-->
@HistoryBuff
Science says it is a person. It has DNA that is different from the mother. What kind of DNA? Human DNA. It is alive. Now, what a "legal person" is would depend on the laws of the country.
I said to leave bad marriages.
Should it be illegal to use (legal) drugs while pregnant?
Posts
Total:
86
-->
@bmdrocks21
Science says it is a person. It has DNA that is different from the mother. What kind of DNA? Human DNA. It is alive. Now, what a "legal person" is would depend on the laws of the country.
Human DNA and being alive doesn't make it a person. We can do that with a cluster of cells in a petri dish.
I said to leave bad marriages.
People do. That is why the divorce rate is so high.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Not sure if we can do that quite yet, but scientific advances have no bearing on what is or isn't human.
I say all humans have inherent value. If they don't, then that means the government can decide which humans matter and which don't. Kinda the justification of slavery/genocide/any human rights abuse ever done by the government.
-->
@bmdrocks21
I say all humans have inherent value. If they don't, then that means the government can decide which humans matter and which don't.
I would agree that all human lives have value. I would disagree that a fetus is a human life. It may become a person some day, but at the fetal stage it is not yet.
-->
@HistoryBuff
So passing through the birthing canal gives your life value?
-->
@bmdrocks21
So passing through the birthing canal gives your life value?
I believe being a person gives human life value. A fetus that does not have a fully functional brain or organs is not a person.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Well I won't have a fully functioning brain until I am 25, but I still hope that I am a person. Am I less of a person because of my age? I don't have an appendix, either, so I don't fully meet the organ criteria.
I will become a fully developed human if I am not killed or die of natural causes. The same applies to a fetus.
-->
@HistoryBuff
We are slowly starting to realise that marriage is nonsense anyway.
Do you think that we will ever be able to fully separate reality from acquired nonsense?
And whilst the masses continue to thrash around in their conceptual mire, the curiosity of few that matter, continues to drive material evolution on apace.
And the nonsense of the past and the tokens of evolution are enough to satisfy the limited curiosity of the rest.
And a foetus is just another blob of stuff, to be flushed away or cast aside on a desecrated tissue.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well I won't have a fully functioning brain until I am 25, but I still hope that I am a person. Am I less of a person because of my age? I don't have an appendix, either, so I don't fully meet the organ criteria.
You've sort of highlighted one of my points. We have no straight forward criteria for when a clump of cells becomes a person. I am quite certain that a fertilized egg is not a person. I am also quite sure that a baby on the day it is born is one. So at some point between those 2 events it becomes a person. When that point is, is the discussion that needs to be had. If we can find some agreement on when that point is alot of this partisan bickering could stop.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I am also quite sure that a baby on the day it is born is one.
hmm
According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 24 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive. It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500 g (17.6 ounces) to survive.
so the actual act of removing, detaching a baby from the female makes it a baby/person? And so long as it remains attached it's ok to kill it?
I'm not sure anyone argues that the fetus is the woman.
so you agree it's a separate entity, but what it is you haven't or can't really say right?
there is no reason that a pregnant females shouldn't be allowed to use drugs and alcohol while pregnant because it's not a person, correct?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
so the actual act of removing, detaching a baby from the female makes it a baby/person? And so long as it remains attached it's ok to kill it?
You seem to have missed my point. I was not saying that the act of being born makes it a person. i was saying that at conception it obviously isn't a person and at birth it is. At some point between those events it becomes a person. i am not saying definitively when that is. But we need that discussion to get ironed out or people will just continue going in circles over this issue.
so you agree it's a separate entity, but what it is you haven't or can't really say right?
More or less. It is alive. It is distinct form the woman it resides in. But that doesn't make it a person.
there is no reason that a pregnant females shouldn't be allowed to use drugs and alcohol while pregnant because it's not a person, correct?
Intent is always important in the law. It isn't only about what you do, it also about what you intended to do.
If the intent is to carry a pregnancy to term and have the child, and you take lots of alcohol or drugs that is obviously bad. If your intent is to abort the pregnancy and not carry it to term, then there is no problem with the woman drinking.
-->
@HistoryBuff
intent changes so that doesn't seem like a very realistic criteria, nor could it really be proven in this context.
if there's a 50/50 chance of survival after being removed from the female, would that gestational age be considered a person?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
intent changes so that doesn't seem like a very realistic criteria, nor could it really be proven in this context.
I agree that intent can change. I don't see that we have any other criteria to go on.
if there's a 50/50 chance of survival after being removed from the female, would that gestational age be considered a person?
This is a dangerous metric to use because the point at which there is a 50/50 chance is always changing. 100 years ago a fetus at 25 weeks would have an extremely low chance of survival. Today it might be 50/50. 20 years from now it might be 90%. Tying the definition of a person to the current medical technology is a flawed metric.
-->
@HistoryBuff
well no, if there's a 50% chance of survival then it will live, if it lives what is it?
If it has unique human DNA and is either male or female what is it?
it's only a "dangerous metric" to those would advocate for killing.
As I have said before in similar topics, why couldn't the child be born alive and then immediately adopted? That does happen after all and people wanting to adopt are readily available. Doesn't that fix the issue, the female is no longer pregnant, w/o a child, those wanting to adopt have a child available. Even if this is only applied to what would be considered "late term" why couldn't that be the new norm?
always changing.
I'm glad you brought that up. At one time people were buried because they thought they were dead, only they weren't. We can detect things like brain waves much earlier than before. What if in x# of years we can detect that these babies feel pain earlier than we thought? Do you think we should err on the side of caution? Does that bother you that something with unique human dna, male or female, brain waves, heart beat and can feel pain could just summarily be killed?
I think it's rather barbaric.
Do you believe in the "right to try" which Trump put into effect?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If it has unique human DNA and is either male or female what is it?
A fetus. A life form that may, at some point, become a human being.
it's only a "dangerous metric" to those would advocate for killing.
No it is a dangerous metric in general because it will be changing constantly. The law will never be settled. The argument will continue on and on forever. Just because you can keep something alive with advanced medical techniques does necessarily mean it should have the rights and protections of a person. For example, people that are brain dead and being kept alive by medical science. It isn't murder to pull the plug. But you could easily keep them alive indefinitely. What happens if/when we invent some sort of medical womb? At that point any fertilized egg would have a significant chance of survival. Then, by your metric, all abortions would be illegal.
What if in x# of years we can detect that these babies feel pain earlier than we thought? Do you think we should err on the side of caution? Does that bother you that something with unique human dna, male or female, brain waves, heart beat and can feel pain could just summarily be killed?
Feeling pain is not a metric for determining what is a person. No, terminating a fetus does not bother me. Whether or not it is capable of feeling pain is in no way relevant.
I think it's rather barbaric.
So taking away a person's right to control their own body and forcing women to undertake medical procedures that will definitely cause them injury, possibly permanent injury, is perfectly fine. But terminating a fetus that has no idea it even exists is barbaric? We have very different interpretations of what the word barbaric means.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Smoking while pregnant raises risk for preterm birth, low birth weight, sudden infant death syndrome, and birth defects.
From this I found smoking while pregnant leads to low birth weight of 20 to 30% of accounts of low birth weights while from that number 10% of the infants die because of women smoking while pregnant. I think we can both say both of the numbers are not that big but still is a problem. I think the people who would smoke while pregnant don't really have the best lives to begin with. If we cared about the child then he shouldn't even be born to parent who willfully smokes while pregnant or doesn't even know the harm caused by it. Think about how willful ignorance or lack of intelligence could have an impact on the child. I think this would also mean they are poor because I think poor people are generally less educated. I think this link helps my case.
Additionally, alcohol is linked to cognitive debilitation and other issues for the child.
I guess this would still be a problem with the poor given lack of funds and the means to get help. A better take here would've been there is no safe amount of alcohol during pregnancy. That could've got the point across better. You could've listed the problems associated with it afterwards.
This usually causes irreparable harm to another being, the child, and therefore should be considered as some sort of child neglect or child abuse.
I guess that is fair. It would be more child neglect but abuse can be neglect so it can be either one.
At the very least, this child should be taken away.
Funds would be a problem and then giving it to a good environment to prosper would also be a problem. There isn't going to be enough infertile parents or family who wants to adopt instead of creating their own children. I wouldn't know how to fairly go about researching this so I guess my claim would be poor families would creates babies at a higher rate than they would be a supply of parents to give them a better environment to live in. I think I am okay claiming this but maybe infertile or parents who want children is much higher than I think.
It should probably also be illegal to sell either substance to a pregnant woman. As far as I know, all of these are merely discouraged, but not illegal.
It would help birth defects but I wouldn't know how to implement it. Is the woman only banned from buying alcohol? What if the father buys alcohol and she uses it? Is an entire household barred from buying alcohol? How about online stores and how they would recognize if you were pregnant or not? I think this would be a really difficult thing to get right that's if either side agrees. The right would say you are infringing on my freedom. The left would say the government doesn't make the choice that the mother should or something. Pretty complicated.
What is your opinion on this? The only thing that I could see causing issues is the cutoff point(by when does the pregnant woman know that she is pregnant and is still neglecting her responsibilities).
I think it is way more complicated than you pointed out.
-->
@bmdrocks21
A legal drug is legal and a pregnant woman who is also a legal adult and citizen. You can no more tell them what to put into their bodies than an obese person at a McDonald's. The default in a free society is to allow any behavior and to them limit only those behaviors that can be shown to be detrimental to the freedom of others. For example theft is detrimental to ones right to personal property.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Yes, but I feel as though the only consistent argument is a fertilized egg. That is the point at which it becomes a distinct human. Any other argument such as viability can change based on the wealth and location of the parents. You could say a millionaire in New York has a kid that is worth more than a Kenyan woman's fetus because one is viable while the other is not, even at the same stage of pregnancy. If economic conditions matter, that raises the same argument.
People also draw a false equivalence between brain dead people and a fetus. The brain dead individual can't ever regain consciousness, while the fetus almost always will. So, I don't find that brain waves are consistent, either.
That is why legally speaking I would only permit it in cases of rape and if the mother will die from the pregnancy not being terminated. These constitute precisely 3.5% of all current abortions. The rest are related to money and not thinking you are ready for parenthood, which I find to be unjustifiable reasons to have an abortion.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yes, there would be a lot of nuance for implementing these laws. I am not really prepared to write a fifty-page proposal on all the specific details right now.
I agree that poor people are more likely to experience these issues. Perhaps classifying this as child neglect will act as a deterrent.
With regard to the household buying alcohol, they would not all be banned. The same could be applied to any parent with kids because they child could get ahold of the alcohol. It is, however, illegal for a parent to buy alcohol for the purpose of giving it to their underaged kid. That is how the law would work.
I don't think it is a violation of the right of someone to buy alcohol. It is preventing the violation of the kid's right to not have permanent brain damage.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yes, but I feel as though the only consistent argument is a fertilized egg. That is the point at which it becomes a distinct human.
And that argument loses the vast majority of people. With that definition you are instituting an absolute ban on abortion. Even the morning after pill would be murder. It has no brain, no organs, nothing even close to resembling human life, but you want to grant it the rights of a human. That is not a line that would ever be acceptable to the majority of people. A recent poll I saw said 77% of people wanted Roe v Wade upheld. They varied on what the rules around abortion should be. But that means that only 23% of the public could possibly accept the complete ban you appear to advocating for.
That is why legally speaking I would only permit it in cases of rape and if the mother will die from the pregnancy not being terminated. These constitute precisely 3.5% of all current abortions. The rest are related to money and not thinking you are ready for parenthood, which I find to be unjustifiable reasons to have an abortion.
And if that is your belief, then no one is going to force you to have an abortion. But your beliefs do not give you the right to take away a woman's right to control her own body.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Damn. I was waiting for that. I am joking about that.I am not really prepared to write a fifty-page proposal on all the specific details right now.
Perhaps classifying this as child neglect will act as a deterrent.
Deterrents are a bandage to the problem. Not the disinfectant or the needle and thread to close the wound. Peel of the bandage there is an open wound. I wouldn't think deterrents work because of the Cold War. It didn't actually bring about peace or in this case a desired result. Instead lead to an arms race to who had the most amount of power (weapons, control) to win against the other side. In this context if women were sent to jail we might see a steady drop in birth or some sort of revolution by the lower class which isn't at all good for anyone given how the amount of people that can cause real harm by the sheer numbers. Hope this made sense.
With regard to the household buying alcohol, they would not all be banned. The same could be applied to any parent with kids because they child could get ahold of the alcohol. It is, however, illegal for a parent to buy alcohol for the purpose of giving it to their underaged kid. That is how the law would work.
Even in the case you brought up. It is illegal to give a kid alcohol but I see videos online of people giving it to them. I don't remember a jail sentence nor anything else. To me the problem would be enforcement and how you would actually know a pregnant women is going to use it. The most efficient is to have some sort of transmitter that recognizes bad substances which I don't think is politically feasible or even manageable whether it be due to technology or money. The next most efficient way would be cameras. Again I don't think it would be politically feasible and I think it would cost less money than a transmitter. I don't think you are for either of these things but if you are not then how can we make for sure they are not drinking alcohol. I can simply lie when questioned and when the baby is born you investigation would have to go through the 6 months plus any other problems the woman may have. Not to mention how much this would cost to go through every single child thoroughly as possible. Hopefully I laid out the problems with the best way of doing this and anything short would not be effective which is nothing what I said.
I don't think it is a violation of the right of someone to buy alcohol. It is preventing the violation of the kid's right to not have permanent brain damage.
"Prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the right to petition the government"
I am guessing I could list this as freedom of Religion like how I think anti-vaxxers get away with not getting vaccinated. It is not an excuse mainly showing a real example of a movement allowed to do harmful things. All these people need to do is that Jesus drank alcohol during his last supper or something so that means I can drink it to or something. I think that is all that is needed because I think the Religious claim of the anti-vaxxers are much worse than the thing that I made on the top of my head.
-->
@HistoryBuff
It isn't murder to pull the plug. But you could easily keep them alive indefinitely.
that's true, DNR is far different that doing a procedure to kill them however, that would be murder. Letting "nature take its course" is not murder.
The law will never be settled.
it should be restricted to a certain extent right? or are you ok with killing it the day before it's due?
taking away a person's right to control their own body
they are killing the woman's body? I thought you agreed it wasn't her body but a separate entity?
Whether or not it is capable of feeling pain is in no way relevant.
is causing pain to an animal because you don't want it anymore ok with you
what do you think about people who toss a bag full of kittens into a river, that ok?
you seem to say what isn't a person but not what is, you know when it's not a person, but you don't know when it is a person?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
that's true, DNR is far different that doing a procedure to kill them however, that would be murder. Letting "nature take its course" is not murder.
Either way it is a medical procedure that terminates something that was alive. They are not that different.
it should be restricted to a certain extent right? or are you ok with killing it the day before it's due?
No, of course not. There needs to be a restriction somewhere. I would argue it is before the 3rd trimester but I don't know precisely where it should be.
they are killing the woman's body? I thought you agreed it wasn't her body but a separate entity?
Forcing a women to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want is forcing a medical procedure on her IE the birth of the child. Going through a pregnancy and a birth can have serious negative impacts on a woman's health. Forcing that on someone against their will is cruel and brutal.
is causing pain to an animal because you don't want it anymore ok with youwhat do you think about people who toss a bag full of kittens into a river, that ok?
I don't think anyone is advocating for torturing the fetus. People do kill cats. People also kill dogs, and cows, and sheep etc. People kill things every single day. Are you saying that we shouldn't kill anything, ever, because they feel pain?
-->
@HistoryBuff
They are not that different.
they are totally different omg I can't believe you even said that. Letting something happen vs actively causing something is very different. Letting die vs killing. I'm just blow away you don't know the difference.
I would argue it is before the 3rd trimester but I don't know precisely where it should be.
why do you object to 3rd trimester killings
why don't know know precisely where it should be? because you could be mistaken?
Forcing that on someone against their will is cruel and brutal.
so you believe these rights are absolute?
are you pro death penalty?
Forcing a women to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want is forcing a medical procedure on her IE the birth of the child.
is that what it is or is it preventing the death of a child?
if you are against 3rd trimesters and she changes her mind you'd force a medical procedure on her because she can't have on in the 3rd trimester.
Going through a pregnancy and a birth can have serious negative impacts on a woman's health.
being killed has some serious negative impacts on health, more so than pregnancy and birth.
Are you saying that we shouldn't kill anything, ever, because they feel pain?
nope just wondering if that bothered you since doing it to a potential human doesn't
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
they are totally different omg I can't believe you even said that. Letting something happen vs actively causing something is very different. Letting die vs killing. I'm just blow away you don't know the difference.
Both are examples of a medical procedure performed by a doctor that results in termination of something that was alive. I understand they are not 100% identical scenarios. But they are very similar scenarios.
why do you object to 3rd trimester killings
We need to draw the line somewhere. By the 3rd trimester they have all the characteristics of a person.
why don't know know precisely where it should be? because you could be mistaken?
We all could be mistaken. No one is perfect. I don't pretend I know exactly what the right answer is. Do you pretend that you do know precisely what the right answer is?
so you believe these rights are absolute?
There may be scenarios where those rights need to be suspended. Off hand I can't think of one.
are you pro death penalty?
No.
is that what it is or is it preventing the death of a child?
Even if I accepted that the fetus was a child, which I don't. It would still be forcing a medical procedure one a woman who doesn't want it. So yes, it is that.
if you are against 3rd trimesters and she changes her mind you'd force a medical procedure on her because she can't have on in the 3rd trimester.
Like I said, there needs to be a line somewhere. We decided that there is an age where it is ok to drink and when it is not. If you are day under that line then it is illegal for you to go to a bar. That 1 day doesn't change anything, but we need a cutoff line to be able to enforce a law. The law needs to be clear and to set the standard. A fertilized egg is obviously not a human. A baby 1 day before birth obviously is. No matter where we draw the line between those 2 points people will challenge it. But a line must be drawn somewhere. I don't pretend I know exactly where that line needs to be.
being killed has some serious negative impacts on health, more so than pregnancy and birth.
Correct. And you want to put the health of a person, the woman, at risk to protect something that is not a person, the fetus.
-->
@HistoryBuff
But they are very similar scenarios.
right in one case the person is terminal and would die w/o the equipment, it's a quality of life issue, the other has a potential healthy life ahead of themselves, yeah very similar. Only in one case is the person/thing injected with a substance to stop it's heart, or has their spine severed and removed in pieces, I see no real similarities.
By the 3rd trimester they have all the characteristics of a person.
how about 1 week before the 3rd trimester is there something magical that happens in that time frame of 7 days?
Do you pretend that you do know precisely what the right answer is?
I sure don't but if you think about all the ways and times we err on the side of caution because we don't know it seems that would apply to this subject as well.
It would still be forcing a medical procedure one a woman who doesn't want it.
if the baby is too big it will be delivered either vaginally or by c-section, so they will have that medical procedure, there is no way around that.
I don't pretend I know exactly where that line needs to be.
neither do I, not exactly, definitely not after the 3rd, I'd have to check the stats and development rate but I'd say even sooner than the 3rd. I have no issue with things like plan-B, when it's very early.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@HistoryBuff
One "line" that I think is pretty reasonable is the point of viability. That is, when a fetus stands some chance of surviving outside of the womb. This generally occurs at 24 weeks
-->
@dustryder
I would agree with that. The feeling pain thing does bother me personally, but none of this really bothers me enough that I would protest or anything like that.
When you learn and or see how these things are actually done, it can change your perspective, it did mine.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I can't think of a much better alternative to fix this problem. It may be a bandage fix, but across most states, there is essentially abortion on demand for any reason and it has been for years (excluding Georgia and Alabama and maybe a handful of others). The problem still widely occurs. So, since we cannot eliminate addiction and abortion doesn't prevent it, I can see no better choice.
Sure there might be videos of people online giving kids alcohol. This isn't a perfect, 100% deterrent. However, it is still illegal to give kids alcohol. Getting caught involves fines and can be either a misdemeanor or a felony based on the circumstances. https://www.alcohol.org/laws/supplying-alcohol-to-a-minor/
Yeah, I kinda despise anti-vaxxers, myself. I don't recall any mention in the Bible about vaccinations. I don't think any recognized religion requires you to drink alcohol.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Yes and the majority of people believe that third trimester abortions should be illegal. You probably agree with that. My problem here is that you are saying that what the majority of people agree with or desire is what is best policy-wise. You probably don't like Ronald Reagan, but he won 49 states. You might think he was bad for our country, but he was popular. The average voter isn't informed on issues. Just because Roe v Wade is popular, doesn't mean it is right.
Now, part of the reason that most people want to keep Roe v Wade is because they don't know what it is. They think that if it is overturned that abortion becomes illegal. All it would do is take the federal government out of the picture and states can pass any laws they wish.
I'm treating this like the crime of murder, essentially. If you get an abortion because you would die, it is self-defense. I don't think it is okay to get one for monetary reasons, just like I don't think you should kill your toddler because of financial reasons.
"No one is forcing you to have an abortion" isn't quite a strong argument. Someone back in the 1800's could say "no one is forcing you to have slaves". I thought we agreed earlier that the fetus wasn't part of the woman. That would mean that anti-abortion laws aren't violating what a woman can do with her own body. It is protecting against what a woman will do to her child's body.