The Abortion Question

[Belsnickel]

(09-29-2015, 11:33 AM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: That's why I asked if he would be ok with it if the jury decided the punishment.

Didn't you just get all mad at me for ignoring points?

Typically speaking, if I understand the system correctly in most places, the jury recommends and the judge decides. That being said, even if it was a jury making the decision I would not agree with it. People not directly involved in the situation should not be making such a life and death decision in that situation. Even with that I am more willing to accept the death penalty than an abortion ban because in the case of a death penalty being handed down the case is decided on an individual basis. A blanket ban refuses to take into account the large number of variables that can be involved.

[Brownshoe]

(09-29-2015, 02:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I love how people try to ignore the fact that it is possible to keep a human child alive outside of the womb, but it is completely impossible, even with all assistance possible, to keep a fetus alive outside the womb.




The entire question comes down to balancing individual rights of the mother against individual rights of the child.  Until the fetus becomes an individual then it is not entitled to individual rights greater than those of the mother. 

It is a legal argument about the rights of an individual.  Not a philosophical argument about when life begins.

The fetus is not entitled to any individual rights until it is an individual.  And as long as it is impossible to live without the host mother it is not an individual.

It's funny that under the law one becomes an individual based on the medical technology that we have at the time. Why would something be based off of medical technology when that technology improves constantly? Wouldn't that be unfair for people who weren't considered individuals because their life began before certain scientific discoveries?

[fredtoast]

(09-29-2015, 06:57 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: It's funny that under the law one becomes an individual based on the medical technology that we have at the time. Why would something be based off of medical technology when that technology improves constantly? Wouldn't that be unfair for people who weren't considered individuals because their life began before certain scientific discoveries?

The law may change with advancements in technology.  But courts have to deal with reality, not philosophy.  And right now in the world of reality a fetus is not an individual because it is impossible for it to survive outside the womb until the third trimester.

[Brownshoe]

(09-29-2015, 07:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The law may change with advancements in technology.  But courts have to deal with reality, not philosophy.  And right now in the world of reality a fetus is not an individual because it is impossible for it to survive outside the womb until the third trimester.

In reality the courts are allowing people to take away life, because technology isn't advanced enough. You want to try and act like the courts can't deal with philosophy, but it's a simple undeniable fact that becoming a individual IS based on philosophy. There is no black and white facts that say when people become "individuals". They are basing becoming an individual on technology that we have now, and not if it's a human life or not (which obviously it is).

[fredtoast]

(09-29-2015, 08:11 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: They are basing becoming an individual on technology that we have now, and not if it's a human life or not (which obviously it is).

They HAVE to base it on technology that we have right now.  They have to deal with reality.  And the reality is that a fetus is not an individual unless it can live as an individual.  

A woman has rights over her own body.  You can't interfere with those rights unless they are in conflict with the rights of another individual.  And a fetus is not a separate individual until it is possible that it can live as an individual apart from the mother.

No one is saying this is an easy issue to deal with.  But at this point I think the courts have it right.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-29-2015, 02:20 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: My point was that the people, IE the jury, decide guilt or innocence. I thought I made that clear.

Imagine if the government decided guilt or innocence.

I thought I made it clear laws, courts, judges, and juries are part of the judicial branch of government.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-29-2015, 02:21 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Google it, it's great.

What am I supposed to google?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-29-2015, 05:33 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Morning after pill.

Tell me the instructions for the morning after pill.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-29-2015, 06:57 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: It's funny that under the law one becomes an individual based on the medical technology that we have at the time. Why would something be based off of medical technology when that technology improves constantly? Wouldn't that be unfair for people who weren't considered individuals because their life began before certain scientific discoveries?

Medical technology can be used to determine death.

[Brownshoe]

(09-30-2015, 01:30 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Medical technology can be used to determine death.

And your point is?

The point where someone is dead doesn't change with the advancement if technology.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-30-2015, 02:17 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: And your point is?

The point where someone is dead doesn't change with the advancement if technology.

Yes, it does. Yes, it has.

[Brownshoe]

(09-30-2015, 02:22 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Yes, it does. Yes, it has.

No it doesn't.

Technology can prevent death, or revive someone. It doesn't change the point when someone is dead.

[Belsnickel]

(09-30-2015, 05:45 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: No it doesn't.

Technology can prevent death, or revive someone. It doesn't change the point when someone is dead.

It has changed the point at which we declare someone as dead. The countless numbers of lives saved in modern times because of our knowledge of physiology and the technology we have available where in previous centuries and decades they would have been declared dead already would disagree with you, sir.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-30-2015, 05:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It has changed the point at which we declare someone as dead. The countless numbers of lives saved in modern times because of our knowledge of physiology and the technology we have available where in previous centuries and decades they would have been declared dead already would disagree with you, sir.

And bingo was his name-o.

[GMDino]

(09-30-2015, 05:45 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: No it doesn't.

Technology can prevent death, or revive someone. It doesn't change the point when someone is dead.

Okay.

[Brownshoe]

(09-30-2015, 05:58 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Okay.

And that picture does what other than prove my point?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-30-2015, 05:59 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: And that picture does what other than prove my point?

How does it prove your point?

[Brownshoe]

(09-30-2015, 05:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It has changed the point at which we declare someone as dead. The countless numbers of lives saved in modern times because of our knowledge of physiology and the technology we have available where in previous centuries and decades they would have been declared dead already would disagree with you, sir.

That's not technology changing when someone is dead.

[Brownshoe]

(09-30-2015, 06:00 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: How does it prove your point?

Because it's not changing the point when someone is dead. Its just reviving them from death.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-30-2015, 06:01 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: That's not technology changing when someone is dead.

How so?  Technology has changed the definition of death and when we declare someone dead.