repeated it will help you)  The abortion debate is not whether a fetus is alive, but human.  If it's not a human, it's not murder.  Nobody is debating whether or not a fetus is alive.  Ref. back to my Philo 101 suggestion.  Perspective should also be covered.  What we thought 200 years ago about flight is different from what we think about it today.  Why? Perspective.  What was considered viable 30yrs ago, is different from today.  Why?  Perspective.  At 28 weeks a fetus was considered viable.  Then we gained medical knowledge, and it was 27.  Then 25 and so on.  It's all hand in hand.  Some day, (as was prev. covered AHEM) conception will be considered viable.  Localitly is directly connected with the point of viability.  If the Sudan is 10yrs behind the U.S. at what gestational week they are able to sustain a fetus, then the point of viability is lower in the Sudan than in the U.S.  

From reading your posts, you appear to be fairly knowledgeable about law, but you sure are at the kiddy table re. philosophical debate.  Stick with what you know.

-WMLute III/JG26 9th ST WidowMakers
WMLute

III/JG26 9th ST WidowMakers