good news

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

"A fetus isn't a person." See, if it was simply about the woman there would be no debate. There is, and should be, in our society a strong presumption against taking life. If not, why the distinction between early versus late term? I believe it's because there is underlying doubt/uncertainty.

Now, if we apply the standard that the only people who should be entitled to make judgements about this issue are the people who are now, or in the future might be, personally involved in this issue, does that standard apply only to this issue? Can someone who is not a soldier or law enforcement officer make moral judgements, as well as legal judgements, as to whether it is proper to kill another person to achieve a military objective, or to kill an armed, deranged person to save nearby innocents, as opposed to killing a fleeing robber after he has robbed you? People consider themselves entitled to make moral and legal judgements about such acts. In this country all are entitled to contribute to these debates. To me no one ought to be dismissed from any debate based solely on gender, race, religion or sexual orientation.

My niece announced at Christmas that she is pregnant. She and my nephew recently married and decided to start a family. She is an RN, smart as a whip, and knows the risks. She is also ardently pro-life. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

the distinction between early and late term is not some arbitrary number. instead, after the fetus has reached viability, states can, and many do put rules in place after that point in time.
yes, people can make 'moral judgements', and everyone is entitled to their opinion. however, just like you have a right to swing your fist, your right to that ends where my nose begins.
good for your niece.
bad if you think that because you and her believe something, that everyone must not only believe it, but we should legislate laws based on that.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

laws are based on opinions?

Did I say that? I believe that I said that the opinions (usually strong ones) of people are how laws are born. I don't believe I've ever seen laws debated opinions notwithstanding.

Originally Posted by Danzig

the distinction between early and late term is not some arbitrary number.

I think it's fair to say that viability is a moving target.

Originally Posted by Danzig

bad if you think that because you and her believe something, that everyone must not only believe it, but we should legislate laws based on that.

There is and always will be diversity of opinion. All I am and have been saying is that there must be debate, and one's participation in the debate must not be squelched solely because they are male, female, white, black, liberal, conservative, feminist, gay, Christian, Jew, you get the idea.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Did I say that? I believe that I said that the opinions (usually strong ones) of people are how laws are born. I don't believe I've ever seen laws debated opinions notwithstanding.


I think it's fair to say that viability is a moving target.

There is and always will be diversity of opinion. All I am and have been saying is that there must be debate, and one's participation in the debate must not be squelched solely because they are male, female, white, black, liberal, conservative, feminist, gay, Christian, Jew, you get the idea.

except it isn't, it hasn't changed. still 24 weeks, based on the law, and survival of preemies.
yeah, debate should continue.
laws changing based on the opinion of some, especially when they will never be impacted is another story. as is anyone trying to base laws on theological opinion and belief, since this is a secular country.

and i'm not so sure, still, about your assertion regarding law and opinions. laws are usually in response to something occurring, that negatively impacts society. that's why murder is illegal, someone decorating their house in purple isn't.

[randallscott35]

Viability has done no favors to the kids involved. The extreme premie is likely to have serious problems.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by OldDog

I think it's fair to say that viability is a moving target.

Originally Posted by Danzig

except it isn't, it hasn't changed. still 24 weeks, based on the law, and survival of preemies.
yeah, debate should continue.

No doubt it will.

24 weeks is accepted legally for now. "Viability exists as a function of biomedical and technological capacities, which are different in different parts of the world. As a consequence, there is, at the present time, no worldwide, uniform gestational age that defines viability. Viability is not an intrinsic property of the fetus because viability should be understood in terms of both biological and technological factors."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11753511

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued in a 1983 decision that Roe was on a "collision course with itself." She said that improvements in technology would continually push the point of fetal viability closer to the beginning of the pregnancy, allowing states greater opportunity to regulate the right to an abortion. She had the foresight to see fetal viability as a moving target. See why these things aren't as cut and dried and some today would have us believe?

I would much prefer to see abortions decrease (or end? one can always hope) because of a societal change than by government decree. Government alone is as incapable of eliminating abortions as it is of eliminating poverty or drugs.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

No doubt it will.

24 weeks is accepted legally for now. "Viability exists as a function of biomedical and technological capacities, which are different in different parts of the world. As a consequence, there is, at the present time, no worldwide, uniform gestational age that defines viability. Viability is not an intrinsic property of the fetus because viability should be understood in terms of both biological and technological factors."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11753511

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued in a 1983 decision that Roe was on a "collision course with itself." She said that improvements in technology would continually push the point of fetal viability closer to the beginning of the pregnancy, allowing states greater opportunity to regulate the right to an abortion. She had the foresight to see fetal viability as a moving target. See why these things aren't as cut and dried and some today would have us believe?

I would much prefer to see abortions decrease (or end? one can always hope) because of a societal change than by government decree. Government alone is as incapable of eliminating abortions as it is of eliminating poverty or drugs.

except there has been no movement on the 24 week viability. maybe someday there will, and we can cross that bridge if/when we get there. but, in forty years, we haven't gotten there yet. and we all know there are limits to human ability, so there's no telling if we ever lower that.

and they have decreased, as have pregnancy rates across all population segments. not sure what you mean about 'societal changes', but it's felt that the falling rates (which have even fallen for teens) are due to more education and availability of birth control.
i have to say, i don't care if they decrease.i don't feel any outrage at all that they occur, especially when the vast majority occur in the first weeks of pregnancy, altho the pro-life crowd only ever talks about 20 weeks and further (less than 2% of all abortions), because they can try to summon up more emotion that way..

[Danzig]

as for the war on poverty, i went back and found this from a few days ago:

http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...healthier.html


and if you click on one of the links, it takes you to this:

http://www.slate.com/articles/busine..._realize_.html