I have a question for a person who is Pro-Life

[rosends]

At least be honest. This whole bit here is bull shit.

feel free not to believe me. fortunately, that has no bearing on me or this exercise.

In some states, if a woman is drinking, smoking, or using drugs the state or CPS will intervene. But lets be realistic here, A bowl of pickles and ice cream, a Marlboro, amd a milkshake to finish it off will do less harm then this set up right here-

The question is about taking logical arguments to extremes. Could one establish the ethical position that any harm is problematic, and any risk of harm is problematic. If you don't see that as necessary for an anti-abortion (is anyone "pro-abortion" or "anti-life") position then say so and help me understand the limitations and explanation.

This part of your post is redundant, as such useless. You are asking the same question twice in the same post.

I am restating the question and reframing it so that if someone did not understand the point, this other presentation might help. If you got it the first time then great. Sorry it offends you that different people might appreciate different wordings.

 

[rosends]

I would have to know what exactly you mean. Unhealthy lifestyle? No. reckless endangerment, possibly yes. It isn't something that is black and white.

I guess the "unhealthy lifestyle" question goes to the recent ban on large sugary drinks in NYC. If that volume is deemed legally a hazard for a living person would that protection apply to a fetus who is exposed to the results of the parent's diet via the umbilicus. And if the parent's tendency towards obesity is a risk factor for gestational diabetes, then couldn't that aspect of diet put the child in danger?

Well, the NYC ban is utter bull shit. Sugar itself is not a danger to a person's health. It can lead to obesity which is a danger. if you believe mayor Bloomburg, then ask him if he thinks that preganant women should be arrested for excessive sugar use. The rest of us think he's a big government shit head.

I don't agree with the ban for a whole load of other reasons (some of which include my personal politics, some that I am a Super Double Big Gulp fan) but I was just wondering how its logic would apply to other aspects of law/ethics. I wish I COULD ask him (assuming his platform on abortion includes a "life at conception" element). If you know him and he fits the bill, ask him for me.

 

[rosends]

If a woman is insulin resistant, and you must have read this on the internet ...

while I'm sure it is on the internet also, I got it from an OB/GYN, a nurse and a midwife in real life. My wife is in that business so dinner conversations usually revolve around breech babies, dilation, shoulder dystocia, BV and other less savory topics.

 

[rosends]

Is that what your seeking? A better understanding?

What is your belief on the subject?

I'm pro-life and if a woman knowingly brings harm to the child she carries then I would think of it as child abuse and prosecute accordingly.

all I want is insight. I am trying to establish a full ethical platform and considering all of its implications. But this is a thought exercise, not an attempt to either create or persuade towards a political position. My position is unimportant. I am a blank slate simply asking questions about the logical application of ideas and their extensions.

I'm beginning to think that you aren't really. You are pretty obviously trying to paint pro-lifers into a corner under the guise of an "honest question".

I am trying to understand an ethical position by taking it beyond where it seems to be. This is a standard exercise in my class. It forces people to consider eventualities and defend positions. I could be turning this around and asking about the definition of life and life AFTER birth and asking why protections for an infant shouldn't begin until viability and independence kick in if I wanted to. I know of at least one religion that has aspects of that. But that isn't what arose in class. You don't have to believe me. Somehow I'll survive.

 

[earlycuyler]

-The question is about taking logical arguments to extremes. Could one establish the ethical position that any harm is problematic, and any risk of harm is problematic. If you don't see that as necessary for an anti-abortion (is anyone "pro-abortion" or "anti-life") position then say so and help me understand the limitations and explanation.-

the explanation is this, when you put forceps, and scissors up there, and cut the face off a fetus, you will normally have 100% fatality, if not, then when they cut the fetus up so it can be removed with suction, that pretty much does the job. Having a ciggie, or a bowl of ice cream, or even a tone of junk food does not guarantee the fetus will die. It could have some issues, but its not written in stone. Alcohol and drugs ?In some states CPS will intervene.

 

[rosends]

-The question is about taking logical arguments to extremes. Could one establish the ethical position that any harm is problematic, and any risk of harm is problematic. If you don't see that as necessary for an anti-abortion (is anyone "pro-abortion" or "anti-life") position then say so and help me understand the limitations and explanation.-

the explanation is this, when you put forceps, and scissors up there, and cut the face off a fetus, you will normally have 100% fatality, if not, then when they cut the fetus up so it can be removed with suction, that pretty much does the job. Having a ciggie, or a bowl of ice cream, or even a tone of junk food does not guarantee the fetus will die. It could have some issues, but its not written in stone. Alcohol and drugs ?In some states CPS will intervene.

but this begs the question as to whether the "protections of a human" would be also against harm. Is the ethical position against abortion limited to being against fetal death? As some of the earlier posts showed, and you refer to, in some states, fetal health is included. That's what I'm trying to get to. Until those posts came up, yours included, I had never heard of that, mostly because I had never explored this topic in this way. When I go back in to my class and bring up these various arguments and we have a followup debate in class, informed by new information, we will all learn something, without being forced to adopt or abandon any particular position.

 

[earlycuyler]

-The question is about taking logical arguments to extremes. Could one establish the ethical position that any harm is problematic, and any risk of harm is problematic. If you don't see that as necessary for an anti-abortion (is anyone "pro-abortion" or "anti-life") position then say so and help me understand the limitations and explanation.-

but this begs the question as to whether the "protections of a human" would be also against harm. Is the ethical position against abortion limited to being against fetal death? As some of the earlier posts showed, and you refer to, in some states, fetal health is included. That's what I'm trying to get to. Until those posts came up, yours included, I had never heard of that, mostly because I had never explored this topic in this way. When I go back in to my class and bring up these various arguments and we have a followup debate in class, informed by new information, we will all learn something, without being forced to adopt or abandon any particular position.

-but this begs the question as to whether the "protections of a human" would be also against harm. Is the ethical position against abortion limited to being against fetal death-

In cases where the mother is mentally unfit action is taken if she does drugs, or consumes alcohol to excess. but eating five Twinkies and washing it down with a coke or two and a smoke to relax just is not on the same level as chopping the fetus up and sucking it out. It really is two different things. I dont like either, but then, I dont carry and birth children either.

 

[rosends]

but eating five Twinkies and washing it down with a coke or two and a smoke to relax just is not on the same level as chopping the fetus up and sucking it out

Understood. Now my class will be saddled with trying to draw an ethical line and figure out exactly how to word a defense of that position that will be exhaustive and fruitful, excluding what should be excluded and including those cases that need to be included. Thank you. Fact is, they are 12th graders who live insular lives and have never been forced to explore complex issues on anything more than the most cursory level so I appreciate this help.

 

[earlycuyler]

but eating five Twinkies and washing it down with a coke or two and a smoke to relax just is not on the same level as chopping the fetus up and sucking it out

Understood. Now my class will be saddled with trying to draw an ethical line and figure out exactly how to word a defense of that position that will be exhaustive and fruitful, excluding what should be excluded and including those cases that need to be included. Thank you. Fact is, they are 12th graders who live insular lives and have never been forced to explore complex issues on anything more than the most cursory level so I appreciate this help.

Maybe keep it more simple, or does it have to be about abortion ? Either way, dont sell the kids short. They are sharper then they get credit for.

 

[rosends]

but eating five Twinkies and washing it down with a coke or two and a smoke to relax just is not on the same level as chopping the fetus up and sucking it out

Understood. Now my class will be saddled with trying to draw an ethical line and figure out exactly how to word a defense of that position that will be exhaustive and fruitful, excluding what should be excluded and including those cases that need to be included. Thank you. Fact is, they are 12th graders who live insular lives and have never been forced to explore complex issues on anything more than the most cursory level so I appreciate this help.

Maybe keep it more simple, or does it have to be about abortion ? Either way, dont sell the kids short. They are sharper then they get credit for.

we covered issues of end of life (assisted suicide, DNR) and treatment ethics (using medical ethics exams from med schools). we have asked about what defines life (cloning etc) and now abortion (beginning of life) so I sort of do have to keep it in this ball park. We covered body modification, vaccines and genetic manipulation so this rounds out the unit.

They are a sharp bunch but I know the background of the group and know what they have been exposed to and not.

 

[Unkotare]

no, this is not my homework. I'm the teacher.

You may work in a school, but we have established that you are no teacher.

is that the royal "we" .

It refers to all reasonable people who read your pathetic defense of mediocrity and 'success' through lowered expectations. YOU remain part of the problem - a big part.

 

[rosends]

You may work in a school, but we have established that you are no teacher.

is that the royal "we" .

It refers to all reasonable people who read your pathetic defense of mediocrity and 'success' through lowered expectations. YOU remain part of the problem - a big part.

interesting how you invent my "defense of mediocrity" and lowering expectations and then attack them. you read in to what I wrote and decide that your inference is my meaning, then attack me for presenting that meaning. that's a weak way to think, but at least you can be proud that it is yours.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You may work in a school, but we have established that you are no teacher.

is that the royal "we" .

It refers to all reasonable people who read your pathetic defense of mediocrity and 'success' through lowered expectations. YOU remain part of the problem - a big part.

That leaves you out.

 

[Unkotare]

is that the royal "we" .

It refers to all reasonable people who read your pathetic defense of mediocrity and 'success' through lowered expectations. YOU remain part of the problem - a big part.

interesting how you invent my "defense of mediocrity" and lowering expectations.

I didn't "invent" anything. They were your own words. It's a shame that some kids have to be exposed to a corrosive element like YOU. They might as well hand out bags of pot at the front door of the school.

 

[PredFan]

while I'm sure it is on the internet also, I got it from an OB/GYN, a nurse and a midwife in real life. My wife is in that business so dinner conversations usually revolve around breech babies, dilation, shoulder dystocia, BV and other less savory topics.

That's perfectly fine, but my point was that having an insulin resistance is a complicated problem, and trying to control it involves more than just not drinking sugary soft drinks.

 

[PredFan]

all I want is insight. I am trying to establish a full ethical platform and considering all of its implications. But this is a thought exercise, not an attempt to either create or persuade towards a political position. My position is unimportant. I am a blank slate simply asking questions about the logical application of ideas and their extensions.

I'm beginning to think that you aren't really. You are pretty obviously trying to paint pro-lifers into a corner under the guise of an "honest question".

I am trying to understand an ethical position by taking it beyond where it seems to be. This is a standard exercise in my class. It forces people to consider eventualities and defend positions. I could be turning this around and asking about the definition of life and life AFTER birth and asking why protections for an infant shouldn't begin until viability and independence kick in if I wanted to. I know of at least one religion that has aspects of that. But that isn't what arose in class. You don't have to believe me. Somehow I'll survive.

Well, you have to understand that we've had the "where life begins" argument more times than anyone can count and every other possible angle on abortion and it is easy now to recognize when it is a loaded question. For one thing, I notice that you seem to be favoring those people who are pro-choice, even though you didn't ask them the question. In addition, rather than ask the question and then receive the answer, you counter every answer. That is the hallmark of someone who is trying to win an agrument and not someone who is trying to get opinions.

Just saying.

 

[rosends]

That's perfectly fine, but my point was that having an insulin resistance is a complicated problem, and trying to control it involves more than just not drinking sugary soft drinks.

No question and absolutely true. Again, I'm just looking at the extreme of cause and effect and then trying to work backwards from the extreme to the point where my students feel comfortable drawing a line. We did the same with animal testing -- at what size/shape is the animal too cute to set out lethal traps for. They decided that in the house, lethal traps for anything beyond rats/mice were problematic. But they couldn't eloquently explain why.

 

[rosends]

I'm beginning to think that you aren't really. You are pretty obviously trying to paint pro-lifers into a corner under the guise of an "honest question".

I am trying to understand an ethical position by taking it beyond where it seems to be. This is a standard exercise in my class. It forces people to consider eventualities and defend positions. I could be turning this around and asking about the definition of life and life AFTER birth and asking why protections for an infant shouldn't begin until viability and independence kick in if I wanted to. I know of at least one religion that has aspects of that. But that isn't what arose in class. You don't have to believe me. Somehow I'll survive.

Well, you have to understand that we've had the "where life begins" argument more times than anyone can count and every other possible angle on abortion and it is easy now to recognize when it is a loaded question. For one thing, I notice that you seem to be favoring those people who are pro-choice, even though you didn't ask them the question. In addition, rather than ask the question and then receive the answer, you counter every answer. That is the hallmark of someone who is trying to win an agrument and not someone who is trying to get opinions.

Just saying.

I am new and haven't gone through all the previous debates here but I am simply trying to follow the same Socratic method that I use in class (also called pilpul). Any position given is countered with questions which attempt to show a weakness in the thinking so that all can reexamine the position and come up with a stronger statement which accounts for this question. Repeat ad nauseum (or until the bell rings). I don't favor either side but I ask questions which remain, and often that is in advancement of one line of logic because I can't follow all branches at once.

On one level, you are very right. By choosing to explore a path which seems to focus on on particular type of pro-life stance, I come off as favoring the pro-choice position, but that is simply because of the particular topic and angle which prompted the question.

I am not trying to win because I have nothing invested either way. I am trying to encourage critical thinking. If that is not the norm for debate here, I apologize, but I rarely try to persuade people on forums. I try to engage and explore. Occasionally inform -- but this is a topic on which I can inform very little.

 

[jtpr312]

As for drug abuse and alcohol abuse during pregnancy, we KNOW both cause extreme problems for the young life and yes, woman who abuse drugs, legal or illegal drugs, or who abuse alcohol to the point where the child may get fetal alcohol syndrome, yeah, they should be locked up until after the child is born.

Thank you for your input -- a couple of follow up questions:

Second hand smoke is known to be a hazard (or at least the Surgeon General has decided it is) to living humans so there are laws protecting people from being exposed to it. Should there be laws to keep the fetus from being exposed? Hmm, I think the fetus being inside the woman's womb, it's not being exposed to second hand smoke.

Could legal action be taken against a woman who has a single drink (as there is no minimum threshold of acceptable drinking -- effects on the fetus have been demonstrated after a single drink -- ERNHART, C.B.; Sokol, R.J.; Martier, S.; Moron, P.; Nadler, D.; Ager, J.W.; & Wolf, A. Alcohol teratogenicity in the human: A detailed assessment of specificity, critical period, and threshold. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 156(1):33-39, 1987.) I can find you study after study that shows having a glass of wine a day while pregnant is not only not harmful but in many way beneficial. It takes much more than one drink, even from something stronger than wine, to cause fetal alcohol syndrome so no.

Are ALL the protections of personhood applicable to a fetus once the title of "unborn child" is applied to the fetus? I consider a person in the womb to be just that, a separate and living human being. As it is now, in most jurisdictions if you kill a pregnant woman and the baby also dies, you can be charged with a double murder, same thing if you just kill the baby but the woman lives.

.

 

[Grandma]

Okay, Rosends, ask your class this:

What if a woman is old, has cancer, or is VERY likely to produce a baby with health issues, yet they insist on becoming pregnant and carrying the child to term?