And they try again...

[hollodero]

(01-25-2017, 06:40 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I think there has to be a pretty extreme situation like the mother will die.

I'm pro choice only up to a point, so I would certainly hope so. 

Just: Says who? 
Who says it's illegal otherwise (I really do not get that)?

[*michaelsean*]

(01-25-2017, 06:48 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'm pro choice only up to a point, so I would certainly hope so. 

Just: Says who? 
Who says it's illegal otherwise (I really do not get that)?

A lot of it is mapped out in the Supreme Court decision.  They divided it up into trimesters.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-25-2017, 06:07 PM)hollodero Wrote: Wikipedia gives me this:

Quote:Many members of the medical community accept fertilization as the point at which life begins. Dr. Bradley M. Patten from the University of Michigan wrote in Human Embryology that the union of the sperm and the ovum "initiates the life of a new individual" (1)beginning "a new individual life history." In the standard college text book Psychology and Life, Dr. Floyd L. Ruch wrote "At the time of conception, two living germ cells—the sperm from the father and the egg, or ovum, from the mother—unite to produce a new individual (2)." Dr. Herbert Ratner wrote that "It is now of unquestionable certainty that a human being comes into existence precisely at the moment when the sperm combines with the egg." This certain knowledge, Ratner says, comes from the study of genetics. At fertilization, all of the genetic characteristics, such as the color of the eyes, "are laid down determinatively."(3) James C. G. Conniff noted the prevalence of the above views in a study published by The New York Times Magazine in which he wrote, "At that moment conception takes place (4) and, scientists generally agree, a new life begins(5)—silent, secret, unknown."[22]

This is how the semantics arguments misuse science . . .

1 The quote says "new individual," not new life.

2 Again, "new individual"

3 Not entirely true.  The sperm and ovum DNA don't combine "precisely at the moment when the sperm combines with the egg." As I've already indicated the DNA from the pronuclei of the gametes don't combine for approximately 23 hours later.

4 Some sources indicate conception is an imprecise term and should be avoided.  

5 Look at the first two quotes, they say new individual not new life.  So when James C. G. Conniff writes "scientists generally agree, a new life begins" does he mean "new individual" and used "new life" because he misunderstood what scientists generally agree upon?


Let me try to explain it differently.  Think of life as an inheritable trait like eye color.  You inherit eye color genes from both gametes.  You inherit life from both gametes.  Unless one or both gametes is dead in which case a new individual isn't formed.  Some chromosomal abnormalities are incompatible with life.  It is believed chromosomal abnormalities are the most common cause of spontaneous abortions.  Well, if one of the gametes is dead that's a pretty serious chromosomal abnormality.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-25-2017, 06:35 PM)hollodero Wrote: Seems like it. Although I feel most scientists will more or less use fertilization or a moment very shortly after conception as the starting point. If science even can answer this question and if there is any definite starting point at all, which I would doubt (both intellectually and strategically).

Most, if not all, will agree it is the start of a new individual.  But, my general feeling is most won't go so far as to say fertilization is the start of new life for all of the reasons I have stated.  I've had years of biology including multiple courses in development biology, embyology, and OB/GYN from multiple professors and preceptors.  I didn't come up with this crap on my own.

Quote:I never guessed. After all we're completely on the same side here, so I never figured this was an act of deliberate liberal on liberal violence or anything :)


Oh, I thought I made that clear already. I fully agree with your worries. I too would think it's probably a first step to outlaw abortion. As I said, I'd feel very uneasy and understand you.


OK, that looks grim.
And the Roe vs. Wade solution seems a bit strange, too. Would that mean abortion, as of now, would be legal just until birth?

That's where the issue of viability comes in.  In most cases, abortion is allowed up to the point the embryo is viable.  Once the embryo is viable, the right to life of the embryo supercedes the rights of the woman.  In most cases, abortion after the point of viability (later term abortion) isn't allowed under the law.  But, the law varies from state to state.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-25-2017, 06:48 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'm pro choice only up to a point, so I would certainly hope so. 

Just: Says who? 
Who says it's illegal otherwise (I really do not get that)?

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html

https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws

[hollodero]

(01-25-2017, 07:22 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: This is how the semantics arguments misuse science . . .

1 The quote says "new individual," not new life.

2 Again, "new individual"

3 Not entirely true.  The sperm and ovum DNA don't combine "precisely at the moment when the sperm combines with the egg." As I've already indicated the DNA from the pronuclei of the gametes don't combine for approximately 23 hours later.

4 Some sources indicate conception is an imprecise term and should be avoided.  

5 Look at the first two quotes, they say new individual not new life.  So when James C. G. Conniff writes "scientists generally agree, a new life begins" does he mean "new individual" and used "new life" because he misunderstood what scientists generally agree upon?


Let me try to explain it differently.  Think of life as an inheritable trait like eye color.  You inherit eye color genes from both gametes.  You inherit life from both gametes.  Unless one or both gametes is dead in which case a new individual isn't formed.  Some chromosomal abnormalities are incompatible with life.  It is believed chromosomal abnormalities are the most common cause of spontaneous abortions.  Well, if one of the gametes is dead that's a pretty serious chromosomal abnormality.

Yeah well, I think I get some of it. It seems rather vague the one way or the other, and the more I learn the more vague it gets. Which, yes, is your point.
I suppose vagueness won't really help your cause though. See point 3, 23 hours up or down don't do much... if there is a political will to proceed as feared, science won't probably really help you. Even though you make some solid points (I guess).
If I had known you have expertise, I wouldn't have been so restive :) I don't, but usually no one has, so I tend to get through :)

Keeping this Roe v. Wade verdict up probably is the more promising way than a semantic science debate. Thanks for the links, I think I saw through it somehow. Basically, it's first trimester with wiggle room from state to state. If I extracted the information correctly.

Here's to Pence not coming through on that one. Cheers.

[BmorePat87]

(01-25-2017, 12:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The reason this makes the most sense, is because after fertilization has occurred, the Zygote is now genetically unique from its parents.
One of the main arguments against it was the egg can split up to 15 days after fertilization has occurred and create multiple individuals with the same DNA code. However, science has discovered that twins do not have the exact same genetic code. Anyways, that is another possible legal point to start with, 15 days after fertilization when the zygote can no longer multiply.

"A person's is a person no matter how small."  Dr. Seuss

Is an unborn human any less of a human?

Fair enough, thank you for explaining your view. So as soon as you have our legal definition, aligned with your scientific reasoning, we are recognizing life and the fact that they are a person with constitutionally protected right?

I guess for my own point of view, I have a harder time saying that something is a person with rights if it is unborn and unable to survive outside of the womb. 

I mean, ideally I wish we lived in a world where we did not need abortions and we could prevent pregnancy long before that was necessary, but until then, I also have trouble suggesting that a zygote is its own person with rights when it lacks an identity or survival outside of the woman carrying it. A good first step is providing free or nearly free birth control to all Americans. 

[Belsnickel]

(01-26-2017, 12:15 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I mean, ideally I wish we lived in a world where we did not need abortions and we could prevent pregnancy long before that was necessary, but until then, I also have trouble suggesting that a zygote is its own person with rights when it lacks an identity or survival outside of the woman carrying it. A good first step is providing free or nearly free birth control to all Americans. 

So this goes towards something that I had a conversation about last night, that what is going on in the political arena right now isn't even about political differences, it's about something else entirely. And because of that, we need to find some conversations based on reason to come together to fight the vitriol. This is one of those to me.

One common ground for everyone, whether they be pro-choice or pro-life, is reducing the number of abortions. No matter how some folks on the pro-life side like to paint the pro-choicers, I don't think you could find a sane person that did not want to reduce the number of abortions performed in this country. So why can't we find common ground outside of legislating the abortion procedure itself since it is such a divisive and emotional topic and look at the policies that we can use to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Yes, we all know abstinence is the only sure fire way, but it's been proven that abstinence only policies fail us. So let's be proactive, and not reactive, and work on preventing the need for the services of abortion providers.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-26-2017, 11:01 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So this goes towards something that I had a conversation about last night, that what is going on in the political arena right now isn't even about political differences, it's about something else entirely. And because of that, we need to find some conversations based on reason to come together to fight the vitriol. This is one of those to me.  

One common ground for everyone, whether they be pro-choice or pro-life, is reducing the number of abortions. No matter how some folks on the pro-life side like to paint the pro-choicers, I don't think you could find a sane person that did not want to reduce the number of abortions performed in this country. So why can't we find common ground outside of legislating the abortion procedure itself since it is such a divisive and emotional topic and look at the policies that we can use to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Yes, we all know abstinence is the only sure fire way, but it's been proven that abstinence only policies fail us. So let's be proactive, and not reactive, and work on preventing the need for the services of abortion providers.

Yeah, look what happened to Joseph and Mary. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-26-2017, 12:15 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Fair enough, thank you for explaining your view. So as soon as you have our legal definition, aligned with your scientific reasoning, we are recognizing life and the fact that they are a person with constitutionally protected right?

I guess for my own point of view, I have a harder time saying that something is a person with rights if it is unborn and unable to survive outside of the womb. 

I mean, ideally I wish we lived in a world where we did not need abortions and we could prevent pregnancy long before that was necessary, but until then, I also have trouble suggesting that a zygote is its own person with rights when it lacks an identity or survival outside of the woman carrying it. A good first step is providing free or nearly free birth control to all Americans. 

I agree about finding a middle ground for both sides, which is why I keep hoping for 3 months.

Free BC is another idea, one that I would want 100% covered under Universal Healthcare. I would rather the women have the choice than to not have the choice to use BC.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-26-2017, 11:01 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So this goes towards something that I had a conversation about last night, that what is going on in the political arena right now isn't even about political differences, it's about something else entirely. And because of that, we need to find some conversations based on reason to come together to fight the vitriol. This is one of those to me.  

One common ground for everyone, whether they be pro-choice or pro-life, is reducing the number of abortions. No matter how some folks on the pro-life side like to paint the pro-choicers, I don't think you could find a sane person that did not want to reduce the number of abortions performed in this country. So why can't we find common ground outside of legislating the abortion procedure itself since it is such a divisive and emotional topic and look at the policies that we can use to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Yes, we all know abstinence is the only sure fire way, but it's been proven that abstinence only policies fail us. So let's be proactive, and not reactive, and work on preventing the need for the services of abortion providers.

I'm not trying to be dickish here, but I've never understood why pro-choice people care about the number of abortions.  If to them it really is just a clump of cells, and I believe they believe that, who cares?  

[GMDino]

(01-27-2017, 10:39 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm not trying to be dickish here, but I've never understood why pro-choice people care about the number of abortions.  If to them it really is just a clump of cells, and I believe they believe that, who cares?  

I can't answer for everyone but I pro-choice and anti-abortion.  I want education and services that can lead a couple or a woman to NOT getting pregnant in the first place and then NOT choosing an abortion if at all possible.  Limiting the number of abortions is a fantastic thing in my book.  

But I don't get to make that choice.

Just like I have educated my kids about the dangers of premarital sex but I can't force them to wait until they are married.

It's not my choice...and I think everyone gets to make their own choice.  I just hope its the right one.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-27-2017, 10:52 AM)GMDino Wrote: I can't answer for everyone but I pro-choice and anti-abortion.  I want education and services that can lead a couple or a woman to NOT getting pregnant in the first place and then NOT choosing an abortion if at all possible.  Limiting the number of abortions is a fantastic thing in my book.  

But I don't get to make that choice.

Just like I have educated my kids about the dangers of premarital sex but I can't force them to wait until they are married.

It's not my choice...and I think everyone gets to make their own choice.  I just hope its the right one.

No I get what you want to do to lower the number, but why?  Is it because any procedure has the chance to be dangerous?  That kind of thing?  Is it a feeling of "Well yeah it's a clump of cells, but it's not quite the same as another clump of cells?"  Like it's their right but I'm not really comfortable with it because if it isn't a human life now it's going to be.

[GMDino]

(01-27-2017, 11:07 AM)michaelsean Wrote: No I get what you want to do to lower the number, but why?  Is it because any procedure has the chance to be dangerous?  That kind of thing?  Is it a feeling of "Well yeah it's a clump of cells, but it's not quite the same as another clump of cells?"  Like it's their right but I'm not really comfortable with it because if it isn't a human life now it's going to be.

Again, personally, I feel that if there is no abortion then the fetus has a chance at life.

I just don't put the fetus' "rights" ahead of the mothers rights.

Both our our children were born at just over 26 weeks.  The amount of effort it took to care for them until they were big enough to come home is amazing.

Earlier births are even harder.

But I feel they should have that chance IF the mother chooses.  I know, it's complicated.

[Benton]

most of us long time pnr'ers know each others stances. We've gone over this issue more than I care to. On the boards, and in my every day life, I've criticized Republican lawmakers for running on abortion platforms, but only voting on abortion issues when they know they wont pass.

ill give credit where it's due, they may actually do what they say this time.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-27-2017, 10:39 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm not trying to be dickish here, but I've never understood why pro-choice people care about the number of abortions.  If to them it really is just a clump of cells, and I believe they believe that, who cares?  

They might believe it is a clump of cells or they may not. I'm not telling you you need to believe it is just a clump of cells.  I'm not telling you that you need to believe it is a human being. You can believe what you want and make your decisions accordingly. 

[Belsnickel]

(01-27-2017, 10:39 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm not trying to be dickish here, but I've never understood why pro-choice people care about the number of abortions.  If to them it really is just a clump of cells, and I believe they believe that, who cares?  

It's not just a clump of cells to everyone that is pro-choice. There are many pro-choice people that believe abortion to be morally wrong for a number of reasons, including religious ones, that even go so far as to believe life begins at conception. However, they don't believe it is the government's place to make that call. Even those that may not see a blastocyst or an embryo as a human life can want to reduce abortions. A terminated pregnancy, whether voluntary or not, carries with it complications and risks for potential trauma that are not just physical.

As a society, it is better for us to work at proactively reducing unwanted pregnancies altogether because it can reduce the burden on welfare programs, reduce the number or abortions, reduce the number of foster children in the system, and a whole host of other issues. Simply put, better availability to reproductive health care and education on the issues can help reduce the number and need for a lot of things the conservative agenda tends to be against.

[*bfine32*]

(01-27-2017, 01:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's not just a clump of cells to everyone that is pro-choice. There are many pro-choice people that believe abortion to be morally wrong for a number of reasons, including religious ones, that even go so far as to believe life begins at conception. However, they don't believe it is the government's place to make that call. Even those that may not see a blastocyst or an embryo as a human life can want to reduce abortions. A terminated pregnancy, whether voluntary or not, carries with it complications and risks for potential trauma that are not just physical.

As a society, it is better for us to work at proactively reducing unwanted pregnancies altogether because it can reduce the burden on welfare programs, reduce the number or abortions, reduce the number of foster children in the system, and a whole host of other issues. Simply put, better availability to reproductive health care and education on the issues can help reduce the number and need for a lot of things the conservative agenda tends to be against.

..and not everyone that is Pro life is against reproductive health care and education; it's just some folks like to generalize. Many think that if someone with an interest in the child wants it, can provide it a safe stable environment, the child was not a result of a crime or act of immorality, and carrying the child to term causes no medical threat to the biological mother then the kid should be given a chance to life; regardless of the temporary inconvenience of the person that freely participated in the process.

[*bfine32*]

(01-27-2017, 11:23 AM)Benton Wrote: most of us long time pnr'ers know each others stances. We've gone over this issue more than I care to. On the boards, and in my every day life, I've criticized Republican lawmakers for running on abortion platforms, but only voting on abortion issues when they know they wont pass.

ill give credit where it's due, they may actually do what they say this time.

..and then watch the 180 that advoactes for State's rights does on both sides. I just hope we remember on what side of state's rights we've been on in the past if this occurs.

[Belsnickel]

(01-27-2017, 02:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and not everyone that is Pro life is against reproductive health care and education; it's just some folks like to generalize. Many think that if someone with an interest in the child wants it, can provide it a safe stable environment, the child was not a result of a crime or act of immorality, and carrying the child to term causes no medical threat to the biological mother then the kid should be given a chance to life; regardless of the temporary inconvenience of the person that freely participated in the process.

Thank you for reinforcing my point, that there is common ground if we look at being proactive about the issue of unwanted pregnancies rather than focusing on the divisive, surface level issue of abortion access and the ideological position that is going to be hard to move anyone from. That instead of focusing on that debate, we should instead focus our efforts on reducing the number of people that feel the desire to seek an abortion to begin with because all of us can agree to that being a good thing.