ZenMode
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,551
Why not?
Right to Life
- Thread starter evrheel
- Start date
- Replies: 65
- Views: 1K
- Off-Topic
Fetal viability is around the 5th month. So somewhere in the second trimester to you, would be an acceptable cutoff. It’s possible that’s the most acceptable timeframe for the majority of Americans (I’ve seen various data supporting both a second-trimester and third-trimester bans).
The fact of the matter is this is a personal question on a public policy. “When does human life begin” is wholly appropriate for the state to define even if that remains impossible to find consensus on by the public. The maximalist and the minimalist positions get the headlines, but the vast majority are in the middle.
But finding consensus through courts, and public opinion, and elected officials, is simply a tall task. No one will be happy in the end, and if that’s not okay (and I have to believe punting on something as fundamental as humanity is not okay), it will have to be accepted. I only hope the process is done with respect by both sides, and the matter gets settled peacefully and fruitfully to whatever extent open to us.
I’m in a watch of this right now. I knew my mom watched it when I was a kid, and I think I confused it with Twin Peaks and Picket Fences in my head. I’m trying to rectify that now. I’m on Season 2 of both Northern Exposure and Twin Peaks. I’ll try Picket Fences once done.
tarheelbillie
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 122
Sounds righteous. Problem is that once the child gets here the same bunch of politicians, their backers and voters are unwilling to step up and see that this life is healthy, happy and prosperous. Can’t afford it! Same folks have no problem with the delivered cost of each stealth bomber being an average of more than $2billion. How many pairs of little shoes would that buy. Then, I’d guess makers of little shoes don’t have lobbyists. Anyone think that part of the swamp is going to get drained?
- Messages
- 1,024
You’re the only alleged atheist I’ve ever heard claim heartbeat law.
Fwiw, stem cell scientists can create beating cardiac cells, quite easily. It’s been around since the 00s. Is that life, in your mind?
- Messages
- 1,614
I’m going to quote some previous posts that address your issue of “human life” much more eloquently than I could. I did not copy the poster that wrote this post so if any poster recognizes it as your work please speak up so I can properly attribute it:
“1) We do know when life begins, it begins where there is energy processing metabolism, and both the sperm and the egg are alive.
2) We don't legally pick deadlines because it's "cool," we pick them because chaos is the alternative. Not all teenagers are fit to drive at the same age, but we pick a standard within a reasonable range for some basic clarity and equality. The best approach is to hit a middle range, and given that there is no possibility of consciousness emerging prior to about 24 weeks gestation, and given that consciousness is what defines a person, then there is no possible moral problem with abortion prior to that time. Beyond that time you have to weigh other factors.
3) There is no "risk of murder" in any early abortion because murder is the killing of a person, not merely of "human life" (a cancerous tumor is also "human life," and with considerable medical effort and cost, it could be kept alive too).
4) Lastly the idea of not aborting at any point because it might be murder is nonsensical for the following reason: there is no sharp dividing line at when the egg and sperm combine. This happens over a period of time. If it were true then a healthy fertile couple choosing not to have sex when it would lead to a pregnancy would also have to be called "murder," because by this crazed logic they are allowing, continually, egg and sperm cells (human lives, by the crazed logic at work here) to die without a zygote produced. Furthermore, by this crazed logic, each and every time they did not produce a pregnancy when they could have would be another "murder." And another and another.”
- Messages
- 1,614
This was ZZL poster an0maly’s thoughts on the topic from 2021:
“1) The term "human life" causes much annoying confusion in these debates (on both sides, and both sides make the same mistakes in using it. We do not evaluate "human life" as equal with consciousness--with personhood, because a human body could be sustained on life support temporarily without a brain, as could for a time, a removed cancerous tumor. An anencephalic baby born without a brain, is also human life, and with medical supports human life of this kind also could be kept alive for some time. Human cancer cells can be kept alive almost indefinitely. So then clearly: It's is not "human life" we care about and have moral duty to, it's a conscious person with a sense of self.
2) At the end of life, consciousness fades away in unfortunate cases of Alzheimer's disease, and though there is no single point in time when it's gone, it does eventually get to the point where the mere "human life" should not continue as the brain is no longer even remotely capable of producing conscious awareness.
3) At the beginning of life consciousness fades into existence in a way that is the opposite of the above, again, with no point in time of greater importance. After about 22 weeks the layers of the brain begin to form, and rapidly developing neurons actually migrate towards final positions, and so are utterly unconnected in ways that will later fade in consciousness and a sense of self. The cerebral cortex is composed of multilayered tissue several millimeters thick. It is formed by the movement of cells in an inside-out direction, beginning in the ventricular zone and migrating through the intermediate zone, with the cells eventually reaching their final destination on the outside of the developing brain. The earliest migrating cells occupy the deepest cortical layer, whereas the subsequent migrations pass through previously formed layers to form the outer layers. At 25 weeks on, all six layers of the cortex will have formed, and then neurons begin connections.
4) Given the above facts, no consciousness or personhood of any kind exists, or can be lost before this time. It's a chance projection of increasing likelihood that a person is ahead in the outcome. What any kind of moral consideration should involve with early abortion is about psychological and physiological harms to the pregnant woman, or the pregnant child, not a possible future of a consciousness that does not yet exist.”
Mulberry Heel
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,291
Yep. Republicans just want the mother to be forced to have the baby. After it's born both the mother and child are on their own. Republicans aren't really pro-life, they're just pro-birth.Sounds righteous. Problem is that once the child gets here the same bunch of politicians, their backers and voters are unwilling to step up and see that this life is healthy, happy and prosperous. Can’t afford it! Same folks have no problem with the delivered cost of each stealth bomber being an average of more than $2billion. How many pairs of little shoes would that buy. Then, I’d guess makers of little shoes don’t have lobbyists. Anyone think that part of the swamp is going to get drained?
- Messages
- 2,674
Idiocracy is a documentary.
- Messages
- 1,614
Read this article from NPR explaining what a fetal “heartbeat” actually is…
spoiler alert - there cannot be an actual heartbeat before a heart is actually formed.
- Messages
- 2,674
So, how does one reconcile the mothers life in a medical situation where one will not survive?
How does one reconcile the death penalty?
Is there a consideration for quality of life? Both for those entering life and those near the end? Should that right to life include the right to shelter and sustenance? What about other life needs? At end of life are there quality of life considerations?
- Messages
- 2,674
So, a brain dead person is considered alive?
I believe their's more than just a heartbeat necessary for life.
Also, with this definition, we would have to actually define a heartbeat considering that doctor's have stated that what we call a heartbeat at 6 weeks is little more than electrical impulses and not the heartbeat of a child.
A fetus's heart is fully developed by week 10 of pregnancy. However, the heart continues to develop throughout the pregnancy, so the term "heartbeat" is not accurate until around 17 to 20 weeks. At this stage, the heart's four chambers are developed enough to be seen on an ultrasound.
Scientific Mapp
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 219
Exactly!!!
Sorry, I get a text alert anytime someone references a Marilyn Whirlwind deep cut.
Centerpiece
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,317
Chris and Marilyn are my favorites. But in all honesty, all of the characters are faves
tarheelbillie
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 122
Actually they are neither. No more than they are religious. It is get elected, re-elected, keep the lobbyists happy and live the good life.
ZenMode
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,551
Can a brain dead person have an unassisted heartbeat?
I'm not dedicated to heartbeat as a cut-off point, but there seems to be a pretty good medical argument to be made for it.
There really isn't an obvious, indisputable cut-off point.
- Messages
- 2,674
Exactly my point.
Earlier your statement seemed to say that a body with a heartbeat is a human and is considered alive. That's why I asked.
A non-viable fetus in the early stages doesn't even have a heart to beat, so I'm not sure how people reconcile a heartbeat law to equal 6 weeks. Sort of the same principal.
Yes, at least for a while.
ZenMode
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,551
From what I have found online, it sounds like a heart can continue beating even without brain activity. If that were to be the case, when we are talking about a fetus, I would say that the fetus would never be viable and would have to be aborted.
There can always be variables that raise questions but, in general, I would say that there is a case to be made that a heartbeat indicates that life is present.