The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Doom Shepherd]

Hardly. from Dictionary.com, when I looked up the word "viable":

Jan

Sweet. From wikipedia, when I looked up "viability":

Viability means in general "capacity for survival" and is more specifically used to mean a capacity for living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions. The word is specially used in the following contexts:

viability in pregnancy refers to either:
an early stage pregnancy that has a chance of reaching full-term and a live birth (as opposed to, for example, an ectopic pregnancy); or
the shortest length of pregnancy after which a child born prematurely has any chance of survival. Generally, this is from 22 weeks; or
Limit of viability which is the point at which 50% of delivered babies would survive, which is currently at 24 weeks.

Given that we rank definitions in order of priority, I maintain that the first-ranked definition is most relevant.

Dueling resources - just points out that nobody agrees.

[Jan]

Apples and kumquats. You cite the viability of a pregnancy, I cite the viability of a fetus.

There's a difference between the viability of a fetus (a developing organism) and the viability of a pregnancy (the condition of carrying that developing organism).

I notice that you're fencing with semantics. What are your actual opinions and reasons for them?

Jan

[I love Lyta]

Wow - an insult - i'm flattered. All helps this discussion.

Errr, how or why did I insult you in any way when I explicitly stated that my statement was no personal attack at all?

If my daughter was diagnosed as disabled IN THE WOMB, then myself and my wife would have had to discuss this. However my daughter was not diagnosed until she was over 12 months old. By then the decision is made.

Of course. By then she was already born. So concerning abortion (which ist PRE-natal by definition) your point being?
Also, did your wife not go to regular check-ups on the baby's condition during pregnancy or did the doc not find anything?

My opinion stands.

So does mine.
I also don't see why life should be sacred. But I'm antheist. So go figure...
Quality of life however... THAT is another pair of shoes...
Actually this is one of the best arguments pro-choice.
Not only the future quality of life for the child is to be taken into account when it comes to choose whether to terminate pregancy or not but also that of the mother and/or father. If a woman deems having a child infringing on her quality of life then she should not carry it. Forcing her to have it would most probably result in no love (may be even abuse) for the child and poverty if the parents have monetary problems already. Where would be the q o l for the child THEN?

True it may seem strange to you but in my mind Parents should have the choice if disability (or danger to the mother) is detected prior to birth.

Errr, why should that seem strange to me? As a matter of fact around here all pregnant women are explicitly urged by the health department to see the doctor in regular intervals during pregancy to do exactly that (read: have disabilities or health risks diagnosed in time to decide what to do about it).

Its an opinion - you dont have to agree.

Same here.

I don't care what it looks like, as long as it's biologically indistinguishable from a fish, there's no way I'd concede that it's human.

In some movie it was shown that during the early stages an Orca (not a fish - I know ) fetus looks like a human one.
No idea whether that is really the case or not though...

[Doom Shepherd]

I notice that you're fencing with semantics. What are your actual opinions and reasons for them?
Jan

Good question.

Despite everything I've said here, I'm quite "pro-choice," from a legalistic point of view, despite being very "anti-abortion" from a moral point of view.

Because I believe in degrees of evil, and that it's possible to do an evil thing for a good reason, and that negates some - but not all - of the evil.

It kind of breaks down like this for me. These are statements I accept as Givens:

Killing sapient life is an evil.

Killing a sapient life-form in self-defense is an evil, yet less so because it is also protecting a sapient life form. Specifically, the most important sapient life form in the universe (from my point of view,) me.

Anything which, if left unmolested under nominal conditions, WILL become sentient, should be treated as though it already is. The fact that something has a nonsapient larval stage has no bearing on its moral level.

(The fact that SOME humans have no regard for their own or others's non-sapient larval stage does not invalidate this axiom. Should these humans encounter an extraterrestrial larval stage and treat it with the same regard, only to discover that the extraterrestrial adults DO regard their offspring as morally sapient, and respond accordingly... well, they deserve what they get. "But we don't feel that way about our fetuses" won't save them.)

*In other words, don't eat Popplers*

I would not kill a human, ape, sentient AI, droid, android, or alien, or anything that was developing into any of the above, unless it was endangering others, had done so, or threatened to do so.

I would not intentionally kill any of the above, simply to create added convenience for myself. That's barbaric.

I support the preservation and maintenance of the right to terminate another sapient or pre-sapient life in the cause of protecting oneself and others.

I support the preservation and maintenance of the right to terminate sapient or pre-sapient life whose quality of life due to injury or illness had dropped below what can resonably be considered an acceptable level (though if the life is sapient, you'd better have ASKED first.)

I conditionally support the preservation and maintenance of the right of others to terminate sapient or presapient life for their own convenience.... with the caveat that those others agree to recognize that in some time in the future, they may prove to be inconvenient to me.

[Jan]

Excellent and well-stated, thanks.

Anything which, if left unmolested under nominal conditions, WILL become sentient, should be treated as though it already is. The fact that something has a nonsapient larval stage has no bearing on its moral level.

(The fact that SOME humans have no regard for their own or others's non-sapient larval stage does not invalidate this axiom. Should these humans encounter an extraterrestrial larval stage and treat it with the same regard, only to discover that the extraterrestrial adults DO regard their offspring as morally sapient, and respond accordingly... well, they deserve what they get. "But we don't feel that way about our fetuses" won't save them.)

The difference I see here is that a larval stage is not dependant on the mother's body for continued development. A fetus *is* and that's the main basis of my reasoning; that it's effectively a parasite that enslaves the host (hyperbole recognized).

*In other words, don't eat Popplers*

Cultural reference? No comprendo...

Jan

[David Panzer]

Cultural reference? No comprendo...

Jan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_with_Popplers

[Jan]

Thanks!

Jan

[circularREASON]

Old data from UK Website.


The number of women having an abortion in England and Wales went over 200,000 for the first time in 2007 and those numbers look set to rise.

These figures come just months after the vote in the House of Commons on changing the number of weeks that an abortion can be carried out. Campaigners wanted the law changed to make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy after 22 weeks, rather than 24 weeks. The lobby failed and 24 weeks remains the legal limit to have an abortion.

People feel very strongly about abortion because it is a deeply personal issue but it's your right to have a choice. Whatever your views, the law in the UK (excluding Northern Ireland) states:

"Any woman or child has the right to an abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy
Abortions must be carried out in a hospital or specialist licensed clinic
Two doctors must agree that a termination would cause less damage to woman's physical or mental health than a pregnancy
Occasionally an abortion is carried out after 24 weeks. The reasons for this will be to save the life of the woman or of the child, or if the child is severely physically or mentally disabled. It is illegal to have an abortion after this time if there is no threat to the woman's or child's health."

At 24 weeks a baby is "Viable" - it may survive if born at this stage. A little known fact is that a baby may survive (in extreme cases) if born at 22 weeks.

As far as Not supporting Abortion, but supporting abortion of a disabled foetus, look at the quote above and you will find i am not far away from that position.

I would like educating as to the benefits of abortion (on the unborn child / foetus) prior to this 24 week cut off. Is it just the fact that women are more prepared to get rid just to suit personal circumstance? Should the father of the (potential) child have a say in this?

Discuss.

[circularREASON]

[QUOTE=I love Lyta;56986]

Also, did your wife not go to regular check-ups on the baby's condition during pregnancy or did the doc not find anything?



***********************

This has nothing to do with regular check ups.

I'll fill you in as best I can. The hows and Whys.

I walked into the hospital to find my wife dying, blood everywhere (I mean EVERYWHERE) and the doctor saying the only way to save the foetus and my wife was to do an emergancy c section. I was asked if i wanted to save both, or just my wife due to the fact that my wife at this time was in pieces, and in no position to make any decision regarding anything (including Alice).

My wife was always the priority.

My daughter (Alice - the most beautiful girl on the planet - FACT) was then born at 23 1/2 weeks gestation via emergency c section (ever seen the insides of your partner? Good job i've got a strong stomach). The surgeons managed to save both my wife and the baby - but it was touch and go for a while.

After struggling between life and death for a couple of weeks my daughter had a major bleed into her lungs which left her with roughly 5% of useful lung capacity. At this point she was placed on a respirator to keep her alive. (Did you know that you should not be respirated for a long time because the forced pressure kills your lungs?) Anyway Alice was a Pioneer. She was the first baby to use a pioneering technique as to where the respiration (instead of being at the breathing rate of the child) was forced in via small controlled bursts (100 / 150 a minute on 100% Oxygen or something like that - cant remember precise number but QUICK)

She stayed on respiration for the next 2 months.

She died (heart stopped beating) on many occasions during this time, but luckily the team watching over her were fantasic and managed to revive her.

After this time she spent a few weeks in neonatal ward prior to coming home on oxygen.

HOWEVER

During the respiration and consequent treatment, her brain was damaged. Mainly in the areas concerned with CP. However because the specialist after doing a brain scan, did not think there would be any side effects as such because of this, nothing else was done for the next 12 months until she had her yearly development check up at which we were told she had CP.
Well that about sums it up.

I sometimes get a bit irrate (lol) regarding the whole issue of abortion just because of the fact of what my experiences are in regards to witnessing the birth of a child at 23 1/2 weeks. You know the human being is an incredible thing. To see a child at early gestation - there are no words i have which can describe the feeling. With this came the questioning regarding how and why in regards to abortions, because prior to that I will admit that I had no view.

[Jan]

Is it just the fact that women are more prepared to get rid just to suit personal circumstance?

Why 'just'? Shouldn't my personal circumstances weigh more heavily than the potential circumstances of the fetus? Should a blank sheet of paper have the same value as one with a stirring essay?

Should the father of the (potential) child have a say in this?

In my opinion, not usually but there could be some circumstances where it would be more appropriate than others for the father to be involved in the decision, generally if the pregnancy occurred and the parents are in a long-term and/or committed relationship.

Jan

[Doom Shepherd]

The difference I see here is that a larval stage is not dependant on the mother's body for continued development.

Sometimes true, sometimes no. Before formula was invented, this wasn't quite true. Mammals nurse, and that milk has to come from somewhere.

(And the la leche folks will tell you all sorts of bad stuff about formula, but that's a bit outside the scope)

And that's avoiding the whole topic of marsupials and other animals which are born not-fully-developed.

I admit my bringing hypothetical alien life forms into the discussion may seem silly on the face of it... but I say I'm just thinking towards the future. Our ethics should be as universal as possible.

A fetus *is* and that's the main basis of my reasoning; that it's effectively a parasite that enslaves the host (hyperbole recognized).

That's the hardest point to logically overcome, because not only is it true to some extent, but once one starts thinking that way there's a considerable amount of "squick" involved in the topic.

I would point out that we all have parasites (or symbiotes) we live with, and getting rid of some of them (like intestinal flora) is actually detrimental to our well-being.
Moreover, many adults develop a symbiotic relationship with their offspring... if they don't, they often end up becoming externally-located parasites themselves, in their later years.

[Jan]

Quick change of subject to ask something that I'm pretty sure almost everybody knows more about than I do.

In reading online accounts of the Holocaust Museum shooting, there's talk about the shooter (who won't get the dignity of being named by me) being a convicted felon and still having firearms. My questions are A) Do all convicted felons have to relinquish any firearms they own previous to being convicted? B) Are all convicted felons barred from purchasing guns after their conviction and C) What checks are made and steps taken to ensue that convicted felons get rid of any guns they own? I think the answers to A & B are both 'Yes' but I don't have any clue at all about C?

Thanks,

Jan

[Doom Shepherd]

Quick change of subject to ask something that I'm pretty sure almost everybody knows more about than I do.

In reading online accounts of the Holocaust Museum shooting, there's talk about the shooter (who won't get the dignity of being named by me) being a convicted felon and still having firearms. My questions are A) Do all convicted felons have to relinquish any firearms they own previous to being convicted? B) Are all convicted felons barred from purchasing guns after their conviction and C) What checks are made and steps taken to ensue that convicted felons get rid of any guns they own? I think the answers to A & B are both 'Yes' but I don't have any clue at all about C?

Thanks,

Jan

Here's a law firm's link that may help, with emphasis made on the 6 points discussed:Restoration of Firearm Rights

1. Federal law generally makes it a felony for a person to be in possession of a firearm if the person has any prior felony conviction.

2. Federal law contains an explicit statutory exception which provides that the federal criminal offense of firearms possession is inapplicable to persons who have had their civil rights restored on the predicate state felony conviction.(4)

3. Whether a person has had his or her civil rights restored for a state conviction is determined by state and NOT federal law.

4. However, (this "however" is the first of two elusive parts of the analysis) federal law requires that for federal law to recognize the state restoration of rights, the state restoration must include the right to vote, the right to seek and hold public office, and the right to serve on a jury. (5)

5. If the state restoration of rights includes the three aforementioned rights the federal law contains an additional federal "unless" clause which looks to state law to see if the state imposes any restriction on the right of the convicted felon to possess a weapon (e.g., some states such as North Carolina prohibit the subsequent possession of a handgun but would allow the individual to possess a rifle or shotgun).

6. If there is some added firearms restriction under state law then (and here is the second elusive part of the analysis) the federal "unless" clause is triggered to make the possession of any firearms unlawful under federal law notwithstanding the state's restoration of civil rights. Thus, if the state says that a restored-rights felon may possess a shotgun but not a pistol, the state has allowed the felon to possess the shotgun under state law BUT, because the state has created some firearm restriction for a convicted felon, this means that the federal prohibition applies with full force notwithstanding a state restoration of rights. Thus, in the shotgun-pistol example, that person could be convicted under federal law for possession of the shotgun even though it would be perfectly lawful under state law.(6)

So...
A appears to be "yes."
B appears to be "not necessarily"
C... I'm not sure of. Probably not much.

Keep in mind that even when B is "yes," that you're dealing with criminals. Criminals break the law as a matter of course.

Also, note that a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction (which can be based on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness) is enough to get one a permanent ban.

[I love Lyta]

@Circular Reasoning:
Thanks for posting such a private matter so openly. Respect to both you and your wife and I'm genuinely glad it worked out so "well".
Also this sheds a lot of light on why you have the p o v you have.
I for one would have gone for the "Save my wife" don't care about the baby option.

On another note: Afaik England is the nation with most unwanted teenage pregnancies in the western hemisphere. Can you honestly say that you would like to force all these kids to have kids of their own when they can hardly manage their life as it is?
Instead of discussing abortion law they should probably provide better sexual education...

[circularREASON]

@Circular Reasoning:
Thanks for posting such a private matter so openly. Respect to both you and your wife and I'm genuinely glad it worked out so "well".
Also this sheds a lot of light on why you have the p o v you have.
I for one would have gone for the "Save my wife" don't care about the baby option.

On another note: Afaik England is the nation with most unwanted teenage pregnancies in the western hemisphere. Can you honestly say that you would like to force all these kids to have kids of their own when they can hardly manage their life as it is?
Instead of discussing abortion law they should probably provide better sexual education...

I love lyta (yeh so do i lol)

Its frustrating at times when you read the statistics about kids and babies. We have a pretty bad record overall but I think our sexual education system is more than adequate.

Where the failure comes from is parents that do not give a flying shit about their kids. How can the kids be expected to act responsibly when the parents are not taking their responsibility seriously? In my view there would be less teenage pregnancies if the state placed the onus for teenage pregnancies on the parents of the teenager who is pregnant. Make them pay - not the UK taxpayer.

Also - can these kids not keep their legs closed?

Too many of these "Chavs" and "Wasters" (be it male or female) creme the UK benefits system by having more and more children because for each one born, they receive more money. Then they spend the money on fags and booze and drugs while the kids live in poverty, and the cycle repeats itself over and over again.