The Roe V Wade Protests are Coming

a reply to: PageLC14

OK, so your position is based on your definition of viability. Fair enough.

I look at it a little differently, which is why I asked. While I appreciate your argument, I tend to look at sentience instead of viability as the defining line between an attempt at life and a complete life. Science tells us all (even those who refuse to listen) that the defining line between two products of the parents' bodies and a separate, unique individual is the moment of fertilization. At that point, the fertilized egg has potential viability given the proper environment, and that proper environment is available if it can take advantage. However, as you say, until implantation in the uterus (not an extremely common event in itself) that unique, separate life cannot develop; many fertilized eggs never implant and thus never even are known to have existed.

That's the science; the politics is where I run into issues with simple viability. There are three distinct humans here: the mother, the father and the child. Of the three, the father's rights would have less weight as his life is not in danger and his body is not the vessel used for gestation. That's not to say he would have no rights in the matter (as so many try to maintain), just that his rights are limited in scope compared to the other two.

The mother certainly has the right to a healthy life; I support abortion for medical emergencies on legitimate medical advice until the moment of birth (although I doubt there are many late-term instances where abortion is medically preferable to early birth). The child, however, also has the right to life; it did not ask to be created, and every human life seeks to survive. That is one of the most basic human endeavors: survival.

That survival depends in large part on the mother, however. A woman who is obsessed with terminating a pregnancy will do whatever she can do accomplish that, including harm herself. So I am faced with the decision between the child dying and the mother surviving and both dying or the mother at least being severely injured by her own actions. I don't want that, and I don't think anyone really does.

Sentience is a type of compromise for me. A fertilized egg is not sentient (at least we have no indication it is or explanation of how it can be). A full term child is sentient. Understanding that nature abhors a discontinuity, that sentience must develop over some period of time between fertilization and birth. The problem is that no one knows when that happens.

Your proposal interested me because at the time of implantation, there are no organs or specialized cells developed. In essence, the zygote is a mass of identical fertilized cells (stem cells). Thus, how can there be sentience? If there is no sentience, then there can be no pain and no suffering from death... life may be preferable at this point, but since life is not always possible, my feeling is that an early death before sentience starts to develop is far preferable to one after the child becomes sentient to some degree.

In short, it seems we came to the same conclusion using different thought processes.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

so your position is based on your definition of viability.

Not my definition, the definition.

I tend to look at sentience instead of viability as the defining line between an attempt at life and a complete life.

That's your right, as long as you understand sentience has no effect on viability and, unfortunalty, sentience is a nebulous term and doesn't lend itself easily to quantifiability. So, as of now, it can't yet be used in a scientific analysis of viable human.

The politics is where I run into issues with simple viability.

I'm not concerned with the politics . I'll take my science and law.

The problem is that no one knows when that happens

That is precisely the problem and why we can't look to nebulous ideas for the facts of the matter.

If there is no sentience, then there can be no pain and no suffering from death...

As long as you understand that is a moral argument and not based on science or law



As far as I can glean, and unless you would like to offer evidence to the contrary, science says a new viable human is created at implantation and the law has given viable humans , even in the womb, all the protections afforded under our laws.

That's my position

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I don't think that's what it says at all. I think it says what it says:
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

You all are construing the idea that reproductive are rights aren't listed among the rights like freedom of religion or speech, therefore the court has the right to deny those rights from the people who have retained them.

I'm not speaking for anyone else but myself. The COTUS is a minimalist document meant to restrain the federal government and keep powers with the States and People. We seem to agree on that. What you seem to be saying is that if you want something to be a right, it's yours alone and no one can take it from you.

Here's the thing: the State legislatures are invested with the legislative powers of the People of their State, and per the 10th Amendment those legislatures can regulate anything you think is a right of the People... unless the People vote them out and replace with legislators they like.

So you have one group of legislatures like California and New York, then you have others like Oklahoma and Texas.

Believe it or not, that means the system is working as intended. If you don't like the policies of a State, you are not forced to live there.

a reply to: PageLC14

Well, I feel like I have just been put in my place! Understand: it was never my intention to argue this with you. I found your position intriguing and wanted more information on how you arrived at it.

That said, I will address a couple of points I think are germane.

sentience has no effect on viability

I disagree. Sentience, defined as the ability to comprehend one's own existence, is indeed a necessity to viability. Viability is the ability to grow and thrive under proper environmental conditions. I maintain that such is impossible without active thought.

unfortunalty, sentience is a nebulous term and doesn't lend itself easily to quantifiability. So, as of now, it can't yet be used in a scientific analysis of viable human.

In a strict scientific sense, that is correct. I'm honestly not sure if that will ever change in the foreseeable future, either. However, there are times when science cannot answer a query based on the strictest sense. I believe the issue of sentience is one of those times.

A child born without an active cerebral cortex can (although typically will not) survive outside the womb. Life support is available as long as enough autonomous mechanisms are in place to allow the blood to flow and be oxygenated. Nutrition can be given via IV. Those conditions define an environment that can sustain a life. However, I doubt anyone would agree that such a life, lying motionless and thoughtless on a bed somewhere surrounded by attendees and machinery, is what we would define as a life. The person so encumbered may be technically alive, but that life has no meaning to them. They cannot perceive it.

Similarly, an adult can suffer a head injury that renders them "brain-dead" yet still have enough autonomous function to survive on life support. Yet, few families will demand that such life support be maintained indefinitely. The person no longer has sentience; at that point the body is simply maintaining some of the life functions; the person is dead and no one has ever recovered from such a condition.

I'll take my science and law.

As will I, but law is based more often than not on politics. There can be no law which does not include politics in its inception, because the process of passing a law is inherently political. And in some ways, this can be a good thing. A law should take into account the individual concerns the people have. Those concerns may or may not be logical, but they do exist and to ignore them is to ignore the will of the people.

If a law were passed that outlawed all abortions once the zygote implants, which is well before any woman even realizes she is pregnant, the end result would not be less abortions... it would be as many abortions and more deaths of young, scared women. I want to see a balance struck where abortion is a rare event which almost never occurs outside the first trimester, but where women do not harm themselves trying to self-abort or by going to some quack in a back alley office.

That is precisely the problem and why we can't look to nebulous ideas for the facts of the matter.

It is a problem. It would be much easier if we could state "sentience occurs at exactly X weeks and Y days." We cannot do that. Even though we might never be able to strictly define a timeline, however, it does not follow that we cannot make educated guesses. Does the embryo react to exterior conditions inside the womb? Has the brain developed enough to question whether or not sentience may be present? Those are questions we can answer and which will provide a clue as to the level of sentience a child may possess.

That's my position

And I respect that. I was simply curious as to your thought process.

TheRedneck

Update - Friday 6.24.2022 Comment...

Now that Roe v Wade has been struck down: www.msnbc.com...

Most protests are non-violent, because America was notified of this decision via a so-called "leak", last month.

The (still unknown) leaker deserves a pat on the back for diffusing over the past 30 days, what would have been a powder-keg situation this weekend.

-cwm

a reply to: PageLC14

What silly drivel.

The complications of pregnancy are well known and documented. Life threatening complications can occur up to and beyond birth.

a reply to: carewemust

This makes no sense. If there were going to be violent protests they would have occurred then, in the meantime or now. The decision is the decision. A time delay wouldn't stop it. Weren't you posting all the warnings of the violence that was going to occur on various dates?

Maybe the explanation is that these protesters are not violent, nor were they hijacked by any violent groups, left or right.

originally posted by: carewemust
Update - Friday 6.24.2022 Comment...

Now that Roe v Wade has been struck down: www.msnbc.com...

Most protests are non-violent, because America was notified of this decision via a so-called "leak", last month.

The (still unknown) leaker deserves a pat on the back for diffusing over the past 30 days, what would have been a powder-keg situation this weekend.

-cwm

I think that's exactly the situation. The lead gave people time to grieve and defused a more hysterical and violent response.