House Passes Anti-Abortion Bill

[The Chaos Heart]

So we're arguing about our stances on abortion now?

I've posted this in another topic, but I suppose I'll bring it up now then. Since medically we consider the end of human life to be when brain activity ceases, then i think it only serves to make logical sense that we consider the beginning of brain activity in a fetus to be the beginnings of human life. This occurs roughly around 2 months (I think. Someone else can confirm.) into the pregnancy. Two months is plenty of time to figure out if you're pregnant or not, and decide whether or not if you want an abortion. I think this is perfectly reasonable.

Biologically, the fetus is alive. The medical definition is a pragmatic one; it was once the heartbeat, but we changed that once we could bring people back after cardiac arrest. Also, not everyone learns of their pregnancy in the first two months.

Oh, so you agree the medical definition is pragmatic? Great. So, seeing as the medical definition is brain activity...

Yes, biologically the fetus is alive. However, at what point does a fetus become a human? That's what I'm arguing. Sure, biologically someone who's heart is beating is alive. But if their brain is a puddle of mush in their skull, and not functioning in the slightest, they are medically dead. And I'd dare say medical definitions take priority over biological definitions.

And yes, we did change it to brain activity. Because it's more appropriate. Are you suggesting we start considering heartbeat as human life? Because...that would be taking a step backwards really.

Also, really, anyone who doesn't find out they are pregnant within two months is just...dumb. Or not paying attention.

[Hittanryan]

Ugh, abortion, we're back to distraction issues. So much for "It's the economy, stupid." Just goes to show that Republicans will never truly change.

[Tekania]

No, it isn't... It's homiocentric.

Yours is sapient-centric. Your point?

Yes, but unlike homiocentrism, it's not limited. Adopting yours isn't sustainable due to its inapplicability to transcend special borders.

[Nulono]

Biologically, the fetus is alive. The medical definition is a pragmatic one; it was once the heartbeat, but we changed that once we could bring people back after cardiac arrest. Also, not everyone learns of their pregnancy in the first two months.

Oh, so you agree the medical definition is pragmatic? Great. So, seeing as the medical definition is brain activity...

Yes, biologically the fetus is alive. However, at what point does a fetus become a human? That's what I'm arguing. Sure, biologically someone who's heart is beating is alive. But if their brain is a puddle of mush in their skull, and not functioning in the slightest, they are medically dead. And I'd dare say medical definitions take priority over biological definitions.

And yes, we did change it to brain activity. Because it's more appropriate. Are you suggesting we start considering heartbeat as human life? Because...that would be taking a step backwards really.

Also, really, anyone who doesn't find out they are pregnant within two months is just...dumb. Or not paying attention.

If we're dealing with life-and-death issues, we sure as hell should use the biological definition!

There are plenty of reasons a woman might not recognize herself as pregnant, especially if she used contraception.

Yours is sapient-centric. Your point?

Yes, but unlike homiocentrism, it's not limited. Adopting yours isn't sustainable due to its inapplicability to transcend special borders.

Yours is also limited. Mine is limited to species, and yours is limited to sapience.

[The Chaos Heart]

Oh, so you agree the medical definition is pragmatic? Great. So, seeing as the medical definition is brain activity...

Yes, biologically the fetus is alive. However, at what point does a fetus become a human? That's what I'm arguing. Sure, biologically someone who's heart is beating is alive. But if their brain is a puddle of mush in their skull, and not functioning in the slightest, they are medically dead. And I'd dare say medical definitions take priority over biological definitions.

And yes, we did change it to brain activity. Because it's more appropriate. Are you suggesting we start considering heartbeat as human life? Because...that would be taking a step backwards really.

Also, really, anyone who doesn't find out they are pregnant within two months is just...dumb. Or not paying attention.

If we're dealing with life-and-death issues, we sure as hell should use the biological definition!

There are plenty of reasons a woman might not recognize herself as pregnant, especially if she used contraception.

Once again, I disagree. The medical definition takes priority when we are dealing with life and death. Seeing as, after all, abortion is a medical procedure. Yeah yeah there's a heart beat bla bla bla. But it's not really alive in the sense that we consider ourselves alive. Which is why the medical definition, when it comes to this particular issues, are far more accurate and logical.

Also, the day after you have sex, even if you used a contraceptive, you should be checking to see if you're pregnant. And after a month, when you don't get your period, you should be checking again. Really, if you don't take these precautions regularly and don't notice your own biological signs, you're just stupid and asking for trouble.

[Nulono]

If we're dealing with life-and-death issues, we sure as hell should use the biological definition!

There are plenty of reasons a woman might not recognize herself as pregnant, especially if she used contraception.

Once again, I disagree. The medical definition takes priority when we are dealing with life and death. Seeing as, after all, abortion is a medical procedure. Yeah yeah there's a heart beat bla bla bla. But it's not really alive in the sense that we consider ourselves alive. Which is why the medical definition, when it comes to this particular issues, are far more accurate and logical.

Also, the day after you have sex, even if you used a contraceptive, you should be checking to see if you're pregnant. And after a month, when you don't get your period, you should be checking again. Really, if you don't take these precautions regularly and don't notice your own biological signs, you're just stupid and asking for trouble.

Women can still get what appears to be a period during pregnancy.

The fetus is alive, even medically. But when deciding if someone is alive, it makes sense to use the biological definition.

[The Norwegian Blue]

Also, really, anyone who doesn't find out they are pregnant within two months is just...dumb. Or not paying attention.

Either this is sarcastic, or you know absolutely nothing about human biology. It's incredibly easy not to know you are pregnant within two months. Very few women have any noticeable weight gain at that stage, and if your periods are irregular - as many women's are - it's entirely possible to have absolutely no symptoms of pregnancy within two months. Unless by "dumb" you mean "lacking in magical psychic powers," your premise is frankly crap.

Not to mention that this idea also ignores the fact that abortions cost a fair amount of money, and raising several hundred dollars minimum for the procedure itself - not even counting the cost of travel, lodging, and taking off work, which is necessary for many women who live in states where the nearest clinic may well be six hours away and where idiotic "waiting periods" exist to mandate that they stay overnight or travel back and forth - is something that a lot of women are not in positions to be able to do very quickly. So if the cutoff point is two months, for a great many women, you're actually mandating that they somehow know they are pregnant nearly instantaneously.

[The Chaos Heart]

Once again, I disagree. The medical definition takes priority when we are dealing with life and death. Seeing as, after all, abortion is a medical procedure. Yeah yeah there's a heart beat bla bla bla. But it's not really alive in the sense that we consider ourselves alive. Which is why the medical definition, when it comes to this particular issues, are far more accurate and logical.

Also, the day after you have sex, even if you used a contraceptive, you should be checking to see if you're pregnant. And after a month, when you don't get your period, you should be checking again. Really, if you don't take these precautions regularly and don't notice your own biological signs, you're just stupid and asking for trouble.

Women can still get what appears to be a period during pregnancy.

The fetus is alive, even medically. But when deciding if someone is alive, it makes sense to use the biological definition.

But is it human life? Medically, no.

And after having sex? And the plethora of other biological signs that come with pregnancy? You're simply ignoring those, aren't you?

[Nulono]

Some women carry to term without knowing they were pregnant.

[The Norwegian Blue]

Also, the day after you have sex, even if you used a contraceptive, you should be checking to see if you're pregnant.

...okay, it's official, you have no idea what you're talking about.

But please, tell us how, in your special universe, you can "check to see if you're pregnant" the day after you have sex. This should be fun.

[Nulono]

Women can still get what appears to be a period during pregnancy.

The fetus is alive, even medically. But when deciding if someone is alive, it makes sense to use the biological definition.

But is it human life? Medically, no.

And after having sex? And the plethora of other biological signs that come with pregnancy? You're simply ignoring those, aren't you?

Yes. The fetus is a human life. What other species would the fetus be?

And the symptoms of pregnancy can be mistaken for other things.

[The Chaos Heart]

Also, really, anyone who doesn't find out they are pregnant within two months is just...dumb. Or not paying attention.

Either this is sarcastic, or you know absolutely nothing about human biology. It's incredibly easy not to know you are pregnant within two months. Very few women have any noticeable weight gain at that stage, and if your periods are irregular - as many women's are - it's entirely possible to have absolutely no symptoms of pregnancy within two months. Unless by "dumb" you mean "lacking in magical psychic powers," your premise is frankly crap.

Not to mention that this idea also ignores the fact that abortions cost a fair amount of money, and raising several hundred dollars minimum for the procedure itself - not even counting the cost of travel, lodging, and taking off work, which is necessary for many women who live in states where the nearest clinic may well be six hours away and where idiotic "waiting periods" exist to mandate that they stay overnight or travel back and forth - is something that a lot of women are not in positions to be able to do very quickly. So if the cutoff point is two months, for a great many women, you're actually mandating that they somehow know they are pregnant nearly instantaneously.

Money is something that can be dealt with separately and is not an issue in this current debate. Hell, why not make abortions a free medical procedure? I dunno. That can be figured out later.

Weight gain and periods are not the only biological signs. And once again, after having sex, you should be checking yourself, even if you used contraceptives. Frankly you're not paying enough attention if you don't realize you aren't pregnant within two months.

[The Chaos Heart]

Also, the day after you have sex, even if you used a contraceptive, you should be checking to see if you're pregnant.

...okay, it's official, you have no idea what you're talking about.

But please, tell us how, in your special universe, you can "check to see if you're pregnant" the day after you have sex. This should be fun.

Day after is an expression in this case. I thought that would be obvious. Apparently not.

[Alien Space Bats]

No rights at all? 5 month premie = person, 10 month fetus = worthless?

Yep. I'm not about to let lawyers and judges get between mama and her baby. That's not negotiable.

---

Here's an idea I came up with over twenty years ago: A thought experiment called the Unacceptable Compromise. It's designed to help people clarify their thinking on abortion, birth control, women's rights, and other related issues.

[The Chaos Heart]

But is it human life? Medically, no.

And after having sex? And the plethora of other biological signs that come with pregnancy? You're simply ignoring those, aren't you?

Yes. The fetus is a human life. What other species would the fetus be?

And the symptoms of pregnancy can be mistaken for other things.

No, the fetus is a fetus. Are sperm then also human life?

But when you experience such symptoms, especially if you recently had sex, you should be aware of the possibility and checking. not doing so is a flaunt of ignorance.

[Nulono]

No rights at all? 5 month premie = person, 10 month fetus = worthless?

Yep. I'm not about to let lawyers and judges get between mama and her baby. That's not negotiable.

---

Here's an idea I came up with over twenty years ago: A thought experiment called the Unacceptable Compromise. It's designed to help people clarify their thinking on abortion, birth control, women's rights, and other related issues.

How does it make sense that the SAME BABY can be killed or not based solely on his location?

[Nulono]

Yes. The fetus is a human life. What other species would the fetus be?

And the symptoms of pregnancy can be mistaken for other things.

No, the fetus is a fetus. Are sperm then also human life?

But when you experience such symptoms, especially if you recently had sex, you should be aware of the possibility and checking. not doing so is a flaunt of ignorance.

The fetus is a HUMAN fetus. A sperm is part of a human being.

Some women have conditions that already have similar symptoms to pregnancy, so they may not even notice.

[Alien Space Bats]

So we're arguing about our stances on abortion now?

I've posted this in another topic, but I suppose I'll bring it up now then. Since medically we consider the end of human life to be when brain activity ceases, then i think it only serves to make logical sense that we consider the beginning of brain activity in a fetus to be the beginnings of human life. This occurs roughly around 2 months (I think. Someone else can confirm.) into the pregnancy. Two months is plenty of time to figure out if you're pregnant or not, and decide whether or not if you want an abortion. I think this is perfectly reasonable.

Actually, two months is a pretty big scramble, considering that you've got to discover that you're pregnant, decide what to do (with or without the father's approval, then schedule the procedure and - in those States where abortion opponents have shut down the local abortion industry through legal maneuvering, intimidation, or outright terrorism, travel to another State. Oh, and you may have to scrape up the money for it, too - especially if the GOP succeeds in their current efforts to force private insurers to drop all coverage for it.

WHICH ACTUALLY BRINGS US BACK ONTO TOPIC!

<le gasp>

Because, you see, that's what this bill seeks to do: Force insurers to drop coverage, so that all abortions become out of pocket procedures.

Money is something that can be dealt with separately and is not an issue in this current debate. Hell, why not make abortions a free medical procedure? I dunno. That can be figured out later.

@!$#^^!!

That is exactly what this god-damned bill is about. The Feds won't pay for abortion. Most States won't pay for abortion. If the GOP wins next year, I expect to see the Feds cut off funding for any State that funds abortions. And now the mother frakkers want to force insurance companies to drop coverage, or employers to buy plans for their employees that don't provide coverage.

Money is EXACTLY the issue in this debate; the last 1000 pages of argument over the morality of abortion has been the real sideshow!

[Nulono]

So we're arguing about our stances on abortion now?

I've posted this in another topic, but I suppose I'll bring it up now then. Since medically we consider the end of human life to be when brain activity ceases, then i think it only serves to make logical sense that we consider the beginning of brain activity in a fetus to be the beginnings of human life. This occurs roughly around 2 months (I think. Someone else can confirm.) into the pregnancy. Two months is plenty of time to figure out if you're pregnant or not, and decide whether or not if you want an abortion. I think this is perfectly reasonable.

Actually, two months is a pretty big scramble, considering that you've got to discover that you're pregnant, decide what to do (with or without the father's approval, then schedule the procedure and - in those States where abortion opponents have shut down the local abortion industry through legal maneuvering, intimidation, or outright terrorism, travel to another State. Oh, and you may have to scrape up the money for it, too - especially if the GOP succeeds in their current efforts to force private insurers to drop all coverage for it.

WHICH ACTUALLY BRINGS US BACK ONTO TOPIC!

<le gasp>

Because, you see, that's what this bill seeks to do: Force insurers to drop coverage, so that all abortions become out of pocket procedures.

So we should force pro-lifers to pay for people's abortions?

[The Chaos Heart]

No, the fetus is a fetus. Are sperm then also human life?

But when you experience such symptoms, especially if you recently had sex, you should be aware of the possibility and checking. not doing so is a flaunt of ignorance.

The fetus is a HUMAN fetus. A sperm is part of a human being.

Some women have conditions that already have similar symptoms to pregnancy, so they may not even notice.

Likewise, the sperm is a HUMAN sperm. You seem to be ignoring your own contradiction. If a fetus is considered human then so two would a human male's sperm. In which case, mass genocide is done daily around the globe.

Once again, you are ignoring the fact that they should be aware of the fact that they had sex, and therefore, should take extra precautions. You're arguing that being willfully ignorant is okay.

[The Norwegian Blue]

...okay, it's official, you have no idea what you're talking about.

But please, tell us how, in your special universe, you can "check to see if you're pregnant" the day after you have sex. This should be fun.

Day after is an expression in this case. I thought that would be obvious. Apparently not.

I love it when people say something really dumb and then pretend they didn't really say something dumb - other people just interpreted "you should check the day after you have sex" to mean "you should check the day after you have sex"! Those crazy people! Too funny.

Kiddo, it's okay that you have no idea how pregnancy works. It's okay that your ideas about pregnancy are based solely on vague notions you've picked up from TV shows and your friends at school. It's just not okay to plan on basing legislation on such ideas, or to claim that any woman whose body works differently than your imagined version of reality - which, given your magical instant pregnancy tests, appears to be "every woman" - must be "dumb." Whether you like reality or not, in the real world, it is very, very easy for many women to have no idea they are pregnant for the first few months of pregnancy, and entirely possible - though rare - for women to carry to term without ever having any obvious symptom of pregnancy.

[Nulono]

The fetus is a HUMAN fetus. A sperm is part of a human being.

Some women have conditions that already have similar symptoms to pregnancy, so they may not even notice.

Likewise, the sperm is a HUMAN sperm. You seem to be ignoring your own contradiction. If a fetus is considered human then so two would a human male's sperm. In which case, mass genocide is done daily around the globe.

Once again, you are ignoring the fact that they should be aware of the fact that they had sex, and therefore, should take extra precautions. You're arguing that being willfully ignorant is okay.

A sperm is no more a human than a thumb is. This is basic biology, people!
If someone thought they were infertile, or used several methods of birth control, it's not unreasonable that they wouldn't suspect a pregnancy.

[The Norwegian Blue]

Actually, two months is a pretty big scramble, considering that you've got to discover that you're pregnant, decide what to do (with or without the father's approval, then schedule the procedure and - in those States where abortion opponents have shut down the local abortion industry through legal maneuvering, intimidation, or outright terrorism, travel to another State. Oh, and you may have to scrape up the money for it, too - especially if the GOP succeeds in their current efforts to force private insurers to drop all coverage for it.

WHICH ACTUALLY BRINGS US BACK ONTO TOPIC!

<le gasp>

Because, you see, that's what this bill seeks to do: Force insurers to drop coverage, so that all abortions become out of pocket procedures.

So we should force pro-lifers to pay for people's abortions?

We force pacifists to pay for the military, vegans to pay for factory farm subsidies, environmentalists to pay for power plants, and anarchists to pay Congress's salaries. What makes your objection any more valid than any of theirs?

[The Chaos Heart]

So we're arguing about our stances on abortion now?

I've posted this in another topic, but I suppose I'll bring it up now then. Since medically we consider the end of human life to be when brain activity ceases, then i think it only serves to make logical sense that we consider the beginning of brain activity in a fetus to be the beginnings of human life. This occurs roughly around 2 months (I think. Someone else can confirm.) into the pregnancy. Two months is plenty of time to figure out if you're pregnant or not, and decide whether or not if you want an abortion. I think this is perfectly reasonable.

Actually, two months is a pretty big scramble, considering that you've got to discover that you're pregnant, decide what to do (with or without the father's approval, then schedule the procedure and - in those States where abortion opponents have shut down the local abortion industry through legal maneuvering, intimidation, or outright terrorism, travel to another State. Oh, and you may have to scrape up the money for it, too - especially if the GOP succeeds in their current efforts to force private insurers to drop all coverage for it.

I can see how this can be an issue, an there are some solutions. For one, lower the cost of it. Make it a petty medical procedure, much like a check-up. It shouldn't cost much. Hell, personally, I wouldn't mind if it was free. Of course, we'd have to figure something out, but such a procedure shouldn't be too expensive for your average high school student to be able to afford. At least in my opinion.

The scheduling is something that is an inevitable issue, much like with other health concerns. you could set up some sort of system where those who are closer to the two month gap take certain priority brackets, whereas those who can stand to wait can be pushed back a little. Of course, this wouldn't solve everything, but it would help. In addition, if abortion wasn't limited or scrutinized by the states of federal government, clinics could spread out and more would pop up, allowing for more options and more space to get abortions.

As for states shutting down the abortion industry, that should be changed as well. These kinds of things should not just be accepted.

[Nulono]

So we should force pro-lifers to pay for people's abortions?

We force pacifists to pay for the military, vegans to pay for factory farm subsidies, environmentalists to pay for power plants, and anarchists to pay Congress's salaries. What makes your objection any more valid than any of theirs?

Their objections are valid as well.