posted
KoM, I hope you're not under 27 (years of age) because that is when the latest research is showing that the brain is fully formed. If we want to perpetuate this shifting baseline, that is where it stops.
z- are you saying that along with KoM you are suggesting that up to 3 years of age a child should be able to be disposed of on demand by its parents? That may work in a world where we cut off a testicle of an aborting father each time he requires one.
Jim-Me, BtL is Canadian and may not appreciate the nuances of your points. I hate both the NRA and NOW/Planned Parenthood. As institutions.
Sorry Bob, for my geocentrism. I think I see how I lost and offended you, but I was really only addressing US law, not fundamental rights. Hope that makes my post a little less condescending?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think 'capable of empathy and speech' is an excellent definition of a human, and by that definition, children under three (approximately) do not qualify. But I want to emphasize that I am not prepared to take the consequences of such a definition. When I say 'strictly speaking,' I intend to imply that that is what an alien with none of our cultural baggage might choose. Particularly if the alien were a Vulcan, all logic and no heart.
The point I'm making is that any cutoff point (conception, third birthday, twenty-seventh birthday) is totally arbitrary, so we might as well define it to our own convenience.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM makes a good point. As I have watched my kids grow and develop, I keep asking myself "Is my kid as smart as dog yet? A monkee? A tree stump?" My youngest child isn't really a person yet. But I love her anyway.
quote: Please add a smilie to that KOM or I might think you're serious.
Led me to believe that you agreed with KoM's line of reasoning, that brain function determines humanity.
[change directions] I was thinking about this, since my opinion on when life begins does not necessarily call for my demanding that all abortion be made illegal tomorrow. An effective policy is one that helps people rather than hurt them.
So getting back to Space Opera's question of attitudes: I was thinking that the attitude that "sex and reproduction are inseparable" is not going to get us anywhere. One's view on this pretty well reflects, or stems from, one's view on when life begins.
What about the idea that "Sex is a way of bonding two life partners". That we don't treat pregnancy as only a woman's problem. If she is all alone, that is as big a problem as that she has an unwanted pregnancy.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka -- the attitude "sex and reproduction are inseparable" is not mutually exclusive with "Sex is a way of bonding two life partners".
I personally believe that they are inseperable. Well, heterosexual sex is. There is nothing that I know of that will completely insulate you from the risk of pregnancy except for abstinance.
But that doesn't mean that sex is only for reproduction. It is a very important way for spouses (spice?) to come together in many ways.
quote:I personally believe that they are inseperable. Well, heterosexual sex is. There is nothing that I know of that will completely insulate you from the risk of pregnancy except for abstinance.
Last I heard a hysterectomy was also a pretty sure thing. Other surgical forms of sterilization marginally less so.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think hysterectomy is used as a birth control method. I think that is only resorted to if there is a pathology of the uterus.
Also, eggs have been known to implant in other tissue. I only know of one case that carried to term, but I was in high school when I heard about it so who knows if it is true.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a point, dkw. If yo completely remove the womb or the ovaries (or the testicles), then pregnancy will be impossible. Some conditions also prevent pregnancy. But AFAIK, people don't use any of those as birth control.
posted
Dramatics aside, I cannot and will not require a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if she does not choose to.
The only alternative is to strap her into a gourney and keep her under lockdown until the child is born to ensure the safety and well-being. Back-street abortions notwithstanding, are we as a society going to assume responsibility for dictating how the would-be mother lives? "No crack for you. No liquor for you. No smoking for you. No red meat for you. No fast food for you."
The commonly accepted standard requires the child to have been "born" - meaning it has come out of the hatch, one way or another and is capable of basic functions on its own. To be fair, we do have custodial replacements for biological parents -> DFACS, among others. Which are strained to the breaking point already with relatively self-sustaining children.
As Dag would thoughtfully remind me, is the current criteria an arbitrary standard? Certainly. We assume if the child is wanted by the mother, we can prosecute acts that endanger it's welfare. If the child is not wanted by the mother, we do not prosecute her for opting for an abortion. For that matter, we don't even prosecute the mother for making unsafe choices - smoking, drinking, etc. unless the unsafe act is a criminal behavior in and of itself, like smoking crack or consuming other drugs.
To sum this minor rant up: making abortions illegal will not stop women who decide, for whatever reason, to have one. We have been down that road and I don't want to go back.
quote: My youngest child isn't really a person yet. But I love her anyway.
How old is your youngest? My daughter is about 16 months old, and she has been a distinct person since she was born. Everything she did gave us a clue about her personality. We didn't know it with our first, because we just thought "all babies do this". But after having a second to compare with, their individual personalities were easy to distinguish.
I've heard that the smartest labs are as smart as a 3-year-old. I certainly hope not, because when I look at the schemes and things my kids come up with, I realize that I really don't want that type of intelligence to have sharp, pointy teeth.
quote: We assume if the child is wanted by the mother, we can prosecute acts that endanger it's welfare. If the child is not wanted by the mother, we do not prosecute her for opting for an abortion.
So the mother gets to choose whether or not it's a human. That seems less reliable than any other standard I've seen, considering the mental and hormonal jumping-jacks they have to do while they're pregnant.
Side note: CT, I'm still researching what you suggested about my mom. I want to talk to Grandma before I release findings.
posted
I'll take your word for the jumping jacks, but I do concede the massive change to the body can and does have the ability to alter or influence the mother's judgement.
That being said, I'm not about to declare pregnant women mentally incompetent or incapable of making decisions until after they give birth - and with the possibility of post-partum depression, a good while after that.
posted
PSI -- our youngest daughter is 12 months old. She certainly has a distinct personality. All three of our kids have been pretty different from the start.
But dogs and cats and monkees can also have personalities. I'm just saying that if you look at her as she is now (ignoring what she will become), she isn't really any more of what we consider "people" than a monkee is.
posted
Hey CT, My Grandma had 7 kids. I can't imagine what she would have been like with more. What we've got is bad enough. (if you are a newbie go back and find some of my "Grandma threads")
quote: The commonly accepted standard requires the child to have been "born" - meaning it has come out of the hatch, one way or another and is capable of basic functions on its own.
Well, this may be the de facto standard (to be honest, I'm not positive I know what that means), but it is obviously not a universally held standard, or people wouldn't object to abortions. Which many do.
quote: To sum this minor rant up: making abortions illegal will not stop women who decide, for whatever reason, to have one. We have been down that road and I don't want to go back.
If abortion were outlawed again, would there still be some abortions? Sure. Would there be as many? I cannot see how there would be.
For example, if marijuanna were legalized today and you could buy it at the gas station, do you think that more people would smoke pot? Would they do it more often? Almost certainly.
posted
No, I certainly don’t think hysterectomies are (or should be) used as birth control.
I was just pointing out that it is possible to completely separate the possibility of reproduction from heterosexual intercourse. Which is important, if we’re talking about the purpose/nature/meaning of sex. Is the purpose/nature/meaning different for someone who can not possibly become pregnant different than for a couple who technically could, but are using some form of birth control?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
no problem, man... I was just confused because I really was trying to be neutral and I had seemingly really insulted someone I like, so I wanted to make sure we were good.
Glad we are. consider us made up Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that those who cannot conceive are keenly aware of the connection between sex and reproduction. But I'm saying that the purpose of sex in creating a relationship between two people that love each other is a value we can start from. When a woman shows up alone with an unwanted pregnancy, I think that is more in need ot treatment than the pregnancy. She has either been abandoned or has herself used sex to try to create more intimacy than actually existed in the relationship.
I'm not even saying no unmarried sex. I am saying our culture should possess ethics against one night stands and cheating. I know that wouldn't end all abortions tomorrow. I'm talking about finding common ground. (p.s. Common ground toward diminishing unwanted pregnancy, which is a problem whether you believe abortion or adoption is the solution)
quote: Is the purpose/nature/meaning different for someone who can not possibly become pregnant different than for a couple who technically could, but are using some form of birth control?
I would say yes, because if you *can* become pregnant, then intercourse always carries the risk of pregnancy. You can change the odds, but the risk is always there.
posted
Hmm. I think I disagree. Positing two couples with similar worldviews/religious beliefs/attitudes about sex, one couple using birth control and the other couple unable to become pregnant because of past surgery, I image that they would engage in sex for similar reasons and attach similar meaning and purpose to it. I don't see it as qualitatively different just because one couple has a slight risk of unintented consequences and the other doesn't.
Edit: I don’t accept the idea that there’s some mystical quality associated with the merest possibility of reproduction that somehow makes the sexual relations of the completely infertile couple less <insert descriptor here> than those of the other couple.
posted
As a pedantic side note, I'd like to point out that sex is totally and absolutely separate from pregancy. For the male of the species, that is.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Urg. What for have you got 'guy' in your nick, then? But the question works the other way, too : When was the last time you were the male in a relationship?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd like to point out that sex is totally and absolutely separate from pregancy. For the male of the species, that is.
You've obviously never had to undergo fertility treatments with your wife to have a baby. At that time, that is the only reason you have sex.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I am a guy. And yes, I am almost seven months pregnant with my third child. Is there anything wrong with that?
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You've obviously never had to undergo fertility treatments with your wife to have a baby. At that time, that is the only reason you have sex.
[Cynicism mode] No, at that time, pregnancy is the only reason you have sex with your wife. [/Cynicism mode]
"Pregnant along with their wives?" Look, I realise you Americans like this sort of sirup-sappy sentiment, but please don't inflict it on me. I am sure comrade UofLawguy loves his wife and supports her, but he is not pregnant. (He may possibly be broody, but that is another matter.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me point out KoM, that your last statement is in direct contradiction with "sex is totally and absolutely separate from pregancy. For the male of the species, that is."
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MIne wasn't intended to be taken totally seriously either. It was sure better than mowing the lawn.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A pregnant man may experience any of these symptoms:
1. Midnight trips to the grocery store for ice cream. 2. Sympathetic weight gain, since he helps his wife eat the ice cream. 3. Nervousness. 4. Sleepless nights, from anxiety, excitement, and two tons of preggo wife rolling around all night. 5. Mood swings. 6. Black eyes, from his wife's mood swings. 7. Confusion, caused by someone's inappropriate reaction to his funny joke, and resulting in jokes that aren't really funny 8. Fetal movement, most often felt on the hand or the cheek 9. Night terrors (see 4.) 10. Wet sleeves, from comforting his wife 11. Aching back, from sleeping on the couch, or the floor 12. A swollen heart 13. Increased libido 14. Decreased sexual activity
There are many more symptoms than these.
Once a man has been pronounced pregnant, he can expect the following:
1. Frequent doctor visits 2. More exercise 3. More bills 4. More visitors 5. More unwanted advice 6. Excruciating pain, as his wife tries to rip his hand off during labor, pull his bottom lip over his head, or, should he get close enough, kick him in the groin 7. More confusion, as he watches something that used to be sexy turn into something horrible before his eyes 8. Long periods of abstinence 9. Extreme feelings of love that won't go away 10. Perfect peace
Anyone want to add more?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
consider us made up ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
