Teen Pregnancy Drops as Planned Parenthood Vanishes

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
461

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Gentlemen, please.

If the flock of sheep grows faster than the pack of wolves, so that last year five sheep out of a hundred were eaten by ten wolves, but this year seven sheep out of a hundred-fifty were eaten by twelve wolves, clearly the rate of predation is decreasing per population. Are we to conclude that the wolves are becoming less predacious? [/quote]

No, but since in this case the predators and their prey are of the same species, the species as a whole is indeed becoming less predacious.

462

What if a pregnant woman does not “kill” the unborn “human” but chooses to ignore it and let it suffer or even die? I mean, if she doesn’t get proper prenatal care or eat a certain diet or engages in activities or behaviors that might harm the fetus? The fetus has the right to live but does the pregnant woman have to insure that? Does her right to sit in a hot tub get trumped by the fetus’ right to not get miscarried?

463

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

If we accept the premise of the pro-life argument that an unborn fetus is a person under the law and entitled all the rights and protections other persons under the law are, should we allow murder to be legalized for convenience? Should we allow murder to be legalized because of a logistic problem in enforcement?[/quote]

Your post is a bit difficult to understand, but I’ll try to parse it as best I can.

I can accept the premise that a fetus is alive and human, because this is self-evident. I don’t accept the premise that it is a person under the law, because it is not, and never has been. A natural person attains its personhood by virtue of being born. The unborn are by definition not persons, as the law currently stands.

You cannot “legalize murder”. Murder is by definition unlawful. Just as you cannot legalize theft or extortion. You could, but it would cease being theft or extortion.

What you can do, and what is done, is make some homicide lawful, and other homicide unlawful. Homicide in defense of one’s self or another (or property, in Texas) is legal. Homicide in a military context is legal. And currently, homicide in the context of ending an unwanted pregnancy is legal.

Murder is malicious, unlawful and unjustifiable homicide. The majority of abortions are perhaps unjustifiable, but almost never malicious, and currently almost always legal.

Now, back to prohibition. Has the prohibition of cannabis been an effective or ineffective means of controlling cannabis use?

If the state legalizes cannabis use because of the logistical difficulties in enforcing its prohibition, does this mean that we should allow methamphetamine and PCP to be legalized for the sake of convenience?

Of course not. But surely there are fundamentalist anti-drug advocates who would make this facetious argument.
[/quote]

Ok, let me see if I can clear up my very rambly writing style for ya. Not quite formal premises here, but do it bullet point style

  1. Fetus is both human and alive. Undisputed except for the crazies.
  2. The question of abortion centers around the personhood of the fetus (as law defines a person for purposes of protecting their rights)
  3. Pro life’s position is that a fetus is a person.
  4. Persons are protected by law from being killed–If you prefer I could parse this semantically but I believe you know what I am getting at. Obviously there are exceptions for persons in the commission of a violent crime on another person (self defense), or threatening police, or violently trespassing (castle law etc etc).

Now,
5) If you accept–for the sake of argument–pro lifers position that the fetus is a person under law, do you or do you not decide that murder of a fetus, being a person, is still legal due to logistical problems of enforcement? In other words do you decide to violate a person’s inalienable rights?

I do have a point here, if you humor me :)[/quote]

Even if the law presumed that the fetus was a natural person (which is without precedent in all of common law, as well as in Hammurabbic and Judaic law, as I understand it), with all rights afforded a natural person, we would still be talking about the issue of homicide, not murder. Murder is always unlawful, homicide is not. The burden is to prove that the homicide of a fetal “person” is unjustifiable, on a case-by case basis. Otherwise we would have to rule that every homicide is unlawful, regardless of extenuating circumstance.

And if you want to start talking about logistical problems of enforcement, one of the rights a natural person has is the right of citizenship. Let us assume that tomorrow a new constitutional amendment were ratified granting all living fetuses equal status with natural born persons. This would mean that every pregnant woman on US soil is carrying an American Citizen in her womb, regardless of her own citizenship or that of the baby’s father. No pregnant illegal alien could be deported, and all a foreign woman would have to do to stay in this country and receive benefits would be to get knocked up. You might try to stipulate that the baby had to be conceived or carried by a US citizen, or conceived on US soil, but how could that possibly be tested or proven? We talk about slippery slopes: this is a slippery sheer cliff that seems to me to be practically insurmountable. [/quote]

We’re simply talking about giving the right of the unborn human to live, nothing more. There are no logistical problems with that. Allowing the killing of human lives simply because it may cause logistical problems is valuing logistics over that of a human life. So you clearly believe that logistics are superior to a human life, if you believe that life should be taken because not taking it would cause logistical problems.[/quote]

Extrapolation of what I “clearly believe” from my finding the logical holes in Aragorn’s argument might prove to be problematic.

Personally, I believe that all living human embryos, by virtue of their humanity and life, have, as you say, the right to life. Whether that right is protected by law is an issue I am not personally equipped to tackle, as I am not involved in either writing the law or interpreting the constitution so that a law protecting that right may be written.

My issue with what Aragorn wrote has nothing to do with my believing that a human life should be snuffed out because that life itself might cause logistical problems. It has everything to do with the suggestion that conferring the legal status of personhood on the unborn may pose legal problems that are without precedent in our society. What is a person, what rights does it have over and above the right to life, and how many of these rights should be afforded to the unborn? If you have the answers to these questions, and believe that the ramifications of the answers are acceptable, then once again I invite you to look into Rand Paul’s fetal rights bill, which if it were to become law would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade, and give it your utmost support.

464

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
What if a pregnant woman does not “kill” the unborn “human” but chooses to ignore it and let it suffer or even die? I mean, if she doesn’t get proper prenatal care or eat a certain diet or engages in activities or behaviors that might harm the fetus? The fetus has the right to live but does the pregnant woman have to insure that? Does her right to sit in a hot tub get trumped by the fetus’ right to not get miscarried? [/quote]

Hot tub? Never heard that was detrimental to a fetal development. What’s the woman’s intent? To kill or just stupid?

465

[quote]pat wrote:
It should be illegal because it’s the willful taking of a human life. .[/quote]

It’s life belongs to Mom until viability

466

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
What if a pregnant woman does not “kill” the unborn “human” but chooses to ignore it and let it suffer or even die? I mean, if she doesn’t get proper prenatal care or eat a certain diet or engages in activities or behaviors that might harm the fetus? The fetus has the right to live but does the pregnant woman have to insure that? Does her right to sit in a hot tub get trumped by the fetus’ right to not get miscarried? [/quote]

Precisely.

If the rights of personhood are conferred on an embryo at the moment of conception, then the mother would be legally liable for its survival from day one. Any miscarriages directly resulting from actions taken by the mother would have to be subject to criminal investigation, and she could be held culpable in criminal negligence and manslaughter charges.

467

in our civilization viability is not like it is in the wild . Animals must make a decision whether their offspring can survive in the parents environment . It could be a winter that is pending and inadequate food supply . It could be lack of potable water . There could be many reasons why even after birth an animal would choose to protect their offspring to mitigate the circumstances

468

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

If we accept the premise of the pro-life argument that an unborn fetus is a person under the law and entitled all the rights and protections other persons under the law are, should we allow murder to be legalized for convenience? Should we allow murder to be legalized because of a logistic problem in enforcement?[/quote]

Your post is a bit difficult to understand, but I’ll try to parse it as best I can.

I can accept the premise that a fetus is alive and human, because this is self-evident. I don’t accept the premise that it is a person under the law, because it is not, and never has been. A natural person attains its personhood by virtue of being born. The unborn are by definition not persons, as the law currently stands.

You cannot “legalize murder”. Murder is by definition unlawful. Just as you cannot legalize theft or extortion. You could, but it would cease being theft or extortion.

What you can do, and what is done, is make some homicide lawful, and other homicide unlawful. Homicide in defense of one’s self or another (or property, in Texas) is legal. Homicide in a military context is legal. And currently, homicide in the context of ending an unwanted pregnancy is legal.

Murder is malicious, unlawful and unjustifiable homicide. The majority of abortions are perhaps unjustifiable, but almost never malicious, and currently almost always legal.

Now, back to prohibition. Has the prohibition of cannabis been an effective or ineffective means of controlling cannabis use?

If the state legalizes cannabis use because of the logistical difficulties in enforcing its prohibition, does this mean that we should allow methamphetamine and PCP to be legalized for the sake of convenience?

Of course not. But surely there are fundamentalist anti-drug advocates who would make this facetious argument.
[/quote]

Ok, let me see if I can clear up my very rambly writing style for ya. Not quite formal premises here, but do it bullet point style

  1. Fetus is both human and alive. Undisputed except for the crazies.
  2. The question of abortion centers around the personhood of the fetus (as law defines a person for purposes of protecting their rights)
  3. Pro life’s position is that a fetus is a person.
  4. Persons are protected by law from being killed–If you prefer I could parse this semantically but I believe you know what I am getting at. Obviously there are exceptions for persons in the commission of a violent crime on another person (self defense), or threatening police, or violently trespassing (castle law etc etc).

Now,
5) If you accept–for the sake of argument–pro lifers position that the fetus is a person under law, do you or do you not decide that murder of a fetus, being a person, is still legal due to logistical problems of enforcement? In other words do you decide to violate a person’s inalienable rights?

I do have a point here, if you humor me :)[/quote]

Even if the law presumed that the fetus was a natural person (which is without precedent in all of common law, as well as in Hammurabbic and Judaic law, as I understand it), with all rights afforded a natural person, we would still be talking about the issue of homicide, not murder. Murder is always unlawful, homicide is not. The burden is to prove that the homicide of a fetal “person” is unjustifiable, on a case-by case basis. Otherwise we would have to rule that every homicide is unlawful, regardless of extenuating circumstance.

And if you want to start talking about logistical problems of enforcement, one of the rights a natural person has is the right of citizenship. Let us assume that tomorrow a new constitutional amendment were ratified granting all living fetuses equal status with natural born persons. This would mean that every pregnant woman on US soil is carrying an American Citizen in her womb, regardless of her own citizenship or that of the baby’s father. No pregnant illegal alien could be deported, and all a foreign woman would have to do to stay in this country and receive benefits would be to get knocked up. You might try to stipulate that the baby had to be conceived or carried by a US citizen, or conceived on US soil, but how could that possibly be tested or proven? We talk about slippery slopes: this is a slippery sheer cliff that seems to me to be practically insurmountable. [/quote]

We’re simply talking about giving the right of the unborn human to live, nothing more. There are no logistical problems with that. Allowing the killing of human lives simply because it may cause logistical problems is valuing logistics over that of a human life. So you clearly believe that logistics are superior to a human life, if you believe that life should be taken because not taking it would cause logistical problems.[/quote]

Extrapolation of what I “clearly believe” from my finding the logical holes in Aragorn’s argument might prove to be problematic.

Personally, I believe that all living human embryos, by virtue of their humanity and life, have, as you say, the right to life. Whether that right is protected by law is an issue I am not personally equipped to tackle, as I am not involved in either writing the law or interpreting the constitution so that a law protecting that right may be written.

My issue with what Aragorn wrote has nothing to do with my believing that a human life should be snuffed out because that life itself might cause logistical problems. It has everything to do with the suggestion that conferring the legal status of personhood on the unborn may pose legal problems that are without precedent in our society. What is a person, what rights does it have over and above the right to life, and how many of these rights should be afforded to the unborn? If you have the answers to these questions, and believe that the ramifications of the answers are acceptable, then once again I invite you to look into Rand Paul’s fetal rights bill, which if it were to become law would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade, and give it your utmost support.
[/quote]

Personhood is too subjective a criteria to determine what possesses it and what does not. Without the clear definition of that, I stick to human life. Granting a human life the right to live should not create much logistical problem as it is the most basic of human rights. In fact it is already protected by law in many cases in where you can be arrested for homicide for killing a mother’s unborn child. Or the fact that you can be arrested, tried and convicted of double murder for the killing of a pregnant woman, as in the case of Scott Peterson.
I don’t see the problem really, the rest of the 'right’s you are talking about can simply be applied upon accessibility. You cannot give a person you cannot get any other rights than the right to be left alone; whether they be a hermit deep in the mountains or a human deep in the uterus. They should have the right not to be killed. Even illegal aliens have the right to not be killed, though they are not protected by constitutional rights. For these lower level rights, a person needs to be able to make their mark.

469

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
What if a pregnant woman does not “kill” the unborn “human” but chooses to ignore it and let it suffer or even die? I mean, if she doesn’t get proper prenatal care or eat a certain diet or engages in activities or behaviors that might harm the fetus? The fetus has the right to live but does the pregnant woman have to insure that? Does her right to sit in a hot tub get trumped by the fetus’ right to not get miscarried? [/quote]

Hot tub? Never heard that was detrimental to a fetal development. What’s the woman’s intent? To kill or just stupid?[/quote]

Oh yeah, if you ever read the warning signs by jacuzzis, you will see clear warnings that pregnant women should not enter them. All sorts of things are detrimental to a fetus’s development and survival: certain herbs such as mint should not be eaten, certainly alcohol and tobacco should be avoided, as well as industrial pollution and agricultural pesticides and herbicides. Rigorous exercise as well can cause miscarriage, so a woman carrying a one-week old fetus in her belly while rock climbing or horseback riding should be held to be just as irresponsible as the same woman doing these activities with a one-week old infant strapped to her back.

470

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
It should be illegal because it’s the willful taking of a human life. .[/quote]

It’s life belongs to Mom until viability
[/quote]
It’s life belongs to mom and dad long after it is born. Viability means nothing to the discussion. Whether it is viable outside the womb does not speak to what it is. What it is, is what matters, not what it can do, or not do.

471

[quote]pat wrote:
belongs to Mom until viability
[/quote]
It’s life belongs to mom and dad long after it is born. Viability means nothing to the discussion. Whether it is viable outside the womb does not speak to what it is. What it is, is what matters, not what it can do, or not do.[/quote]

Viability is what this discussion is about .

It’s life is portable after birth. Meaning their are many places it may reside

In the womb it has little choice

472

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
What if a pregnant woman does not “kill” the unborn “human” but chooses to ignore it and let it suffer or even die? I mean, if she doesn’t get proper prenatal care or eat a certain diet or engages in activities or behaviors that might harm the fetus? The fetus has the right to live but does the pregnant woman have to insure that? Does her right to sit in a hot tub get trumped by the fetus’ right to not get miscarried? [/quote]

Hot tub? Never heard that was detrimental to a fetal development. What’s the woman’s intent? To kill or just stupid?[/quote]

Oh yeah, if you ever read the warning signs by jacuzzis, you will see clear warnings that pregnant women should not enter them. All sorts of things are detrimental to a fetus’s development and survival: certain herbs such as mint should not be eaten, certainly alcohol and tobacco should be avoided, as well as industrial pollution and agricultural pesticides and herbicides. Rigorous exercise as well can cause miscarriage, so a woman carrying a one-week old fetus in her belly while rock climbing or horseback riding should be held to be just as irresponsible as the same woman doing these activities with a one-week old infant strapped to her back. [/quote]

Sure and many women used to smoke and drink while pregnant and not give it a second thought not to long ago. They gave birth to our parents.
That’s why I asked about intent. Millions of people have been and are born without all the admonitions we have in today’s American society. It’s the intent. If are behaving recklessly to kill your baby then it is no different than abortion. If you’re just stupid there is no cure for that.

473

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
belongs to Mom until viability
[/quote]
It’s life belongs to mom and dad long after it is born. Viability means nothing to the discussion. Whether it is viable outside the womb does not speak to what it is. What it is, is what matters, not what it can do, or not do.[/quote]

Viability is what this discussion is about .

It’s life is portable after birth. Meaning their are many places it may reside

In the womb it has little choice

[/quote]

No, it’s about whether or not it’s okay to take a human life. Viability doesn’t speak to what it is. It’s just some arbitrary moment of human development you made up to justify your position. It has no scientific or logical basis whatsoever.

474

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

Then there is the issue if a total ban is really the most effective way to diminish the amount of abortions.

finally a breath of reason[/quote]

It should be illegal because it’s the willful taking of a human life. The willful taking of a human life should be illegal regardless of the fact that people do it anyway.
You will not totally eradicate foolish or illegal behavior, but this is as basic as it gets.
The issue is about what it is, not what people do anyway. It will take more than a law to diminish it to a large enough extent, but a law would help. And there is the ethical ramifications of the so called civilized society that supports the mass killing of a lot of human life.
To be of any moral standing you must consider yourself as valuable or invaluable as any other human life. If you allow other circumstances to be the deciding circumstances of whether you allow a human to live, then you must also apply the same criteria to whether you deserve to live or die.
If by your life, you are cause logistical problems in society at large, then you must consider that you may benefit society as a whole if you were not living.[/quote]

Logistical problems? Do you mean misery? If I cause enough misery there certainly are many people that wished I died already. I might disagree.

The becoming part of life is in the hand of women. I do not have any say in it. Zilch. It’s her temple and if she wishes to desecrate it she will. We have free will, women too. The development of a fetus to a child in her mothers womb is something special. But that world doesn’t belong to men. Not that we haven’t tried to regulate it, though. Abortion is a sin we are capable of only by forcing a woman to do it. Everybody has the right to control their body. Since the female body is the vessel for new life she controls that, too. It’s quite natural.

475

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
belongs to Mom until viability
[/quote]
It’s life belongs to mom and dad long after it is born. Viability means nothing to the discussion. Whether it is viable outside the womb does not speak to what it is. What it is, is what matters, not what it can do, or not do.[/quote]

Viability is what this discussion is about .

It’s life is portable after birth. Meaning their are many places it may reside

In the womb it has little choice

[/quote]

No, it’s about whether or not it’s okay to take a human life. Viability doesn’t speak to what it is. It’s just some arbitrary moment of human development you made up to justify your position. It has no scientific or logical basis whatsoever.[/quote]

I thought we were talking about abortion and the circumstances surrounding that subject .

Not whether it is OK to put a bullet in someone’s head

476

This quote function is driving me nuts :slight_smile: I also must say I am favor of capital punishment. 2 criteria mus be met (1) absolute guilt (2) can not be trusted in society

477

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I thought we were talking about abortion and the circumstances surrounding that subject .

Not whether it is OK to put a bullet in someone’s head
[/quote]

“Viability” is a fluid concept, and entirely dependent upon our technology. It is currently possible to keep a fetus alive outside of the womb after only about 22 weeks of gestation. Next year that number may drop to 20 weeks. In the future it may be possible to gestate a fetus from zygote to infant entirely in an artificial incubator, which will make the issue of “viability” entirely moot, because every fertilized egg will be theoretically viable.

478

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

“Viability” is a fluid concept, and entirely dependent upon our technology. It is currently possible to keep a fetus alive outside of the womb after only about 22 weeks of gestation. Next year that number may drop to 20 weeks. In the future it may be possible to gestate a fetus from zygote to infant entirely in an artificial incubator, which will make the issue of “viability” entirely moot, because every fertilized egg will be theoretically viable. [/quote]

Then if it is viable , by all means remove it and place it where it is wanted

479

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

“Viability” is a fluid concept, and entirely dependent upon our technology. It is currently possible to keep a fetus alive outside of the womb after only about 22 weeks of gestation. Next year that number may drop to 20 weeks. In the future it may be possible to gestate a fetus from zygote to infant entirely in an artificial incubator, which will make the issue of “viability” entirely moot, because every fertilized egg will be theoretically viable. [/quote]

Then if it is viable , by all means remove it and place it where it is wanted

[/quote]

That, I believe, is currently within our technological capabilities. It would just be prohibitively expensive compared with in vitro fertilization. Not every woman wants to carry another woman’s unwanted fetus to term, when there are other options available.

480

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

“Viability” is a fluid concept, and entirely dependent upon our technology. It is currently possible to keep a fetus alive outside of the womb after only about 22 weeks of gestation. Next year that number may drop to 20 weeks. In the future it may be possible to gestate a fetus from zygote to infant entirely in an artificial incubator, which will make the issue of “viability” entirely moot, because every fertilized egg will be theoretically viable. [/quote]

Then if it is viable , by all means remove it and place it where it is wanted

[/quote]

That, I believe, is currently within our technological capabilities. It would just be prohibitively expensive compared with in vitro fertilization. Not every woman wants to carry another woman’s unwanted fetus to term, when there are other options available.
[/quote]

vi·a·ble
Ë?vÄ«É?bÉ?l/
adjective
adjective: viable

1.
capable of working successfully; feasible.
"the proposed investment was economically viable"
synonyms:	feasible, workable, practicable, practical, usable, possible, realistic, achievable, attainable, realizable; More