|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 9, 2004 6:58:18 GMT -5
And when is that?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 9, 2004 11:18:31 GMT -5
Therein lies the problem for both sides of the argument. It varies from pregnancy to pregnanc. The longer the term the better the outcome. Giving full rights to zygote (fertilized egg) is a dangerous way to go. It would imply that the 75% of the zygotes that do not implant but spontaneously abort are somehow due the same rights as a full term child. This would mean that some types of birth control (the IUD for example) would be illegal. Some forms of the pill would be as well. What about the woman who does something that is not condusive to pregnancy and there is an abortion as a result. Should she be tried for murder? Every miscarriage would need to be evaluated to determine why the "individual" died. In vitro fertilization would be fraught with such legal hazards that it would not be available to childless couples seeking to start a family. Ethical questions are never easy and seldom straight forward.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 9, 2004 14:33:52 GMT -5
Great.
Give me a break here. It would be no different than if a woman (or man) did something not conducive to proper child rearing and there was a death as a result. Most accidental deaths with children are not prosecuted because there was no intent to harm. If there is intent to harm then there should be prosecution. You may know that if a man kills a woman and her unborn child he is charged with both deaths. This is just.
Not any more than with children who die of SIDS, for example. We understand that both born and unborn babies die with no apparent cause. Do you see parents of SIDS babies being tried for murder? Obviously not for the above stated reason.
Ah, we finally get to the heart of the matter... those who lack an objective standard of right and wrong do indeed find it difficult to decide on matters of ethics and morality. Such is the problem with the situational ethics that most people seem to have bought into. It all ends in an endless parade of questions and what-if scenarios which ultimately leads to the inability to judge even the simplest things like whether it is wrong to kill an unborn baby. This has been demonstrated here on this thread. It is also why I will again bow out before I wasted anymore of my life trying to vainly answer the never-ending questions.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Requisite on Aug 9, 2004 15:53:36 GMT -5
So it imposes the value of personal freedom. So it imposes the value of personal freedom. Wasn't it the American Taliban guy who rebelled against all the personal freedom in America? I've been wanting to have multiple wives for years now, but the government has always imposed its values on my personal freedom. Present, would you be part of my harem after John Kerry tells us anything goes?
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 9, 2004 16:27:55 GMT -5
This does little to reduce the number of abortions that are done. Right. And if the zygote is indeed given the all of the rights of an individual then each and every death should be investigated, just as each and every death of a child is investigated. And to determine intent there would have to be an investigation. That depends on the state and on the age of the fetus. I doubt there would be a charge for a embryo or even for a 10 week fetus. No but I do know that each of the deaths are investigated to see what the cause of death was. Are you saying that we will just let the miscarriages slip away without investigation? If it is determined that the reason was SIDS then there is not a charge. But how do you think it is determined that it is SIDS? Somewhere between 50% and 75% of zygotes are expelled. If you are giving them all rights associated with an individual each and every case should be investigated. Or are you suggesting that an investigation is not needed until the fetus is more developed? It is not black and white. The what-if scenarios are not just pulled out of the air. They happen everyday in real life and someone has to make the decision about what to do. You state flatly that you consider a developing child to be an individual from the moment of fertilization. You state flatly that it is wrong to cause them to be aborted. This is an easy position to take as long as you do not ever have to face the consequence of an ectopic pregnancy or the possibility of carrying a brain dead child to term. Following your statements an ectopic pregnancy is a death sentence for mother and child. You never answered the questions. You took the stand that an individual is formed at the moment of fertilization and ignored the development of twins that happens after fertilization. You state that the fertilized egg has all the rights of any child yet seem to gloss over the fact that if this is the case they actually have to be treated the same. You show no regard for the numerous situations that women face with every pregnancy and dismiss the real life situations that come up frequently. I can understand your lack of interest in the subject. You will never have to make a decision that will effect you directly.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 9, 2004 16:38:15 GMT -5
Present, would you be part of my harem after John Kerry tells us anything goes? Hopefully I will still have the right to make my own decision. Why do people fear allowing prople to make their own choices as long as their choice does not impact the freedoms of others? I personally do not care if you marry 3 women or 2 men as long as I am not one of them. BTW - a law that does not restrict a person does not impose a value. It shifts the responsibility to where it belongs, to the individual.
|
|
|
Post by Requisite on Aug 9, 2004 16:55:33 GMT -5
You don't get it do you? As an accomplice to the government (you pay taxes and/or vote), you are imposing your values on me by not letting me marry multiple wives.
Just because you don't recognize the connection between liberty and freedom doesn't mean there isn't one.
Present, are you still willing to bow to the God of Personal Freedom?
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 9, 2004 17:12:36 GMT -5
You don't get it do you? As an accomplice to the government (you pay taxes and/or vote), you are imposing your values on me by not letting me marry multiple wives. My vote would be for you to have as many wives as you wish. The problem is there are too many of people who vote like you do and too few who are trying to reduce the role of government in the personal lives of the citizens. Oh, there is one. I am all in favor of liberty. That is why my vote would be to allow you to have as many mates of either gender that you want. That is why I believe a woman should be free to make decisions regarding her body. How could anyone deny a connection? Liberty and freedom are synonyms. Personal freedom provides people with the right and ability to make their own decisions. People speak of liberty and try to take it away.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 9, 2004 18:39:49 GMT -5
Present, I cannot live my life based upon your situational ethics. If your above mentioned situation arises with one of our future pregnancys my wife and I are commited to trusting in the Lord with that little life as well as Tamra's.
You may find it interesting to read about one child in particular that was considered brain dead by doctors and is now a living witnesses to the faith and trust of his parents. I can post the link if you wish, however I can understand if you are not interested in reading about this.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Aug 9, 2004 18:57:17 GMT -5
Hopefully I will still have the right to make my own decision. Why do people fear allowing prople to make their own choices as long as their choice does not impact the freedoms of others? I personally do not care if you marry 3 women or 2 men as long as I am not one of them. BTW - a law that does not restrict a person does not impose a value. It shifts the responsibility to where it belongs, to the individual. I think we need to make a distinction between law and morality. As a man who votes libertarian, I agree with most of your points from a law perspective. Furthermore, I believe laws should be passed only to protect, not to control morality. God's law is another matter. Now to extend that a bit, there is in my mind no excuse for believing that a human life begins any time other than at conception, so the protection concept should extend to that life. However, there will always be cases when the choice is not life or death, but rather which life is taken so the other may live, as in war. These matters require judgment difficult to make without bias. I am just glad I have never been in a position to have to make such decisions, and I don't want to judge those who must. inatent
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 9, 2004 19:48:14 GMT -5
Present, I cannot live my life based upon your situational ethics. If your above mentioned situation arises with one of our future pregnancys my wife and I are commited to trusting in the Lord with that little life as well as Tamra's. Trusting in the Lord is a good thing but I think terminating the ectopic pregnancy would be a good thing as well. It is not so much that you need to live based on situational ethics but the decisions that are made need to be such that people ae not put at risk because of another's belief. Please, post the link. I will refrain from posting the statistics about the number of births that produce organisms that are placed into the state's care because the families cannot/willnot care for them and they cannot function without 24 hour care.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 9, 2004 19:51:12 GMT -5
Now to extend that a bit, there is in my mind no excuse for believing that a human life begins any time other than at conception, so the protection concept should extend to that life. What level of protection? Do you support the use of birth control devices/medication? Do you believe that the individual is created at the moment of fertilization?
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Aug 9, 2004 19:59:21 GMT -5
What level of protection? Same as for any other human. Do you support the use of birth control devices/medication? Don't know. I certainly wouldn't judge those who use it. Do you believe that the individual is created at the moment of fertilization? Not sure this is the right medical term, but probably yes. inatent
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 9, 2004 20:43:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 9, 2004 23:00:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 9, 2004 23:34:58 GMT -5
Giving unimplanted zygotes the same rights as free living individuals is a very dangerous road to go down.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 10, 2004 0:11:55 GMT -5
An interesting article. It is good they feel that way about the child. But there is another side as well. If the delivery had taken place 100 years ago it would have been termed a miscarriage and the infant would have died. What have the heoric efforts really accomplished? There is a reality that people do not like to address. There is a cost to care for the child. The cost is born by all, especially the younger brother. Whether we like it or not, there are a finite amount of resources available. Who should decide where they are spent?
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Aug 10, 2004 6:45:46 GMT -5
. . . . There is a reality that people do not like to address. There is a cost to care for the child. The cost is born by all, especially the younger brother. Whether we like it or not, there are a finite amount of resources available. Who should decide where they are spent? That is how many people feel about keeping violent and unrehabilitable adults in jail. . . or maybe patients in with no chance of recovery who are in hospital beds. iantent
|
|
|
Post by no name on Aug 10, 2004 11:10:43 GMT -5
The fertilized egg implants itself within a few days after conception. At that point, the female most likely doesn't even know she has conceived. Giving fertilized (and implanted) human eggs NO rights is a very dangerous road we have gone down.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 10, 2004 13:33:05 GMT -5
Giving fertilized (and implanted) human eggs NO rights is a very dangerous road we have gone down. You have changed the ground rules. The discussion has been concerning fertilized eggs and how they should be considered. It is estimated that as many as 75% of those fertilided eggs (zygotes) will not implant. If they are to be treated exactly the same as an individual then each death would have to be investigated and the cause of death determined. If it can be shown that the cause was related to the behavior of the woman then it would be a homicide. Granting rights carries with it a lot of baggage.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Aug 10, 2004 13:55:00 GMT -5
You're missing the point. Again, implantation occurs within mere days after conception -- a woman doesn't even know she is pregnant until after the egg has implanted, and the hormonal changes begin to occur (this is when a pregnancy test will yield positive results). The unimplanted time is a very small window -- but during that time, there is no way of knowing whether one has conceived. So there would be no way she would (or could) choose abortion, since she doesn't even know she's got a life she can abort. Abortive action she takes will be after she knows she is pregnant. If you're talking about the morning-after pill -- that is something used to prevent possible pregnancy; those who use it don't even know whether they've conceived, since implantation hasn't even happened at that point, and there's no way of even proving whether the egg has been fertilized.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 10, 2004 15:35:54 GMT -5
You're missing the point. Again, implantation occurs within mere days after conception -- a woman doesn't even know she is pregnant until after the egg has implanted, and the hormonal changes begin to occur (this is when a pregnancy test will yield positive results). This is not really a factor if you are granting rights to a fertilized egg. The fact that it is not easily detected only adds to the complexity of granting it rights. Well, not using the standard off the shelf tests in any case. So you are not opposed to the morning after pill as a means of birth control? This where problems arise. IUDs prevent implantation. In effect, they cause spontaneous abortions by creating a hostile environment for the zygote. The morning after pill may or may not be working to produce an abortion. The woman does not know if the pregnancy was prevented because ovulation was inhibited, the normal menstrual cycle was altered, or lining of the uterus was irritated to prevent implantation. If the zygote has full rights there is a chance that the morning after pill could be causing an abortion. The situation now exists that a woman could be charged with having an abortion when there was not a fetus involved. Is it realistic to give zygotes the full rights that an individual has?
|
|
|
Post by no name on Aug 10, 2004 21:13:29 GMT -5
Sure it is.
No it doesn't.
It is realistic to give a known-to-be-conceived human egg/embryo/fetus individual rights to the extent that he/she should be protected by law from intentional harm, just as any other person is. And those rights should be established when it is known that the woman has conceived. That's not so complicated. In the case of a pregnant woman who is harmed or killed, separate charges can be brought up for the baby inside her if it is harmed or killed as well. I've heard of some women being charged for causing harm/killing their baby by doing drugs. Of course the baby deserves rights. Why shouldn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 10, 2004 23:54:51 GMT -5
It is realistic to give a known-to-be-conceived human egg/embryo/fetus individual rights to the extent that he/she should be protected by law from intentional harm, just as any other person is. And those rights should be established when it is known that the woman has conceived. If I am reading this correctly you are not giving providing rights to the zygote at all but rather to the implanted blastocyst. That sounds fair but there is a downside. It shouldn't because it places a burden on the mother. Giving the fetus rights means that the cause of each miscarriage will have to be determined. Should it turn out that the mother did something that contributed to the miscarriage it would be a homicide. We have moved from giving it rights at fertilization to the time when it implants. I see it as an individual as soon as it is capable of survival without the mother. Until that time it is a part of the woman that should be under her control. It is unconsionable to pass a law that would prevent a person from having control over what can and cannot be done to their body without their consent.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Aug 11, 2004 20:50:33 GMT -5
There is also a cost to kill the child. Anytime there is an immoral action, for whatever reason, there is a cost. Rom 6:23 The wages of sin is death.Believe it or not, the community that allows polygamy will also pay a price. Beliefs, words and actions have far reaching consequences. Ed
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Aug 11, 2004 20:56:08 GMT -5
Inatent wrote:
They are often one and the same thing.
Not really. All laws are given/lack authority according to God's law.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 11, 2004 22:17:50 GMT -5
Believe it or not, the community that allows polygamy will also pay a price. Wouldn't that be many biblical communities?
|
|
|
Post by no name on Aug 12, 2004 14:45:29 GMT -5
Not nearly as bad as allowing for the legal extermination of a million+ innocent babies each year.
The mother, in most cases, is not the innocent one here.
I don't think that's what it means at all. The majority of miscarriages are quite clearly beyond the control of the mother.
That is already being done/attempted in some places, from what I've heard. Those events are few and far between. Despite the message of fear in the above post, there's no evidence that widespread prosecution of every miscarriage would take place.
Not really. One generally doesn't know the egg has been fertilized until after it has implanted.
It is unconscionable to pass a law that would allow for the extermination of an innocent baby, who's not even in the position to give his or her consent.
|
|