Foca

[BFDD]

It's accepted that it's living because it would be impossible for it to develop if it wasn't alive.

It is made up of living cells, but it itself is not alive. The same a brain dead person is made of living cells but still considered dead.

However, pre-birth the body is able to perform all the essential functions of life without a brain, at least prior to it's development.

Only because of the mother's body not it's own. We can keep someone who is brain dead "alive" for a long time in a hospital but without brain function that person is still considered dead.


Dead or alive may not have any affect on this law but it is still an important argument for abortion over all. If it can be determined that the fetus is not a living human up to a point then there is no reason to ban abortion up to that point. If it can be determined that it is a living human at a certain point then an abortion really is murder after that point.

 

[cF=)]

If it can be determined that it is a living human at a certain point then an abortion really is murder after that point.

WE DON'T CARE IF IT'S LIVING. Anybody not agreeing that a fetus is not alive doesn't understand it couldn't develop if it was dead. An embryo is alive, sperm is alive, a fetus is alive, BUT as a society we have to determine if it's a PERSON or not. This is why it's not MURDER, murder doesn't pop out of an action you disagree with, abortion is legal killing because the mother's rights have precedence over the fetus'. I'll quote some members of the debate hall who already debated this point since paraphrasing their post wouldn't do them justice.

To quote HyugaRicdeau:

"What? You're just SAYING "it's murder." It can only BE murder if rights are violated. So you've haven't actually said anything. You've just plainly DECLARED it is a rights violation when the whole point of this discussion is to ascertain whether "the right to life of a zygote" is a legitimate right or not.

If you accept that rights do not come from some natural source, and are constructs invented by society for PRACTICAL purposes, you necessarily accept that they are granted strictly for PRACTICAL reasons. There is nothing ostensibly special about "being human," whereas participation in society is very plainly a practical standard."

And here follows snex's explanation:

"i didnt say only participating members get to have rights. i said participating members *decide* on what rights exist and who gets them. i also said that *ideally* non-participating members would get the same rights that participating members get. but what happens when there is a conflict? the participating members must take precedence in such cases.

there is no such thing as "legal murder." dont try to play emotional games here. abortion is "legal killing." and there are plenty things that can be worse for society than the legal killing of certain individuals. we allow the killing of certain criminals to deter crimes like theirs. we allow the killing of unborn fetuses to negate the problem of unwanted children who are likely to grow up to be criminals.

it absolutely does make a difference. the society in which you live says abortion is ok. on what grounds can you dispute this if you agree that societies grant rights? you have no grounds whatsoever. you are acting like a dictator who calls for a democratic election but then calls the election invalid if the people vote for anybody but him."

Finally, here's a wikipedia quote about abortion reducing crime rate:

"The authors argue that states that had abortion legalized earlier and more widespread should have the earliest reductions in crime. Donohue and Levitt's study indicates that this indeed has happened: Alaska, California, Hawaii, New York, and Washington experienced steeper drops in crime, and had legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade. Further, states with a high abortion rate have experienced a greater reduction in crime, when corrected for factors like average income.[3] Finally, studies in Canada and Australia have purported to established a correlation between legalized abortion and crime reduction.[3]"

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

 

[Aesir]

As far as I can see, even assuming Roe is the controlling standard , it doesn't change anything. The language merely places Roe's holding in Congressional law as opposed to constitutional, at least as of current. There are no provisions to force for example, unwilling doctors to perform abortions.

Could you elaborate on this?

Furthermore it's tied to Roe V. Wade, so it's ever overruled or a Constitutional change occurs that renders Roe null, the law goes too. Basically, I don't care either way, FOCA does nothing whatsoever.

Wrong, the commerce clause gives congress this power. Without Roe Vs Wade this bill would still have authority.

The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

An amusing aside, this law actually does less then that if it passes. Remember how I said "assuming Roe is the controlling standard"? Well, it's not.

Roe V. Wade was effectively overruled by Casey, basically the entire text of the decision was overruled minus the case itself and the result.

Because FOCA depends on fetal viability being the controlling test for abortion rights, something which was overruled in Casey in favor of a test of government interest versus the mother's interest.

Furthermore, the controlling test is not heightened scrutiny, but "undue burden". Because the language is that of heightened scrutiny (in other words, the government cannot "deny or interfere on a woman's right to choose", as opposed to language like "imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to chose") and the court has not ruled that the government can heighten the scrutiny, it's also unconstitutional.

Uhh where are you getting your information? because that ruling never happened. Kennedy the wild card of the case switched his vote to favor Roe thus the case holds more water then in name.

However even if this was the case, it's still within congressional power to pass this act. Unless the supreme court challenges that act.

So, the FOCA act cannot go into effect, except for the "essential holding" that a woman has the right to choose (and the justification for that), Roe has been overruled in favor of Casey. Since FOCA explicitly depends on Roe's viability and heightened scrutiny provisions, the act basically doesn't exist. Basically it's a stupid law, and shouldn't be passed for that reason, but does nothing upon passage because it's already been ruled against.

Roe V. Wade was never over ruled. Roe has always narrowly escaped being reduced to irrelevancy.

another aside:


Brain-death is an effective standard for humans because post-birth the body cannot perform the essential functions of life without the brain. Basically, it's easier then testing, "is the organism capable of performing locomotion?" because we know from extensive experimental evidence that it cannot perform the functions of life.


However, pre-birth the body is able to perform all the essential functions of life without a brain, at least prior to it's development.

This is true however you can't gloss over the fact that pre-birth the body is 100% defendant on the mother. It can not sustain it's self outside of the mothers womb like a infant can.

Really, this is a useless aside because whether the fetus is alive is irrelevant. It's accepted that it's living because it would be impossible for it to develop if it wasn't alive.

The question isn't about if it's alive, the question is, is it human life? Which is completely relevant as Jam pointed out, if a fetus is human life then it's murder.

The question for abortion is "a woman's right to privacy vs. governmental interest/the fetus' rights" not whether it's alive.

A Fetus has no rights, it isn't a person under law. Giving Civic rights to a non-person is baseless.

 

[Jam Stunna]

That "legalized abortion reduces crime" theory is probably the most absurd thing I've ever seen in my entire life. To attribute crime rates to one factor is just stupid.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

I don't think it's attributing it to one factor, I think it's just saying that since abortion has been legalized, crime rates have dropped.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I don't think it's attributing it to one factor, I think it's just saying that since abortion has been legalized, crime rates have dropped.

The legalized abortion and crime effect is the controversial theory that legal abortion reduces crime

That's the very first line of the wiki page.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

Yeah, but you said it's attributing crimes rates to just one factor, which it isn't.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Could you elaborate on this?

Basically in legalize, I said that now Congress is saying the exact same thing that the Roe v. Wade said.

It doesn't specify any specific courses of action, it only establishes the decision in congressional law.

Wrong, the commerce clause gives congress this power. Without Roe Vs Wade this bill would still have authority.

Congress does not have the power to create now rights (or impose standards that those rights are judged to be violated through by implication).

Again, take a look at the Legislation:

Casey V Planned Parenthood[/URL] is the controlling standard. You cannot add ANYTHING to a legal discussion of abortion without being familiar with Casey.

Roe V. Wade was never over ruled. Roe has always narrowly escaped being reduced to irrelevancy.

Not explicitly, but the only thing that remains of the case legally speaking, is the right to have an abortion.

This is true however you can't gloss over the fact that pre-birth the body is 100% defendant on the mother. It can not sustain it's self outside of the mothers womb like a infant can.

Which is a substantial part of the legal question involved in Abortion.

The question isn't about if it's alive, the question is, is it human life? Which is completely relevant as Jam pointed out, if a fetus is human life then it's murder.

Incorrect.

Legally it's a question of privacy rights, specifically under the 14th amendment. Does the government have the right to intrude on that, and does the fetus have it's own rights which overrule the mother's rights?

Those are the questions.

A Fetus has no rights, it isn't a person under law. Giving Civic rights to a non-person is baseless.

...


You're missing the point, the entire question in the "fetus has rights" segment of the debate is whether or not the fetus SHOULD be a person legally.


It's circular logic, because you're using the results of the acceptance of a position in law to defend the position.

It is made up of living cells, but it itself is not alive. The same a brain dead person is made of living cells but still considered dead.

Again, it is able to perform all the functions of life, a brain-dead person is not.

Only because of the mother's body not it's own. We can keep someone who is brain dead "alive" for a long time in a hospital but without brain function that person is still considered dead.

A brain-dead person is incapable of, for example, locomotion.

Sure there are some things a brain-dead person can do, but it's functionally the same story as a virus, can't perform all the functions of life, therefore is not alive.

Dead or alive may not have any affect on this law but it is still an important argument for abortion over all. If it can be determined that the fetus is not a living human up to a point then there is no reason to ban abortion up to that point. If it can be determined that it is a living human at a certain point then an abortion really is murder after that point.

It's one justification, but it's completely wrong, so it's worthless.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Yeah, but you said it's attributing crimes rates to just one factor, which it isn't.

My mistake, you're right.

I've read through this entire thread, but I still haven't seen anyone besides SuperBowser and BFDD try and answer this question:

I had a pretty long response, but I remembered something that I read on another site.

Your point is that we can't know where life begins, right? That all starting points are arbitrary? That we don't know for sure that we're taking a life?

Well, the opposite of that is true as well. How do you know that you're not taking a life? You said yourself that we can't be sure. If that's the case, what is your justification for taking the risk that you are destroying a life?

Their answers:

I can't justify it to myself so I wouldn't recommend it, but other people might not feel the same way. We can't make laws based on a maybe. Like I said before innocent until proven guilty. We don't imprison people because they might be murderers, why should we ban something that may or may not be bad.

If we go back to my country music example. I don't like it and I wouldn't suggest anyone listen to it. Also on the show MANswers (a really credible source...sarcasm) they cited a study that showed cities with the most country music radio stations also have the highest suicide rate. Some country songs are really sad and depressing and though the chance is slim, it could cause people to kill themselves. Should we risk people's lives for music?

Not the best example but I think it still gets my point across. It is still a matter of opinion when life begins. Until we have solid evidence of when life begins then we can't ban it.

How do you justify using contraception?

The contraceptive issue is a red herring. The abortion debate itself does not begin until conception, because before that point there's nothing to abort.

I will concede that I don't know when life begins, and that no one else does either. I'll even concede that any attempt to determine when life does begin is totally arbitrary.

In this debate, all we have is what we don't know. And if we don't know, how can we in good conscience act? It's possible that we've protected nothing but a collection of cells from destruction, but it's equally as possible that we've taken thousands of lives.

Without a clear understanding of when life begins (and the only thing we all agree on is that we don't have that), it's morally wrong to support abortions. If you value life, you have to ere on the side of caution.

 

[cF=)]

That "legalized abortion reduces crime" theory is probably the most absurd thing I've ever seen in my entire life. To attribute crime rates to one factor is just stupid.

You're an idiot, read the god **** wiki page before responding.

"Main article: The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime

Donohue and Levitt point to the fact that males aged 18 to 24 are most likely to commit crimes. Data indicates that crime in the United States started to decline in 1992. Donohue and Levitt suggest that the absence of unwanted aborted children, following legalization in 1973, led to a reduction in crime 18 years later, starting in 1992 and dropping sharply in 1995. These would have been the peak crime-committing years of the unborn children.

The authors argue that states that had abortion legalized earlier and more widespread should have the earliest reductions in crime. Donohue and Levitt's study indicates that this indeed has happened: Alaska, California, Hawaii, New York, and Washington experienced steeper drops in crime, and had legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade. Further, states with a high abortion rate have experienced a greater reduction in crime, when corrected for factors like average income.[3] Finally, studies in Canada and Australia have purported to established a correlation between legalized abortion and crime reduction.[3]"

 

[Jam Stunna]

Nice job with the name-calling, real mature. Yes, I read the page. It's still an absurd claim.

 

[cF=)]

Nice job with the name-calling, real mature. Yes, I read the page. It's still an absurd claim.

I'm not debating with someone who:
- strawman my arguments
- rebute my source with it's opinion about how "absurd" it looks to him.

If you are too thick headed to understand abortion promotes general welfare by reducing crime rate, you're admitting defeat. There's more than one source supporting my claim, you just didn't took the time to inform yourself correctly by, I don't know, google'ing my claim?

 

[adumbrodeus]

You're an idiot, read the god **** wiki page before responding.

"Main article: The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime

Donohue and Levitt point to the fact that males aged 18 to 24 are most likely to commit crimes. Data indicates that crime in the United States started to decline in 1992. Donohue and Levitt suggest that the absence of unwanted aborted children, following legalization in 1973, led to a reduction in crime 18 years later, starting in 1992 and dropping sharply in 1995. These would have been the peak crime-committing years of the unborn children.

The authors argue that states that had abortion legalized earlier and more widespread should have the earliest reductions in crime. Donohue and Levitt's study indicates that this indeed has happened: Alaska, California, Hawaii, New York, and Washington experienced steeper drops in crime, and had legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade. Further, states with a high abortion rate have experienced a greater reduction in crime, when corrected for factors like average income.[3] Finally, studies in Canada and Australia have purported to established a correlation between legalized abortion and crime reduction.[3]"

Nice job with the name-calling, real mature. Yes, I read the page. It's still an absurd claim.

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong but what Jam SEEMS to be getting at is that correlation is given, not causation, and there is a very significant possibility that the actual reason is an unknown third factor.

Until causation is isolated and proven, it will remain a controversial theory.


Regardless, it's irrelevant to the legalized abortion debate.

 

[Aesir]

Basically in legalize, I said that now Congress is saying the exact same thing that the Roe v. Wade said.

It doesn't specify any specific courses of action, it only establishes the decision in congressional law.

The bills proposal is to reaffirm Roe that the right to terminate a pregnancy cannot be taken away.

Congress does not have the power to create now rights (or impose standards that those rights are judged to be violated through by implication).

Again, take a look at the Legislation:



The bill derives it's power to protect EXISTING constitutional rights (at their level of scrutiny) from the commerce clause, but it cannot create new rights.

This act codifies Roe, so even if it were overturned it wouldn't effect this as law. Which again is well within the power of congress.

Also it's well within Congressional power to challenge court decisions.

You're saying that Casey v Planned Parenthood never happened?!

Roe v Wade WAS in effect, until it was overruled by a subsequent case, namely Casey V. Planned Parenthood.

Not explicitly obviously, the "central holding" was upheld, but "viability" was replaced by "government interest" and "strict scrutiny" was replaced by "undue burden".


Seriously, READ THE CASE, Roe is irrelevant, Casey V Planned Parenthood is the controlling standard.

Really did I say that? no I didn't. The Casey Case didn't overrule Roe it stated that states can regulated abortions before viability. Just so long as they don't create obstacles toward abortion.



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833

It's still considered a private matter for the woman to judge, but the level at which the states can effect abortion laws has changed.

Not explicitly, but the only thing that remains of the case legally speaking, is the right to have an abortion.

Look above.

Incorrect.

Legally it's a question of privacy rights, specifically under the 14th amendment. Does the government have the right to intrude on that, and does the fetus have it's own rights which overrule the mother's rights?

Those are the questions.

Then how can the rights be intruded on if the thing in question has no rights to begin with?

You're missing the point, the entire question in the "fetus has rights" segment of the debate is whether or not the fetus SHOULD be a person legally.

It's circular logic, because you're using the results of the acceptance of a position in law to defend the position.

No it's not.

If we characterize a dead person has brain dead, because of lack conscientiousness, it only makes sense we would characterize human life as development of conscientiousness.

 

[Oracle]

I really don't care whether or not it will have a crappy life at this point; it's not a human being, therefore it doesn't really matter.

This is assuming that it is born in a hypothetical situation where abortion is illegal.

Wrong. Just because you do not play a part in the further development of the fetus doesn't mean it's automatic, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Again, this is simple biology.

What? The woman has to do nothing extra. If a woman continues living her life the same way that she was before (albeit with a few extra precautions taken because she is pregnant, such as less manual labor, no drinking, etc.), the baby will still be born. It happens naturally.

 

[RDK]

Your point is that we can't know where life begins, right? That all starting points are arbitrary? That we don't know for sure that we're taking a life?

Well, the opposite of that is true as well. How do you know that you're not taking a life? You said yourself that we can't be sure. If that's the case, what is your justification for taking the risk that you are destroying a life?

I believe I've answered a question similar to this a while back, but I'll do it again for posterity.

If you're using the term "life" in the way I think you are, the line isn't arbitrary at all. Essentially all the components that go into making a fetus / fertilized egg are "alive". The sperm and egg that form and eventually attach to the uterine wall are basically "alive". The key point is that it's not a person; it has no consciousness, it has no feelings, it has no intelligence or rationality.

There's a difference between taking life and taking animal, or human life. My skin cells are alive; does that mean I commit murder every time I scratch my ***?

If you are too thick headed to understand abortion promotes general welfare by reducing crime rate, you're admitting defeat. There's more than one source supporting my claim, you just didn't took the time to inform yourself correctly by, I don't know, google'ing my claim?

As much as I disagree with him on his initial views concerning abortion, I do agree with him that it's an absurd claim and should have absolutely nothing to do with the debate.

If, for the sake of argument, fetuses somehow could be considered real human beings (which, for the record, they aren't), the fact that they have rights should take precedence over whether or not aborting them will reduce potential crime rates.

In essence, you're using the same argument the fetus qua human camp is using. Potential means nothing; we're dealing in actuality. For all intents and purposes, babies are born with a clean slate. How many crimes they may commit in the future should never be considered when the life of an actual human being is at stake.

Unfortunately, undeveloped fetuses are not actual human beings. So while it's beside the point, the crime argument is absurd.

This is assuming that it is born in a hypothetical situation where abortion is illegal.

What? The woman has to do nothing extra. If a woman continues living her life the same way that she was before (albeit with a few extra precautions taken because she is pregnant, such as less manual labor, no drinking, etc.), the baby will still be born. It happens naturally.

Define "natural".

I could argue that anything the woman does out of free volition is "natural". You're just looking at the larger scale and attributing some sort of religious free will to it. You're not looking at the plethora of cellular processes at work.

Everything we do is basically chemical, whether it be on the cellular level or the entire human level.

 

[cF=)]

Regardless, it's irrelevant to the legalized abortion debate.

It is, that's why I called strawman on my post. It might just be a cute way to boast my side of the argument, it's nonetheless ludicrous to have myself answered with "your argument is absurd... but I won't tell you why".

 

[Oracle]

Define "natural".

I could argue that anything the woman does out of free volition is "natural". You're just looking at the larger scale and attributing some sort of religious free will to it. You're not looking at the plethora of cellular processes at work.

Everything we do is basically chemical, whether it be on the cellular level or the entire human level.

Hold on, are you saying that there is no free will and that no one has any choice in what they do, it just happens because cells do everything?

I'm saying that a woman can do nothing by natural (read: not abortion) means to stop the baby from being born. She can't just think "this baby will not be born" and have it happen.
The plethora of cell processes happen automatically without any input from the mother. It's not her choice.

 

[adumbrodeus]

The bills proposal is to reaffirm Roe that the right to terminate a pregnancy cannot be taken away.

Pretty much, again assuming that Roe is the controlling standard. Of course it's not.

So again, doesn't really do much.

This act codifies Roe, so even if it were overturned it wouldn't effect this as law. Which again is well within the power of congress.

The federal government does not have the right to legislate new rights, nor does it have the right to heighten standards that existing rights have (nor lower them) unless the courts explicitly rule that they can.

Again, rights are a CONSTITUTIONAL matter, period. Congress can only codify rights and write legislation to enforce existing ones up to their level of enforcement.

Also it's well within Congressional power to challenge court decisions.

...

WHAT?!

Unless you are referring to Congress's power to initiate the Constitutional Amendment process, you are totally wrong. (and if you were, this does not qualify for that anyway)

The Constitution is legally the final answer. Period. Because the Federal Court system has sole authority over interpretation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is legally speaking, there is no entity that can legally challenge Supreme court decisions. Period.

Really did I say that? no I didn't. The Casey Case didn't overrule Roe it stated that states can regulated abortions before viability. Just so long as they don't create obstacles toward abortion.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833

It's still considered a private matter for the woman to judge, but the level at which the states can effect abortion laws has changed.

Reread the case.

Sure, it SAYS it does not overturn Roe, but the right of abortion is pretty much all that remains of the case.

(a) To protect the central right recognized by Roe while at the same time accommodating the State's profound interest in potential life, see id., at 162, the undue burden standard should be employed. An undue burden exists, and therefore a provision of law is invalid, if its purpose or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.

(b) Roe's rigid trimester framework is rejected. To promote the State's interest in potential life throughout pregnancy, the State may take measures to ensure that the woman's choice is informed. Measures designed to advance this interest should not be invalidated if their purpose is to persuade the woman to choose childbirth over abortion. These measures must not be an undue burden on the right.

That's where Roe was gutted, right there.

Government regulations that do not impose an undue burden (as opposed to Strict Scrutiny as in Roe) throughout the pregnancy (as opposed to prior to viability) is valid under Casey, whereas a great deal of it would not be valid under Roe.

Then how can the rights be intruded on if the thing in question has no rights to begin with?

Obviously you think it doesn't have rights, but other people do think that it has rights. In other words, they disagree with your framework for when beings get rights.


Personhood is the entire issue up for debate, when do we draw the line and decide that somebody is a person? You have your frame-work, other people have theirs. Your job is to convince people that your frame-work is better then their's.

No it's not.

If we characterize a dead person has brain dead, because of lack conscientiousness, it only makes sense we would characterize human life as development of conscientiousness.

Again, Brain dead is an effective standard not the source of a standard, because post-birth human beings can no longer perform the basic functions of life when brain-dead.

Pre-birth humans do not have that issue before their brain develops.

Again, the standard is ability to perform the basic functions of life, brain-dead for post-birth humans just happens to allow us to be sure that they can't perform the basic functions of life.

 

[Aesir]

Pretty much, again assuming that Roe is the controlling standard. Of course it's not.

So again, doesn't really do much.

The federal government does not have the right to legislate new rights, nor does it have the right to heighten standards that existing rights have (nor lower them) unless the courts explicitly rule that they can.

Again, rights are a CONSTITUTIONAL matter, period. Congress can only codify rights and write legislation to enforce existing ones up to their level of enforcement.

The rights are already there, where are you getting new rights from. This act simply codifies Roe.

WHAT?!

Unless you are referring to Congress's power to initiate the Constitutional Amendment process, you are totally wrong. (and if you were, this does not qualify for that anyway)

The Constitution is legally the final answer. Period. Because the Federal Court system has sole authority over interpretation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is legally speaking, there is no entity that can legally challenge Supreme court decisions. Period.

That's what I meant, and it does qualify where do you get the idea that it doesn't?

Furthermore this is moot anyway because they're not creating a new right, the necessary rights are already there it's simply being codified. Furthermore their right to do this falls under the 14th amendment and the commerce clause of the constitution. Both 12 and 13 in the Act address this concern.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1173

Reread the case.

Sure, it SAYS it does not overturn Roe, but the right of abortion is pretty much all that remains of the case.

No, you're looking for something that isn't there. Roe is still in tact, however it's been regulated, not overruled.

That's where Roe was gutted, right there.

Government regulations that do not impose an undue burden (as opposed to Strict Scrutiny as in Roe) throughout the pregnancy (as opposed to prior to viability) is valid under Casey, whereas a great deal of it would not be valid under Roe.

No Roe was not gutted, not only am I disagreeing with you, court justices disagree with you. The Roe decision still maintains it's purpose. It has more weight then in just name, because of it women can't be denied an abortion, they can only be regulated.

So Roe hasn't been overruled it's just been moderated.

Pre-birth humans do not have that issue before their brain develops.

Again, the standard is ability to perform the basic functions of life, brain-dead for post-birth humans just happens to allow us to be sure that they can't perform the basic functions of life.

Because they're dependent on the mother to receive those requirements. We characterize life (Personhood) as having the ability for consciousness, however if that ability isn't there how can we assume it's a human life?

Unless then we have to rethink what we consider as human life. in which case there will never be a consensus so the whole point is meaningless.

 

[SuperBowser]

The contraceptive issue is a red herring. The abortion debate itself does not begin until conception, because before that point there's nothing to abort.

Nice dodge, but it shows that your beliefs are not logical - they are out of convenience. Which does matter when you are claiming that an implanted embryo must be protected as if a human life (a statement, not fact), but nothing before that arbitrary point.

It's just abortion by another name (abortion includes the expulsion of a non-implanted embryo anyway...). With the argument you are using we should be banning contraception - just to be on the safe side.

Hold on, are you saying that there is no free will and that no one has any choice in what they do, it just happens because cells do everything?

I'm saying that a woman can do nothing by natural (read: not abortion) means to stop the baby from being born. She can't just think "this baby will not be born" and have it happen.
The plethora of cell processes happen automatically without any input from the mother. It's not her choice.

Abortions already happen all the time ''naturally''. They just have a politically correct name: ''miscarriage''. So your argument fails anyway.

 

[BFDD]

Without a clear understanding of when life begins (and the only thing we all agree on is that we don't have that), it's morally wrong to support abortions. If you value life, you have to ere on the side of caution.

I personally agree that we should ere on the side of caution, but like I have said before that is not a very sound basis for law. People have differing beliefs in this area so it should be up to the individual to decide because there is no good way to determine when the fetus is a living human life.

Again, Brain dead is an effective standard not the source of a standard, because post-birth human beings can no longer perform the basic functions of life when brain-dead.

Pre-birth humans do not have that issue before their brain develops.

The fetus is only alive because the mother's body keeps it alive. In my last post I used the analogy to keeping the brain dead using hospital machines. We can keep people alive for a long time with no brain function, but they are still considered dead. If not having a brain wasn't an issue for a fetus then an abortion wouldn't be a problem, it would just continue to develop outside the womb.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Nevermind.

 

[Oracle]

Abortions already happen all the time ''naturally''. They just have a politically correct name: ''miscarriage''. So your argument fails anyway.

That's completely by chance. Besides, that's natural death. We can't do anything about that.

 

[adumbrodeus]

The rights are already there, where are you getting new rights from. This act simply codifies Roe.

The "new right" point was only there for completeness. The relevant point here is that they're changing the level of enforcement.

That's what I meant, and it does qualify where do you get the idea that it doesn't?

Furthermore this is moot anyway because they're not creating a new right, the necessary rights are already there it's simply being codified. Furthermore their right to do this falls under the 14th amendment and the commerce clause of the constitution. Both 12 and 13 in the Act address this concern.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1173

You seem to be intentionally missing the second part of that statement every time...

As I've said before... Congress can only codify rights and write legislation to enforce existing ones up to their level of enforcement.


In other words, congress can't just randomly say, "we applying rational basis even though the SCOTUS said strict scrutiny" or the reverse, or anything similar. That was my point THE ENTIRE TIME, since I brought this up (though it was implicit until my response to you because I assumed a basic understanding of constitutional jurisprudence).

No, you're looking for something that isn't there. Roe is still in tact, however it's been regulated, not overruled.

As I stated before, only the right to abortion was upheld along with the basic rational, all the mechanics of enforcement were explicitly overruled.

They entirely gutted the decision.

No Roe was not gutted, not only am I disagreeing with you, court justices disagree with you. The Roe decision still maintains it's purpose. It has more weight then in just name, because of it women can't be denied an abortion, they can only be regulated.

So Roe hasn't been overruled it's just been moderated.

The justices disagree with you because they have a really weird understanding of Stare Decisis (see: BS).

Seriously, take a con law class, you'll see they pull this all the time, gutting a case's precidental power without actually explicitly overruling it.

For all LEGAL effects and purposes, it's the same as the case being overruled, it's ruling is no longer controlling, even though it's technically on the books as "good law".


I can rattle off tons of cases that this happened to in the past, the separation of church and state cases are especially infamous in this regard.

Because they're dependent on the mother to receive those requirements. We characterize life (Personhood) as having the ability for consciousness, however if that ability isn't there how can we assume it's a human life?

Unless then we have to rethink what we consider as human life. in which case there will never be a consensus so the whole point is meaningless.

You characterize it that way, most pro-lifers fundamentally disagree, hence the the persistent vegetative state argument. Really, it's not the consensus, and I doubt it's even the majority opinion.


And no it isn't meaningless, then it becomes a question of convincing pro-lifers that your understanding of personhood is superior.

The fetus is only alive because the mother's body keeps it alive. In my last post I used the analogy to keeping the brain dead using hospital machines. We can keep people alive for a long time with no brain function, but they are still considered dead. If not having a brain wasn't an issue for a fetus then an abortion wouldn't be a problem, it would just continue to develop outside the womb.

...

Again, the fetus is still able to perform all the functions of life, whereas a brain-dead person isn't. The machines do not change that fact, even with mechanical assistance, a brain-dead person cannot perform all the functions of life.

The fact that it uses a symbiotic (from species prospective, parasitic for the individual organism) relationship doesn't change the fact that the fetus still is able to perform all the functions of life.

 

[cF=)]

This thread is nigh, I see the main pro-choice argument being avoided again and again.

 

[Oracle]

what is the argument? That a fetus is not alive?

Didn't I explain that? By preventing it from living, you are responsible for it's lack of life, just as you are responsible for one's lack of life if you kill them. It's guaranteed to be alive (save for a few chance circumstances). Not the same as scratching off skin cells, wasting seed, etc.

If we characterize a dead person has brain dead, because of lack conscientiousness, it only makes sense we would characterize human life as development of conscientiousness.

But a dead person isn't coming back. A fetus will be alive.

 

[Aesir]

I'm pretty sure we're not going to agree and I frankly have a lot of law homework to do (like seriously slacking grades yuck =\) so I'm effectively dropping out. If this bill ever gets passed we'll obviously see a supreme court decision on it because with a largely conservative court they're going to have something to say.

Translation: I can't think of proper rebuttals it would be silly for me to continue. Touche'


edit: In case you're wondering, after looking over the bill I came to the conclusion that it goes well beyond even the original ruling of Roe. Roe is like conservative compared to bill. (not to say I don't agree with a federal law that permits woman a right to abort.)

 

[SuperBowser]

That's completely by chance. Besides, that's natural death. We can't do anything about that.

Uhh. Yes we can in many cases. That's why obstetricians exist.

First you say abortions don't happen naturally, now you're talking about how it doesn't matter because we can't prevent them.

It would be nice if you stopped making scientific claims to back up your arguments when they aren't even true.

 

[BFDD]

The fact that it uses a symbiotic (from species prospective, parasitic for the individual organism) relationship doesn't change the fact that the fetus still is able to perform all the functions of life.

How is the mother any different from the machines keeping the brain dead alive? If you detach the fetus from the mother it stops functioning. If it really could perform all the functions of life then an abortion wouldn't stop its development.

 

[adumbrodeus]

How is the mother any different from the machines keeping the brain dead alive? If you detach the fetus from the mother it stops functioning. If it really could perform all the functions of life then an abortion wouldn't stop its development.

Because even with the machines a brain-dead individual is not able to perform all the functions of life. There's the difference.

I'm pretty sure we're not going to agree and I frankly have a lot of law homework to do (like seriously slacking grades yuck =\) so I'm effectively dropping out. If this bill ever gets passed we'll obviously see a supreme court decision on it because with a largely conservative court they're going to have something to say.

Translation: I can't think of proper rebuttals it would be silly for me to continue. Touche'

Wow, a person on this forum actually admitting defeat.

This NEVER happens, mad props dude.


Still, this is one of those "almost impossible to argue" points, where all it can do is test your rhetorical skill, because Casey really does stand as such a stark contrast to Roe. This is especially evident when you consider that they accepted the tests and standards of O'Conner who in previous dissents criticized Roe in terms of her tests.

In fact, the tests that were affirmed were crafted by O'Conner in her dissent in Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health as a critique of Roe.

edit: In case you're wondering, after looking over the bill I came to the conclusion that it goes well beyond even the original ruling of Roe. Roe is like conservative compared to bill. (not to say I don't agree with a federal law that permits woman a right to abort.)

Not really, they're both "strict scrutiny pre-viability". The only difference is that FOCA doesn't have the trimester standard, and just says "viability". Independent of case law (if for example, SCOTUS said "congress has the power to legislate a right to abortion") then this bill would gradually become more and more useless as viability became earlier. For that reason, it's actually LESS effective then Roe at securing abortion rights.

The "point of viability continuously getting earlier" was one of the primary reasons why Casey scrapped the viability test.

 

[Oracle]

Uhh. Yes we can in many cases. That's why obstetricians exist.

First you say abortions don't happen naturally, now you're talking about how it doesn't matter because we can't prevent them.

It would be nice if you stopped making scientific claims to back up your arguments when they aren't even true.

That's not the point. Miscarriages do happen naturally, but these are not created by humans, and thereforetotally irrelevant. We do not control whether or not a fetus is miscarried.

Between 50 and 70 percent of first trimester miscarriages are thought to be random events caused by chromosomal abnormalities in the fertilized egg. Most often, this means that the egg or sperm had the wrong number of chromosomes, and as a result, the fertilized egg can't develop normally.

Generally it is completely random.
http://www.babycenter.com/0_understanding-miscarriage_252.bc#articlesection2

 

[SuperBowser]

Funny, in your previous posts you were using absolutes like ''none'', ''completely'' and ''nothing''. Now you change it to generally.

My point is that miscarriages are abortions. You can't just change the definition of abortion to your liking and remove every natural event that occurs (because natural events are included in the term abortion).

Stating something like abortions are unnatural and therefore wrong!!! is silly.

 

[Oracle]

Funny, in your previous posts you were using absolutes like ''none'', ''completely'' and ''nothing''. Now you change it to generally.

My point is that miscarriages are abortions. You can't just change the definition of abortion to your liking and remove every natural event that occurs (because natural events are included in the term abortion).

Stating something like abortions are unnatural and therefore wrong!!! is silly.

God **** your argument is hugely flawed. By that logic, since people die naturally from cancer sometimes, it wouldn't be wrong for me to poisin them with asbestos.

An abortion is unnatural because it is purposely produced, and not by chance. Miscarriages are not abortions because they happen naturally with no input from outside sources

 

[SuperBowser]

So I'll say it for the third time. Miscarriages are abortions. If you don't believe me, look up a medical dictionary.

tbh, your last post shows you have no idea what you're talking about and should probably stop...

 

[RDK]

God **** your argument is hugely flawed. By that logic, since people die naturally from cancer sometimes, it wouldn't be wrong for me to poisin them with asbestos.

Cancer victims implies that the object in question is actually a person--a human being. For the millionth time, you have yet to support the ridiculous and unfounded notion that a pre-2nd trimester clump of cells constitutes a human being.

An abortion is unnatural because it is purposely producaed, and not by chance. Miscarriages are not abortions because they happen naturally with no input from outside sources

Using the loosely defined term "natural", an abortion is natural--it is purposely produced (by cellular and chemical processes WITH A PURPOSE; these things just don't happen on their own; there has to be individual body cells and processes that orchestrate the "event" of conception--if any one of those things is not in place, it effectively doesn't happen--I.E., "miscarriage", which is a type of abortion). I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "chance".

And you act like the mind of the mother is some sort of "outside source". The body acts as a whole; and a whole is nothing but a conglomeration of many individual parts. The mother deciding to use contraceptives is no more "natural" or "unnatural" than a regular miscarriage due to fetal failure.

 

[Aesir]

Wow, a person on this forum actually admitting defeat.

This NEVER happens, mad props dude.

We would probably still be debating if I didn't take a step back and look at all the evidence.

Not really, they're both "strict scrutiny pre-viability". The only difference is that FOCA doesn't have the trimester standard, and just says "viability". Independent of case law (if for example, SCOTUS said "congress has the power to legislate a right to abortion") then this bill would gradually become more and more useless as viability became earlier. For that reason, it's actually LESS effective then Roe at securing abortion rights.

The "point of viability continuously getting earlier" was one of the primary reasons why Casey scrapped the viability test.

Ahh I was looking at it the other way. Without a standard viability could mean anything. I didn't take into account that the time before viability could be less and less.

 

[Oracle]

So I'll say it for the third time. Miscarriages are abortions. If you don't believe me, look up a medical dictionary.

The difference is that people try to cause an abortion, while miscarriages happen naturally. By naturally, I mean that no person made the decision to stop the fetus from developing, hence no outside sources, it just happens, much like evolution happens, or rain happens. Not purposely caused by any source.

Using the loosely defined term "natural", an abortion is natural--it is purposely produced (by cellular and chemical processes WITH A PURPOSE; these things just don't happen on their own; there has to be individual body cells and processes that orchestrate the "event" of conception--if any one of those things is not in place, it effectively doesn't happen--I.E., "miscarriage", which is a type of abortion). I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "chance".

By chance I mean it's a completely random genetic mutation that causes the miscarriage.

I wasn't being clear when I said "natural". I meant by natural that it was not caused by the input of humans, ie. no humans made the decision to make the fetus miscarriage. And I already explained why it doesn't matter whether or not the fetus is alive.

(In case you say "by that logic I can kill old people", once again, I point out that old people want to live, as do all people. Thus it can be taken that life is good, and it would be wrong to deny a heap of cells the ability to actually become people.

 

[SuperBowser]

In medical contexts, the word "abortion" refers to any process by which a pregnancy ends with the death and removal or expulsion of the fetus, regardless of whether it is spontaneous or intentionally induced.

Since you can't be bothered to look up the terms abortion or miscarriage yourself.

 

[Oracle]

I understand that. But I'm using a different definition of abortion, the one that is relavent to what we are talking about.

Sorry if I was confusing.