Right to Life

[ZenMode]

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?

I think there's a stigma around heart beat laws. We associate hearts with Valentines Day, Cupid, strong and sometimes irrational emotion....stuff like that.

I'm looking at it from strictly a medical perspective.

 

[finesse]

I think there's a stigma around heart beat laws. We associate hearts with Valentines Day, Cupid, strong and sometimes irrational emotion....stuff like that.

I'm looking at it from strictly a medical perspective.

Bullshit.

 

[ZenMode]

Life, maybe, but not necessarily the spark that makes us human. Still sticking with awareness and ability to function without machine support.

Sure. There is no obvious right or wrong, which is why the debate will likely never be settled.

 

[finesse]

Sure. There is no obvious right or wrong, which is why the debate will likely never be settled.

Sure there is. It's whether it's a personal matter or the government's. I vote it's personal. At the age, the government is willing to take on the entire burden of nurture and support, they can weigh in. Probably going to take the development of an artificial womb but that's just around the corner.

 

[ZenMode]

Sure there is. It's whether it's a personal matter or the government's. I vote it's personal. At the age, the government is willing to take on the entire burden of nurture and support, they can weigh in. Probably going to take the development of an artificial womb but that's just around the corner.

We have laws to prevent people making personal decisions on when it's okay to kill living human beings. A living human being, of any age, would have a Constitutional right to life, right?

The only question is whether the decision on what is a "living human" should be decided federally or by individual states.

 

[finesse]

If they can't live outside the womb without artificial means, they aren't really viable humans.

 

[CarolinaFever]

If they can't live outside the womb without artificial means, they aren't really viable humans.

Yes, I don't see the difference in that and people that are kept alive on life support. If it is okay for someone to say take them off life support then I don't see how that is different than ending a pregnancy for a baby that would need life support to live, too.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

I'm looking at it from strictly a medical perspective.

Oh, you are?

 

[lawtig02]

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?

I don't want to get involved in this discussion on a substantive level (I personally think the government should stay out of abortion issues almost entirely), but I remember this came up on the old board several years ago and I thought it might be worth addressing what I think is a very common misconception. The vast majority of atheists are pro-choice, not surprisingly, but there's a non-trivial movement among secularists to ban abortion in pretty much all circumstances. Pew suggests about 11% of atheists think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

Religious Landscape Study

Explore the geographic distribution and demographics of America's major religious groups.

www.pewresearch.org

And there are even groups focused on this issue. For example (links in the C&P cut for the sake of space) --

Abortion - Secular Pro-Life

secularprolife.org

Part 1: The human zygote, embryo, and fetus are all human organisms.​

“Life begins at fertilization” is a shorthand way to say that the zygote is the first developmental stage of a human being’s life cycle. This is not a religious premise; it is a biological fact, attested to in countless biology and embryology texts and affirmed by the majority of biologists worldwide.
Corner cases and unusual biological phenomenon do not change the fact that the zygote is the first stage of a human’s life cycle.

Part 2: All human organisms are morally relevant.​

Many pro-choice people acknowledge that, biologically, life begins at conception but deny zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are “people,” i.e. morally relevant humans deserving of human rights. They offer a variety of ideas about what additional criteria are necessary. Common suggestions include that the child must have a heartbeat, have brain waves, be viable, or be “conscious”/self-aware.
We find these criteria for “personhood” arbitrary. Many of the proposed criteria would, if applied consistently, deny personhood to already born groups of humans we universally recognize as morally relevant and worthy of protection, such as newborns, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups. We believe consistency demands that we protect all humans as morally relevant and members of our species.

Part 3: It’s generally immoral to kill humans.​

In our experience, people may have different ideas about why it’s generally immoral to kill humans, but few if any people sincerely debate whether it’s generally immoral to kill humans. As a matter of policy, we at Secular Pro-Life do not take a stance on the metaphysical questions regarding where morality comes from or why we should care about one another. We simply ask that all people who believe, as a baseline premise, that it’s wrong to kill each other apply that stance consistently and recognize preborn children as part of the human family.

Part 4: Bodily rights aren’t enough to justify elective abortion.​

Some pro-choice people argue that it doesn’t matter whether the fetus is morally valuable “person,” because no person can use another’s body against her will. We believe this bodily rights argument is one of the strongest pro-choice arguments, and we encourage all people interested in the abortion debate to lean into this conversation. Still, we find that the bodily rights argument is not enough to justify elective abortion. Examples involving organ donation, car crashes, and other illustrations of bodily rights are disanalogous to pregnancy and abortion in one or more major ways

 

[finesse]

I don't want to get involved in this discussion on a substantive level (I personally think the government should stay out of abortion issues almost entirely), but I remember this came up on the old board several years ago and I thought it might be worth addressing what I think is a very common misconception. The vast majority of atheists are pro-choice, not surprisingly, but there's a non-trivial movement among secularists to ban abortion in pretty much all circumstances. Pew suggests about 11% of atheists think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

Religious Landscape Study

Explore the geographic distribution and demographics of America's major religious groups.

www.pewresearch.org

And there are even groups focused on this issue. For example (links in the C&P cut for the sake of space) --

Abortion - Secular Pro-Life

secularprolife.org

Part 1: The human zygote, embryo, and fetus are all human organisms.​

“Life begins at fertilization” is a shorthand way to say that the zygote is the first developmental stage of a human being’s life cycle. This is not a religious premise; it is a biological fact, attested to in countless biology and embryology texts and affirmed by the majority of biologists worldwide.
Corner cases and unusual biological phenomenon do not change the fact that the zygote is the first stage of a human’s life cycle.

Part 2: All human organisms are morally relevant.​

Many pro-choice people acknowledge that, biologically, life begins at conception but deny zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are “people,” i.e. morally relevant humans deserving of human rights. They offer a variety of ideas about what additional criteria are necessary. Common suggestions include that the child must have a heartbeat, have brain waves, be viable, or be “conscious”/self-aware.
We find these criteria for “personhood” arbitrary. Many of the proposed criteria would, if applied consistently, deny personhood to already born groups of humans we universally recognize as morally relevant and worthy of protection, such as newborns, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups. We believe consistency demands that we protect all humans as morally relevant and members of our species.

Part 3: It’s generally immoral to kill humans.​

In our experience, people may have different ideas about why it’s generally immoral to kill humans, but few if any people sincerely debate whether it’s generally immoral to kill humans. As a matter of policy, we at Secular Pro-Life do not take a stance on the metaphysical questions regarding where morality comes from or why we should care about one another. We simply ask that all people who believe, as a baseline premise, that it’s wrong to kill each other apply that stance consistently and recognize preborn children as part of the human family.

Part 4: Bodily rights aren’t enough to justify elective abortion.​

Some pro-choice people argue that it doesn’t matter whether the fetus is morally valuable “person,” because no person can use another’s body against her will. We believe this bodily rights argument is one of the strongest pro-choice arguments, and we encourage all people interested in the abortion debate to lean into this conversation. Still, we find that the bodily rights argument is not enough to justify elective abortion. Examples involving organ donation, car crashes, and other illustrations of bodily rights are disanalogous to pregnancy and abortion in one or more major ways

The unending egotism to "prove" that humans have a special place in the universe while life proves them wrong every day.

 

[CFordUNC]

 

[UNCatTech]

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.

For me there is still more in this discussion, it's not as simple a defining a variable and saying once we have this then abortions are not allowed.

For me there is still the question of why it any of my business what reasoning is behind the medical decision of Lucy and Charlie living in Washington state? It's not, it is the decision of Lucy with the advice and council of he doctor's and others that she chooses to accept council from.

It isn't her congress persons choice.

Especially considering that we have people who claim a "heart beat" well before there is a developed heart.

I fully believe that for many this is more about control of women and not viability or medical concern.

 

[ZenMode]

If they can't live outside the womb without artificial means, they aren't really viable humans.

By definition, you are correct and I would agree. The question is whether or not the thing inside the mother can be human and be "alive" before being viable and, if it's alive, does it deserve (constitutional and legal) protection of that life.

Again, I don't have the answer because there is no definitive answer. It's all opinion.

 

[farce©]

I'm looking at it from strictly a medical perspective.

No you’re not. You’re looking at it emotionally. There is no fetal heartbeat at 6 weeks because there is no heart.

 

[finesse]

By definition, you are correct and I would agree. The question is whether or not the thing inside the mother can be human and be "alive" before being viable and, if it's alive, does it deserve (constitutional and legal) protection of that life.

Again, I don't have the answer because there is no definitive answer. It's all opinion.

Not at the expense of the mother. You have a viable life with a place in society. You don't damage that physically, mentally or emotionally on a maybe. You don't risk that when, at no point in the pregnancy, is a live child insured. Even then, it's years of risk in hopes that the child can match the mother. Not even close to me.

 

[ZenMode]

No you’re not. You’re looking at it emotionally. There is no fetal heartbeat at 6 weeks because there is no heart.

I didn't say anything about 6 weeks or any specific time frame for the heartbeat to exist.

The question is whether or not the thing in the woman is "alive" before it's viable. For some, life begins at conception. I don't agree. The dividing and multiplying of cells is really no different than cancer. There's nothing you can point to and say "that thing is alive". I think a heartbeat is a sign of life and that's true throughout the medical world. A doctor or surgeon uses a heartbeat to determine if John Doe or Jane Doe is alive, right?

 

[sleehrat1955]

It all depends on where you believe "life" begins, right? If it's alive, and is human, then it has a Constitutional right to life, does it not?

“When life begins” is not really a thing. Both the sperm and the ovum are living cells before they ever hook up. Carrying this understanding back to its logical conclusion, we are all linked directly to the very first living organism that was capable of reproducing.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

A doctor or surgeon uses a heartbeat to determine if John Doe or Jane Doe is alive, right?

Not exactly. If the heart stops, the person isn’t dead. The functional failure of any one of several organs can cause death (eventually). The most immediately critical are the lungs and heart. More specifically, an interruption of action potentials in excitable cells of the heart (SA node) and diaphragm (phrenic nerve). Without exchange of O2 and CO2 cellular death will begin.

Fortunately, breathing and pulse are easily assessed. and if something has caused either to stop, CPR (or an AED) can either restore function or artificially support minimal gas exchange and circulation until the person can be transported to a hospital. The definitive quality of systemic death would be the end of cerebral function (brain death). You need an EEG for that. If someone crashes on the table and they can’t get the heart restarted, the patient will die very soon, but the brain survives for some time after the heart stops (without consciousness). Complete cellular death takes a lot longer than that. Rigor mortis doesn’t set in until the biochemical activity of skeletal muscle cells ends and the cells can no longer pump Ca out to release actin-myosin crossbridges.

So, by the definition many pro-lifers want to use to define life (the viability of a few cells), organ transplants require ripping pieces out of a living person to save someone else, which of course really is difficult to reconcile with the idea that saving the life of the mother isn’t a good reason to yank a 3 month old fetus with no head out of her womb.

 

[ZenMode]

Not exactly. If the heart stops, the person isn’t dead. The functional failure of any one of several organs can cause death (eventually). The most immediately critical are the lungs and heart. More specifically, an interruption of action potentials in excitable cells of the heart (SA node) and diaphragm (phrenic nerve). Without exchange of O2 and CO2 cellular death will begin.

Fortunately, breathing and pulse are easily assessed. and if something has caused either to stop, CPR (or an AED) can either restore function or artificially support minimal gas exchange and circulation until the person can be transported to a hospital. The definitive quality of systemic death would be the end of cerebral function (brain death). You need an EEG for that. If someone crashes on the table and they can’t get the heart restarted, the patient will die very soon, but the brain survives for some time after the heart stops (without consciousness). Complete cellular death takes a lot longer than that. Rigor mortis doesn’t set in until the biochemical activity of skeletal muscle cells ends and the cells can no longer pump Ca out to release actin-myosin crossbridges.

So, by the definition many pro-lifers want to use to define life (the viability of a few cells), organ transplants require ripping pieces out of a living person to save someone else, which of course really is difficult to reconcile with the idea that saving the life of the mother isn’t a good reason to yank a 3 month old fetus with no head out of her womb.

Obviously the mother's life takes priority at really any point in the pregnancy. I'm talking about a healthy pregnant mother with a growing human inside of her that has developed to the point that there is a true heart beat. While that thing may not be viable, can you say it's not living and not human?

 

[BlooVooDoo]

Obviously the mother's life takes priority at really any point in the pregnancy.

Several state legislatures do not share this perspective.